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

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.


Author's Deletion request for files

I uploaded these files, I'm requesting to delete them. Thank you. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MAL MALDIVE: Why? The latter file is in use on six pages on Wikipedia in two languages. Also, why the difference in spelling of the middle name, and why ask here (see COM:DP)? In addition, which criteria of {{PD-Maldives}} do they meet?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file is already discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohamed Amin Didi presidential portrait (cropped).jpg. I have uploaded an uncolourised version as File:Mohamed Amin Didi.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No admin issue here, the DR should be handled like any other DR. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Jmabel  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate way to handle a nomination image deletion

I'm deeply concerned about the way a deletion nomination was handled. Regardless of the correctness of the image license, I believe there was improper conduct by the administrator Bedivere. Initially, he deleted the image without closing the discussion, claiming that we could still discuss it. Then, he closed the discussion prematurely, before the mandatory 7-day period, even though it wasn't an obvious copyright violation. I appreciate anyone willing to look into this matter. Wilfredor (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you dislike the outcome of the deletion request, but you can always request undeletion instead of coming here and attacking me by accusing me of "improper conduct". Firstly, there is no "mandatory" 7-day period, read again the policy. Secondly, the case is clear, as stated in the deletion request. Have you got evidence the photographs included in the bullet are in the public domain? I am waiting for it and I am open to restore it if you can provide evidence they are definitely in the public domain in Venezuela. In the meantime, the file is deleted as a copyright violation (COM:PCP). I deleted the file and left the discussion open so that you could provide evidence; you didn't; the file is deleted. Bedivere (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, he participated in the discussion and took sides, which makes it ethically wrong for him to be the one to close it. I appreciate anyone willing to look into this matter. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be "ethically wrong" to comment (not even voting) in the deletion request? I made an appropriate request that you didn't comply with.
Furthermore, now you are uploading actas without descriptive names. I have already notified on your discussion that you should upload them with appropriate names and not only you've deliberately ignored my message but continued to upload them as you did before. I urge you to comply with that request. It will not be me but any other admin may take action. Bedivere (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the files locally and stoped the uploading process to accommodate you, but I didn't see any obligation in the policy. Your behavior is starting to feel like wikihounding regarding the election topic. Wilfredor (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please avoid making personal attacks? I don't really mind about the election files. I did not even ask you to stop uploading them. I just asked you to give them descriptive names. You've already uploaded hundreds which will need renaming! That is disrupting and I am only advising you not to continue doing it because action could be taken, given that you've already been warned. Bedivere (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Process may not have been great, but I don't see any potential admin action here to correct it. @Wilfredor: do you have something in mind? - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Further: copyright status looks seriously confusing, and based on the precautionary principle it is hard to see how we could keep this: too many parties (so to speak) with a potential copyright claim on portions of the document. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, After writing this entry here, a few minutes later, the administrator threatened to block me. [1] Looking for any excuse like "I don't like the file names"--Wilfredor (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a threat but a warning. Yet you still refuse to get the point! Even after warning you you continued to do the same thing! Bedivere (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that I have to do this or else I'll be blocked? Wilfredor (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reopening the deletion nomination until an impartial administrator can resolve the situation and restore the file. Additionally, I recommend taking administrative action against the current admin, as I feel targeted. It is not a coincidence that after raising this issue, he threatens to block me over file naming conventions. I believe he is not acting in good faith and is misusing his administrative powers. Wilfredor (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will not be reopened. You are free to request undeletion if you provide evidence the file is in the public domain. Bedivere (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find your behavior harassment, and if it continues, I will have to report it to the administration. Wilfredor (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you did not like that the file was deleted. Fair enough.
But my actions are far from being harassment.
And... you have reported my actions here, in the administrators' noticeboard. Bedivere (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: I am a presumably impartial administrator. As I wrote above, "based on the precautionary principle it is hard to see how we could keep this." If you have a case to make to the contrary, start an undeletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: can you explain how the filenames Wilfredor is using are poor enough to potentially merit a block? Admittedly, I've seen better filenames, but I've also seen a lot worse. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jmabel, the filenames correspond to the actual voting places, and are named accordingly: Biblioteca, Centro Cultural, etc.. However the files are not of the actual voting place but of the acta. A more descriptive name would be, for example, Acta de votación 2024 - Biblioteca, etc.. I told them it was disruptive to continue uploading files with such undescriptive names. Bedivere (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: I totally understand asking for better file names. I don't know whether you provided examples of how you would have preferred these to be named. Still, with all due respect, warning or threatening that this could be grounds for a block seems excessive to me. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I considered that it was widespread, because they are way too many files that need correcting. That adds to the fact that they ignored my first message which was friendlier I think. At the same time, Wilfredor is a long-term user, they should know better though... --Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for the naming policy that I am supposed to add that you want, the files were well categorized and with an adequate description each one of them. Wilfredor (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FN. perhaps? Not to mention I already suggested new names: Acta elección presidencial Venezuela 2024 - Biblioteca, and so on. Bedivere (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: Right, COM:FN guideline.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesn't say exactly how it should be. The name is descriptive. Can it be improved? It can be improved, but it's not something that warrants a block. I think it's excessive. Wilfredor (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to see your error and that is not something for me to do. Bedivere (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand my mistake in not adding more descriptive names. I let a robot upload thousands of images, it wasn't because I ignored you, I'm not saying that the names of the images are correct, but to threaten me with blocking is too much. The images had a good description and correct categories. I think that your response to blocking me was excessive. Wilfredor (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking policy is at COM:BLOCK. Administrators have discretion to issue blocks "for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere" based on their own judgement. Though there is a list of common block reasons in that page, it's by no means comprehensive. Repeatedly ignoring administrator or community advice and warnings to follow policies and guidelines can lead to a block. Consigned (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't see Bedivere participating in the DR beyond requesting people to provide evidence for their claims, or stating their pending actions as a determining admin. Ideally waiting seven days is the norm, though CV can be speedied. Not certain I agree with the thoughts about blocking, though I can understand the frustration on admin guidance being patently and repeatedly ignored, especially where it is going to make work. Com:UDR is the place for the conversation to repatriate the file. So I closely align with Jmabel's comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that after all these years, they decided to guide me right after a controversial deletion nomination. They directed me based on a nonexistent policy and then threatened to block me if I didn't follow their "friendly" guidance. Wilfredor (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg

This one has been a long ride. I think we are finally reaching the point of having [almost] everyone's positions clearly stated. I'd suggest giving it another 24 hours for those who may not yet have responded to my ping a few hours ago, but after that I'd greatly appreciate if some uninvolved admin would come close it one way or another, rather than weight for it revert yet again to a battleground. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we've now got a summary from everyone likely to give one and I urge that some uninvolved admin decide what to do here before people resume sniping. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: as an involved party, I should not be the one to decide this. Will someone please take this on?. - Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, there should be an uninvolved admin come by soon. I just sent talk page messages to several admins who were on here to their user talk. Hopefully that’ll get someone’s attention. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed: just want to pass along this information to any admin who does not yet know. The above discussion was closed (as delete) by @Matrix. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this obsolete file

I would like File:Rutherford scattering geometry 3.svg. It is an obsolete, unused variant of File:Rutherford scattering geometry.svg. It's not a big file but it nonetheless wastes space on the servers. Kurzon (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurzon: No, writing about it wastes space, but you still have time for {{G7}}. Deleted files are just made invisible to non-Admins.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If Wikimedia becomes overloaded, that's your problem to solve. Kurzon (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurzon: I suspect you are missing something. All deletions here are soft-deletes. The file doesn't go away; it just becomes invisible to non-admins. So it take up just as much disk space as before, plus even a tiny bit more that comes out of the deletion process. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file has 6 versions at 30 kB each. Call it 200 kB. At $1/GB, we are talking $0.0002-worth of storage. It is not worth the time to debate. Glrx (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please read w:Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 05:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would say the file is still useful - having variants still provides flexibility. Also deleting files doesn't save storage space, it just hides the file from public view (admins can still view the file). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 03:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Performance, more generally

Starting a separate section because this is only tangentially connected.

@Matrix: I completely agree with you that there is no performance issue at stake in this particular matter (retaining files) worth considering, but (slightly off topic) it is interesting to see that essay, because of course a lot of things about categorization in particular appear recently to be very driven by performance: the concern that some images or categories are in too many categories, the concern over the many category links that appear in a typical {{Wikidata Infobox}}, the very fact of us building so many intersection categories because we don't have a decently performing category intersection tool. So I question whether that essay is as applicable to Commons as it might be to en-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

move cat about Ministry of Brazil

Please, someboy add Category:Files from the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação Flickr stream to User:CommonsDelinker/commands.

{{move cat|Files from the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações Flickr stream|Files from the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação Flickr stream|reason=The Ministry has changed its name.|user=}}
Minerva97 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Minerva97: the normal process would be for you to add this to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, not COM:AN. I'll take care of it, but please in the future, use the page intended for this purpose. - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. It's the first time I've asked for this, so I didn't know exactly how to do it. Minerva97 (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Import question

If imports from Testwiki are possible, please import https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LGBT_rights_world_(legend_for_files) as Template:LGBT_rights_world_(legend_for_files).

I'm trying to move File:LGBT rights world map.svg/description (a fake subpage) to template namespace, but this seems technically impossible. One can switch namespaces when importing from another wiki however. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See https://noc.wikimedia.org/wiki.php?wiki=commonswiki#wgImportSources. Testwiki doesn’t appear to be a valid source. --Geohakkeri (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will just copy it over. Nevermind. (If someone had access to Special:Import from another wiki, such as m:Special:Import one could first import there and then reimport here.)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikimania

Some Commons Admins are at the Wikimania but we do not have anything planned. Are there suggestions when and where to meet? GPSLeo (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old files without sources

These non-empty categories were accidentally deleted:

Please do what is needed for the files they still contain. --Geohakkeri (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Geohakkeri (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

--Geohakkeri (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geohakkeri: All categories ✓ undeleted except the last one which seems to have not-existed. It will need to be manually created. Regards, Aafi (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That last one created as well. - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Fairly urgent gadget edit request (writeapi removal)

Apologies if I'm being excessively demanding, but a couple of hours ago I put an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition that warrants fairly urgent attention. A MediaWiki upgrade has removed the writeapi user right, with the consequence that some important gadgets (including RenameLink) are not working. The fix that I've proposed is quite a simple one. --bjh21 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: I have made the changes. But I see that the removal of the flag has been reverted (for now). If I'm understanding correctly, It would be fine we keep the change, right? -- CptViraj (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CptViraj: I believe so, yes. It looks like the change will be coming back once it's been properly announced, so it's still useful for us not be using writeapi anywhere. --bjh21 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that reversion only affects the siteinfo API, and the removal of the writeapi right still stands. Compare Special:ListGroupRights with en:Special:ListGroupRights. So the change to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition needs to be kept. --bjh21 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for your help :) -- CptViraj (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file

Would an admin mind taking a look at File:20180206 UM-NW Benny The Bull 7DM27126.jpg? The first issue is that this is a COM:OVERWRITE with the cropped version being uploaded as an updated version of the original file instead of being uploaded as a separate file. The next problem is that even though COM:DM might possibly be argued for the originally uploaded file, there seems to be no way to do argue the same for the cropped and enlarged version focusing entirely on the mascot en:Benny the Bull per c:COM:CB#Costumes and cosplay and COM:DW#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. So, instead of splitting the file, simply deleting the cropped version might be all that's needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is not a problem here as the overwrite was done by the author one minute after the original upload. But there might be the copyright problem. GPSLeo (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what I (the photographer and submitter) need to do here. Either it is a COPYVIO or it is not. Let me know if there is a vote or something for me to take part in. You are free to revert the crop if that is helpful.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The mascot is pretty much the point of the photo, so if that presents a copyright problem (probably better sorted out on Commons:Village pump/Copyright than an admin board) it has to be deleted.
Uploading first the original image straight from the camera and then promptly overwriting with the intended crop (or color rebalance, or perspective correction, or whatever) is best practice. I probably do this on over 10% of my uploads. Sometimes what comes straight out of the camera isn't what you really want, but it's great to provide it here that way, so that if someone wants to make a different derivative work they start with as much information (in the information-theory sense of the word) as possible. - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. My apologies for picking the wrong noticeboard. Since the overwriting isn't a concern, I will move this discussion to COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to COM:VPC#Mascot imagery copyright query

File:PS-VPB ATR 72-500 Voepass SBPA.jpg (protected)

Please replace Category:ATR 72 of Voepass Linhas Aéreas by Category:PS-VPB (aircraft). Quick1984 (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=908139028"