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
115, 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


User:TBloemink and image reviewer rights

Russian speaker admin

Can someone, Russian speaker admin, can help with User:Mikl.kulachkov. -- Geagea (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: ^. — Revi 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Geagea (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive Image-reviewers

The following 63 accounts have been inactive for 2 years or more (some are many years more, and a few accounts are marked as retired) and have the Image-reviewer right. I am unsure if this is supposed to be part of standard rights housekeeping, but worth asking these users if they still need it. If they do, then there may be a case to ask them to request the right again as expectations have changed since they last used it. Raising on this noticeboard, though no objection if someone feels it needs to move to BN --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image-reviewer table
  1. 17Drew (talk · contribs)
  2. 444pixels (talk · contribs)
  3. A7x (talk · contribs)
  4. Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs)
  5. Alpta (talk · contribs)
  6. Americophile (talk · contribs)
  7. Amicon (talk · contribs)
  8. Andrew Levine (talk · contribs)
  9. Animum (talk · contribs)
  10. Brandon (talk · contribs)
  11. Brian (talk · contribs)
  12. Brynn (talk · contribs)
  13. Caspian blue (talk · contribs)
  14. Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
  15. Chzz (talk · contribs)
  16. Coelacan (talk · contribs)
  17. Computerjoe (talk · contribs)
  18. Drilnoth (talk · contribs)
  19. Edub (talk · contribs)
  20. Enricopedia (talk · contribs) Feel free to remove --Enricopedia ⇄ 13:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)    [reply]
  21. Erwin (talk · contribs)
  22. Evalowyn (talk · contribs)
  23. Fernando Estel (talk · contribs)
  24. Fetchcomms (talk · contribs)
  25. Filnik (talk · contribs)
  26. Flamurai (talk · contribs)
  27. Fr33kman (talk · contribs)
  28. Greeves (talk · contribs) Removed: only 23 edits (including userpage edits), no edits since 2008 --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hdtcommons83 (talk · contribs)
  30. Heligoland (talk · contribs) Removed: granted in 2010 but never edited --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Iamunknown (talk · contribs) Feel free to remove --Iamunknown (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed, thanks for your services. — Revi 09:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)    [reply]
  32. JamieS93 (talk · contribs)
  33. Johntex (talk · contribs)
  34. Kahuroa (talk · contribs)
  35. Kakofonous (talk · contribs)
  36. LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs)
  37. MacMed (talk · contribs)
  38. Malo (talk · contribs)
  39. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  40. McLurker (talk · contribs)
  41. Miranda (talk · contribs)
  42. Moneya (talk · contribs)
  43. Monobi (talk · contribs)
  44. NonvocalScream (talk · contribs)
  45. Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs)
  46. Patstuart (talk · contribs)
  47. Privatemusings (talk · contribs)
  48. Pumpmeup (talk · contribs)
  49. RG2 (talk · contribs)
  50. Rocket000 (talk · contribs)
  51. Sanchom (talk · contribs)
  52. Sodakan (talk · contribs)
  53. Sopoforic (talk · contribs)
  54. The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)
  55. Truu (talk · contribs)
  56. Tyrenius (talk · contribs)
  57. Vaya (talk · contribs)
  58. WODUP (talk · contribs)
  59. Xymmax (talk · contribs)
  60. Yamanbaiia (talk · contribs)
  61. Yummifruitbat (talk · contribs)
  62. Zachary (talk · contribs)
  63. З2Х (talk · contribs)

 Info Notified all affected users (User:Monobi talkpage is fullprotected). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no oppose, i am inclined to remove the flag from all accounts where last edit is before 2011. Concerns? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine with me. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me too. If the accounts are inactive then they don't need them anyway. We always have procedure to restore them. ~ Nahid Talk 12:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1. -- Geagea (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Thank you Fæ for raising this issue. Green Giant (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support OK for me. Yann (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I removed the flag from all accounts where last edit was before 2011 and RG2, Privatemusings, Miranda and Computerjoe because less than 4 edits in 2011. And i removed all right from З2Х - rights never used and inactive since 2011, 2nd account of 32X. Users can request lr flag back at COM:LRR. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: can you please update the list. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs)
  2. Americophile (talk · contribs)
  3. Brian (talk · contribs)
  4. Brynn (talk · contribs)
  5. Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
  6. Chzz (talk · contribs)
  7. Erwin (talk · contribs)
  8. Evalowyn (talk · contribs)
  9. Fetchcomms (talk · contribs)
  10. Filnik (talk · contribs)
  11. Fr33kman (talk · contribs)
  12. Kahuroa (talk · contribs)
  13. MacMed (talk · contribs)
  14. Malo (talk · contribs)
  15. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  16. NonvocalScream (talk · contribs)
  17. Rocket000 (talk · contribs)
  18. Sanchom (talk · contribs)
  19. Truu (talk · contribs)
  20. Trycatch (talk · contribs)
  21. Xymmax (talk · contribs)
  22. Zachary (talk · contribs)
--Fæ (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the updated list. I think at the most we should give them seven days from when they were notified, so anybody who hasn't responded by 9 February should have the permission removed. Green Giant (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviewers and admins - new tool

New tool created by user:Fae based on my idea can help us to find Flickr washing almost in a real time. It still needed improvement but working very well so far. Already added 3 flickr accounts to the black list only from uploads of today. Image reviewers and admins please add the new tool to your watch lists and help with Flickr bad uploads from the list. here the discussion in village pump. -- Geagea (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any feedback, please drop a note on my talk page. The report is in 'beta', for example I am just running a retrospective test on RecentChanges from 31st Jan as well as in parallel rerunning from the start of today (it runs through the data at about 25x "real time") and I only started adding Flickr nickname resolution to Flickr NSID today (e.g. agenciasenado resolves to 49143546@N06, though the ID is not mentioned on the uploaded pages). Once the report is stable I will think about moving it to run as a daily job on WMFLabs.
There are fancy things one could add, such as counting up all related images at the time of identification, or putting the data in a sortable wikitable; however I'm minded to keep it simple. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent tool Fae, well done --The_Photographer (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:HHubi

Hi, there's a vandalism report on de.wp indicating that most of HHubi's text contribs and image uploads, if not all, are copyvios, i.e. [1], [2], [3] from "Wörterbuch zur deutschen Militärgeschichte, 1. Auflage" Militärverlag der DDR, Berlin, 1985, Vol 1. The user has been blocked on de.wp. I suggest he'd be blocked on commons too, and his images speedy-deleted. - Well, probably the chevrons are public domain, as governmental drawings? Greetings, --MBq (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the drawing, now sure about the chevrons (??). The user wasn't blocked (for uploading copyright violation) before, i left him a warning on his talkpage. If he continues with uploading copivios he will be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just marked 4 other copyvios of this user 6 other copyvios and 2 false authorship claims of this user. --Ubam (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I deleted even more that were obviously scanned or taken from elsewhere. I'd feel more safe if all uploads of this user would be nuked, most/all of them seem to be scanned from some GDR military books (judjing from comments at de wiki). Should also include uploads by previous User:HHaeckel. --Denniss (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucia_Bot

Hide edits

Hello. Please hide this IP's edits. --Matiia (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I was able to do a history clean on two of the affected talk pages, but User talk:Gastón Cuello has 311 revisions, so I simply hid the vandal revisions. I've put in place protections and will keep the pages on my watchlist. INeverCry 02:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of Sindh, this seems to ne one picture gallery with plenty of text--Motopark (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-usage of user reviewed and appropriately licensed file

Orphan file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sophie_Hunter.jpg. Should be used as primary headshot for Sophie Hunter's page. It's properly reviewed and appropriately licensed. It is such a waste of free media to improve a page to not do so. 188.20.240.134 01:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I've added it, but this is really an en-wiki issue. --99of9 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Thank you!188.20.240.134 01:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is the image and the source file on Flickr are both copyright violations, see http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/benedict-cumberbatchs-fiance-sophie-hunter-4765683 where the same image can be found with a Getty Image credit. Nick (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same event but different images, look closer. No identical photo from the link you provided, same with Getty, Zimbio and other stock images site. User on flickr is a seasoned photographer (See Li who also uses the name LondonPictureCapital, see Flickr bio) and it's clear he was there and photographed the event and put the photos under commons license.188.20.240.134 01:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source image appears to be a Weebly site for London Picture Capital which is selling the photographs, and appears to be some sort of picture agency. What's the original primary source for this image and what's actually going on with the copyright ? Is the photographer running two sites with one purely to provide a CC licence for uploading material to Commons ? Nick (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source is Flickr, Weebly is just one of his websites to promote his work and fees when you hire him as a photographer.188.20.240.134 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal replace of erroneous picture

Hello. I'd like to request a universal replace of File:Melchior van Brauweiler-engraving after van Calcar.jpg, and its former location at File:Tintorretto-Andreas-Vesalius-engrav-Tavernier.jpg with a picture that's actually of Andreas Vesalius, possibly File:Andreas_Vesalius-Pierre_Poncet.jpg.

Literally 100% of the dozens pages using the engraving of Melchior van Brauweiler do so in the erroneous belief that it depicts Vesalius. Now that the factual error has been fixed at Commons, I don't think that a bot should "repair" all the filenames to continue to point to an erroneous picture (as has been requested here). Could someone take care of this? Thanks, Oreo Priest (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope

We probably could do without this selfie collection. Palosirkka (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done and I see that the user has been reminded about scope, so thank you for doing that. Nick (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata policy regarding Commons categories

more discussions/info

Village pump

Wikidata

Wikidata decided that categories from Commons should be linked to categories in wikipedia and galleries should be linked to wiki articles. This came to my attention when the implication of this wikidata policy bring to mass reverts of my edits in wikidata. I was discussed it with User Lymantria (admin in wikidata) and intended to raise this before but was bussy and then forgot it. See the anomaly in thos exaples

  • Category:Chen Liberman --> he:חן ליברמן. No chance that category will be in wiki. No gallery in Commons. If somebody will make a gallery with those two photos it is no better then the category as a gallery. Because if we have new files or her we see them automatically in the category and nobody see the the new file unless they see the category.

According to wikidata policy wiki articles should be connected to commons galleries and wiki categories should be connected to commons categories. But in most of the cases we don't have galleries. And even if we do have gallery, I'm not sure it is better then category as a gallery. A category with file/s shouldn't be orphaned. There are two main goals for having the left link to wiki articles. First we want that everybody see the file and may use them. Commons want to spread the files among all wiki projects. and the second is that the link to wiki article is describe the topic (person, place etc.). In same cases, without the link to the articles the files may be nominated to DR.

Let's be honest with ourselves. The idea of making galleries in Commons is not working very well. We have very small amount of good galleries. When I'm saying good gallery, I mean to gallery that include links to subdirectories of the subject. I'm working now on a gallery of Tiberias. It not finished but this is a kind of gallery that can be useful for users. Galleries that include 2 files is not very useful. It static, if new files added to the category nobody will know. As a matter of fact the category is quite well gallery. wikipedia user that made an wiki article may follow with a category in Commons. Commons gallery comes, if at all, later on. Anyway making a good gallery takes time that a lot of users prefer to use to other things.

If I understand correctly, the next step of wikidata be to change the links from wiki projects to commons which will make both commons and wiki project un connected. I will ask in he.wiki if they agree with such thing. I can guess the answer of them. I am fully accept user Lymantria's attitude: commons has category: as the main namespace and they should be connected to the main namespace in wiki article. and wikidata should allow linking commons categories and wikipedia articles.

wikidata policy should be based on given situation, not on hypothetical situation of how it should be. The decision about how the link should be is commons decision or at least common decision. Months ago I had primal idea about common pages between projects. My idea was about Commons with others wikis but it can be useful also between commons and wikidata. Place that both parties can discuss.

We can ask wikidata to change this policy. I don't think it would be a problem. As I remember they already changed many things based on requests from he.wiki. We just need to agreed that we want to allow linking commons categories and wikipedia articles and request wikidata to change that policy.

I'll appreciate the involvement of wikidata/commons admins in this discussion @Lymantria: , @Multichill: , @-revi: and @Techman224: . -- Geagea (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

The left menu contains a link Current events even though that page doesn't exist really. Can you remove the link from the manu? --ŠJů (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(#wikimedia-operations) 20:04:55 <legoktm> Steinsplitter: a bad cache entry was stuck...looks correct in English now
^^ Schould be fixed now. Thanks to Legoktm --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete these files, categories, templates

This is Russavia. I am using a New Zealand IP, but the authencity of this message can be verified with me on IRC or via [email protected]

Yesterday I started this DR and it was promptly closed by OTRS volunteer Green Giant (talk · contribs) on the basis that I am banned. He then proceeded to semi-protect both the file and the DR page to prevent it being raised again. I'm not going to rehash what is on the DR because the conduct of those involved there is now in the open.

I am in contact with the photographer, and it is evident that English is not his native language. He has continued concerns about the use of his photos on Commons without the watermarks. Whilst the licence he has made his photos available under is valid, it is also conversely true that his concerns about watermarks are also valid.

In September 2014, JVargas (WMF) published this legal brief in which it is noted that watermarks may be considered as CMI. It is very obvious from my own correspondence with Dragomir, and from correspondence he has sent in separately to OTRS, that he regards the watermark as CMI.

To save the WMF and OTRS the embarassment of having a DMCA takedown notice filed by Dragomir, with help from myself, please delete the following:

I will continue to work with the photographer myself; do not contact him via OTRS, etc. You will only make the situation more difficult.

It is very telling that wikipolitics is being used here to score points against myself, whereas the real person being harmed is the photographer, and they will surely get more aggrivated. This only enforces my opinion that there is ZERO professionalism being displayed by admins, OTRS and the WMF on this issue. Do NOT use our sites to piss off donors.

Do the right thing, if not for yourselves, for the photographer. 202.78.155.109 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the DR because you are banned from all Wikimedia projects, because you did not give an adequate explanation of why the file should be deleted per COM:D, and because you used it to vent your frustration with the system and with another user. Only after you used another IP to revert my edit did I semi-protect the DR. It wouldn't be a major issue but you are a former admin and bureaucrat, so you know the ins and outs of Wikimedia better than a newbie. As far as the photo in question is concerned, I note that the removal of the watermark was carried out by you. The only action that really needs to be carried out is for you to face up to the fact that you are banned from Wikimedia. If you want to contribute here, the solution is to take it up with the WMFOffice that banned you in the first place. Just remember that not everybody thinks badly of you. Green Giant (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=149083721"