Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:AN

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


User:Yann and wheel-warring

(This could be a user problem as well, but I think it's a better fit here).

Yesterday, I closed two deletion requests concerning Studio Harcourt photos as Delete with the rationale per nomination. Harcourt photos were declared to be collective works by a French court, which means they are in the public domain in France 70 years after first publication. This photo is less than 70 years old, and it will be protected in the US until the end of 2052. (see [1] and [2]) and deleted the files.

Several hours later, Yann undeleted the files, completely reverted (effectively removed) my changes to the deletion requests and replaced them with his own closures, with the rationale Kept: The French state bought the photo archives of Studio Harcourt in 1991 and released them under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. He also came to my user talk page (after he had already reverted my closures) and told me that As per the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tisourcier, Harcourt photographs taken between 1934 and 1991 are not under copyright per ticket:2020112910005534. Which is notably a different claim and not the same he used to close the DRs after reverting my closures.

Now I'm perfectly willing to discuss both these claims and the general copyright status of the Harcourt photos, and have in fact right now started a discussion at COM:VPC#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt.

BUT just reverting another admin's DR closure which you don't like and replacing it with your own is not OK. That is wheel-warring and should not be engaged in. It simply cannot be the way we interact with each other here, and it is a profoundly disturbing way to treat a colleague. The proper way to handle something like this is to ask the admin in question to reconsider, and if that doesn't change things, take it to another venue like (in this case) a undeletion request or another appropriate forum. All things Yann should know. I've already asked him (on my user talk page) to do that, but he did not. So I'll ask him here again to undo what he did in this matter and follow a proper course of action. I realize Yann is a very prolific admin and valuable for Wikimedia Commons, but that does not mean he should get away with blatant actions like this. --Rosenzweig τ 09:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you @Rosenzweig here completely. Reversion here is not a good step to begin with, simply because one disagrees with the closing statement of the admin. A simple way forward was to ask and I'm sure Yann knows it more than me. It is really not okay. I'd really appreciate him revert both of their edits and continue with the discussion and let uninvoled admins handle it. Regards, Aafi (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rosenzweig, too, and I also respect Yann's many very valuable contributions to Commons a lot. But Yann has also a tradition of quite forcefully trying to push through things according to his opinion, sometimes making proposals and then deciding himself that they're accepted and implementing them. One example is here on my discussion page, another one I had not the energy to bring up yet is his introduction of his unclear proposed "orphaned old works" policy into COM:L#Old orphan works which makes things more muddled than helping in any way, but I digress... - Yann, I would recommend a bit more restraint in your actions when you disagree with your colleagues, because, as Rosenzweig says, we just can't work together like this. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it problematic that Rosenzweig voted in the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bergman Harcourt 1957.jpg and, despite the situation being controversial, closed it herself. That it's being reclosed by an admin that wasn't involved in it, seems normal. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if I had simply been asked to, I just might have changed that myself. I was not asked though. --Rosenzweig τ 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, Enhancing999; I myself have made it my personal policy to never close deletion requests where I participated substantially in the discussion (with an opinion / vote on the matter) , but I know that other admins (including Yann and, apparently, Rosenzweig too) don't see that as an issue - in Rosenzweig's place, I wouldn't have closed that deletion request after voting in it, but this doesn't make Yann's overruling of Rosenzweig any better (I see both things as bad style). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, These deletions were just wrong. It is very sad that Rosenzweig doesn't recognized that, and instead posts here. Yann (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this, Yann, I believe we are discussing a different thing and not if the deletion closures were right, but if the reversion without interaction with the closing admin, was fine or not. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you also posted to VPC. I am fine discussing the copyright status of these files. But what's the point to duplicate the issue here? Yann (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: The VPC thread is about the copyright questions. This thread here is a complaint about your behavior in this matter and also asking you to undo it. --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will undo my closure and delete the files, if the discussion on VPC shows that they can't be accepted on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I think it is very likely you are right on the substance of this, but also absolutely clear that you went about this wrong. Step one should have been to contact the closing admin (Rosenzweig), discuss with them and try to get them to revert themselves. Failing that, you probably should have started an undelete request. What you did comes off as "I'm more admin than you." - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your point of view, but I feel it is very bureaucratic. Now you ask me to delete again this file, and to request undeletion, even when you recognize that it will finally be undeleted? Yann (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there is an extensive and ongoing discussion at the VPC section, I would suggest restoring the original closure message, leaving a pointer to the VPC section in the DR, with a note somewhere saying something along the lines of "the outcome of this deletion request is challenged and being discussed at __". I think the file can stay during the discussion temporarily, and permanently if the outcome is "keep". (If anything, having the file visible helps the discussion.) whym (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or: Will Yann and Rosenzweig offer to retract their closures and post votes/comments there instead? If both answers are yes, then it seems appropriate to do so, reopen the DR, and have a third admin to close (after waiting to see if additional comments are coming there). whym (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I would. Basically this question will need to be decided for all Harcourt photos at the VPC discussion anyway. --Rosenzweig τ 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I reverted my closure. Please note that similar DRs were closed as kept by other admins, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:MarinaVlady-1952-Harcourt.png. Yann (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's another case, I believed that Yann (talk · contribs) wrongly closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚）.jpg, although the user has pointed out on Yann's talk pageUser_talk:Yann#c-Lemonaka-20240710090000-Dronebogus-20240708233700, they showed an w:WP:IDHT attitude. Lemonaka (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no previous DR for this photo, if you searched DR Archive, and this closure is truly not good. Lemonaka (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case (of a file kept currently), can you just request deletion again asking for a closure by another admin? Obviously we don't want to encourage asking for third, forth admins etc redundantly, but asking for a second opinion seems reasonable if the previous discussion was not substantial. Note also that this section is about "wheel-warring". whym (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whym Done,. Lemonaka (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note the introduction above: "This is a place where users can communicate .." Enhancing999 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a previous DR for this file (cropped version): Commons:Deletion requests/File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚） (cropped).jpg. The issue is exactly the same for both files. I don't see why we should have a new DR. Yann (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hello! I have a quick request from the organizing team of Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine. We'd like to send an invitation-reminder about the last days of the contest to those who participated in previous-year editions but haven't taken part in this one.

Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA). ✓ Done I have taken care of this. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Aafi! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please delete Category:Aircraft by location by airline to make way for a move

Category:Aircraft by airline by location needs to be moved to that name. Alternatively, if you want to just do the move that would also be fine. There are almost 3,000 subcategories, so I'd be happy to take care of recategorizing those if you want. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: removal done. - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader request for deletion

I feel this File:Sebastian me.jpg doesn't meet G7 and converted it into a regular deletion. However, the uploader wants it to be speedily deleted. If any admin feels it should be deleted speedily, please do act on this courtesy deletion request. Regards, Aafi (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have deleted this under F10 but the uploader is not a non-contributor. I would appreciate any kind opinions as well. Regards, Aafi (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Gone Bedivere (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebastian 1999 Please don't modify others' comments as you did here. It was not a typo. Thanks. Bedivere (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sebastian 1999 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Preventing spam

Hi, In view of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Calsecale5 (massive sock farm uploading a few files each for spamming, undetected for months), we need some way to prevent this to occur again. A new abuse filter? Yann (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:VNC200 once again

Can we do something about @VNC200's actions? He is back at doing what he does best. BAD FAITH EDITING. He continues to remove copyvio nominations from files uploaded by him (unexplained) which is not in his right. Most recent example is File:G20 India 2023 logo.svg. There have been previous instances too like see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 96#User:VNC200. He did the same before too. Some more examples can be found on his talk page too. Also (on a lighter note) how many more copyvio uploads and bad faith editing will it take to act against him? ShaanSenguptaTalk 11:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming of copyvio graphic war image (NSFW)

Hello, File:أطفال قتلى في هجوم حزب الله.jpg is a graphic war image that has been spammed crosswiki and is definitely a copyright violation, see the file description. RAN1 (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you dont mind me changing the title Trade (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a FYI for any administrators. The uploader claims so be the photographer so this is either copyvio or the account is operated by someone who actually lives in the area Trade (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a Bild article with a different crop of what's on Commons, sourced to X. This is clearly a copyright violation, and الرجل من مجدل has reverted the copyvio tag twice without further communication. The file's still being spammed crosswiki too. RAN1 (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Without communication" is a bit of an exaggeration. The edit summary at [3] is a pretty clear claim of authorship. Other than an email that has apparently already been sent to VRT, I can't imagine what more they could usefully say. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up evidence this is a repost from social media. Their reply was that exact same edit summary. That doesn't pass for communication. RAN1 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio tag was reverted again, this time from a Malaysian IP. I'll just request deletion. RAN1 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image to sl.wiki

I am unable to upload this image to sl.wiki, unlike other images. Can you move it there? After that please delete my image here. Thanks, Janezdrilc (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janezdrilc: I'm confused. This is clearly a modern building. Unless I'm very mistaken, Slovenia does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. Are you saying that sl-wiki does allow such images? I'm certainly not uploading an image there without understanding that policy. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: We tolarate one image sample of an object with protected rights just for basic illustration. Every such picture has tags of partially free content and prohibition of copying to Commons. Slovenian law allows free usage of those images for noncommercial purposes. For commercial purposes holder of rights must be asked. --Janezdrilc (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janezdrilc: So I presume some particular templates are needed. You should probably ask someone on sl-wiki who knows exactly what to do here to do the upload there on your behalf, not someone on Commons. In any case, there is no administrative issue here, other than that this image will eventually need to be deleted from Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I have allready locally uploaded 3 similar images today, so licensing tags and categories can be arranged afterwards. It must be some technical reason I was not able to upload this one. Maybe upload time is exceeded due to a slow internet connection I assume (more than 3 minutes of uploading?). There was no upload problems here on Commons. --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janezdrilc: I for one am not going to upload an image to a wiki in a language I do not speak, undoubtedly violating its policies by not using the correct templates, as my first edit on that wiki. There is nothing here where a Commons admin can do this more easily. Again, I strongly recommend that you ask on sl-wiki. If you really believe this is better done by an admin, ask an admin on sl-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand you. I'll ask some sl user. Thanks for help anyway. --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Jmabel: I just ask you to delete this image now. --Janezdrilc (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive ban

I have been the victim of really abusive administrative action, and I am not sure what to do. I have been a contributor to Wiki Commons (ProFReader) for many years, and I have really focused on architecture. Most importantly, I live in Charleston, SC which has (at least as of a few years ago when I last knew it to be true) the largest designated historic district of any city in the United States. There are literally thousands of historic and contributing buildings that receive protection according to city ordinances. Many years ago, I started adding photos of those buildings. I used existing categories or added new ones based on existing categories and was very consistent across more than 10,000 images. Each one was added to categories based on its location in town, the number of stories, the roof form, the piazza (our local term for side porches) form, and the building materials. And for buildings with confirmed construction dates, I used existing categories for those.

The reason I say all that is to explain that never, in more than a decade, has anyone ever raised any objetion to the categories I used. And, they are used by researchers. I know that because I have taught at the Clemson University Architeture Program here in Charleston and have explained to researchers how to create lists of, say, 3-story houses with gable roofs that were built of brick.

So far, so good.

A few weeks ago, someone posted a question on my page and asked me why I was using numneral-based categories (e.g., 3-story buildings), and I gave a brief reply. The poster never added a follow-up and never offered any reason for any other category usages either in his initial message or thereafter.

Then, a few days ago, without any further discussion or without any basis, he used a gadget to change all the categories. He not only added "Three-story buildings in the United States" or some variation on that, he REMOVED all of the categories I have very consistently used withut objection for a decade (e.g., 3-story buildings). I reverted those changes. Then, without any warning or any discussion whatsoever, some random admin scolded me for reverting the categories that what they had been for years. He added that such changes are expected to be discussed. (Ironically, that criticism was added directly under my explanation for my choice of categories and made no mention whatsoever of the first user who had initiated the wholesale changes.) Not only did he baselessly criticize my choices, he banned me from Wiki Commons.

I am a pretty serious contributor who steadfastly avoids any of the admin stuff. Until this encounter, I have never had any real issues with anyone and certainly not with any admin.

I realize this entire post is probably too long, but I wanted to vent about what is a pretty clear example of abusive and baseless administrative actions. It bears repeating that I used EXISTING CATEGORIES. If someone really objected to my choice to use "3-story buildings" instead of "three-story buildings in the United States," that is not really on me.

If my actions were really so horrible, then that's fine. I am happy to just wash my hands of the entire thing and walk away. But this is really an example of why regular users get fed up and quit taking part. ProfReader (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually numbers are used in categories. Look, for example, category:People by quantity and even category:People in beds by quantity. So in my opinion category:3-story buildings and category:Buildings by stories are correct and every subcategory in category:Three-story buildings by country should be renamed. A very lot of work. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just 3-story buildings. It's everything in {{Buildings by stories}}. This is probably going to need some sort of bot work. However, I would advise getting consensus first at COM:VP as the "just do it, don't bother with consensus" attitude probably led to this inconsistency in the first place. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfReader: You were not banned. Please stay logged in. @Andrei Romanenko: FYI.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Андрей Романенко: Please comply with COM:SIGN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he banned me from Wiki Commons" And yet here you are, posting on Wiki[media] Commons. You have a clean block log. There is no mention of a ban, or block, on User talk:ProfReader#Removed category, which appears to be the discussion to which you refer (and where you appear to have posted while logged out; the IP also has a clean block log). The other users involved are User:Ivanbranco and User:Андрей Романенко. Did you notify them of this discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got notified only now by your Ping. I didn't report any user for a ban. I just moved files from a category (3-story buildings) to a more specific one (Three-story buildings in the United States). I removed files from the more broad category in order to avoid over-categorization as I read here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories
To be honest I thought this was basic consensus on Commons and I didn't thought it was a problem at all. I acted in good faith, I always try to move files to generic categories to more specific one when I can. After my edits (hours of work since I don't know how to batch move files, I did it manually with Cat-a-log) got reverted I stopped moving United States files to avoid edit warring and moved on to categorize other countries. Again, I never reported this user for a ban. Ivanbranco (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short:

  • No ban occurred.
  • Files were (correctly) moved to more specific categories.
  • Those more specific categories probably should use digits rather than writing numbers out in English.
  • Nothing here is an administrative issue.

Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolling

Please add autopatrolled status for the trusted user:ExRat Estopedist1 (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I think this is clearly uncontroversial. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=904731194"