Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
118, 117, 116, 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
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
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
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.


Speedy delete topic pages which template cannot be added

Hi. These topic pages contains nothing but error. Since I cannot add Template:Speedydelete to the page, I have to nominate here:

Thanks! Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 09:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about Flow. I don't think deletion is appropriate. @阿南之人: Has this stuff been moved to archive? Fwiw, the use of Flow is deprecated. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi Here. Commons talk:Flow/tests Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 10:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you have said, flow is deprecated. However, these error pages are left. So I it is appropriate to delete these to clear all flow pages. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 10:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this open for a while, and see what my fellow admins have to say. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also other reason that I'd perhaps report on Phabricator. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete when there is no real content, i.e. Topic:Smtpj8utllnryc3k, but actually, I could not delete it. Yann (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised this concern somewhere on Phabricator. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AafiOnMobile Can you give us the link? Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 13:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is on phab:T370722. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi It looks like there aren't any technicians reply us. I think it is better to set a new task for sooner response. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the hurry? Let's keep this as is. This isn't damaging anything. I'm certain folks working on flow will take care of this anyway, at right time. As such I'm closing this as  Not done. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obese MBi.jpg

This file is repeatedly re-uploaded by a vandal, to be used for vandalisms. Please remove it and protect against uploading. Blocking the uploader may also be worth considering. Msz2001 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here was another instance of that file: File:Otyły MBi.jpg Msz2001 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full protected both deleted files. Abzeronow (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader and their sock are blocked indefinitely. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Good day, kindly see edit request Template talk:Warning#Edit request on 25-12-2024. Waddie96 (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking practice

Hi, I would like to know what should be the blocking practice, specially for out of scope content. Should we block spammers on sight, or should we give them first a warning? Should the block be indefinite? What about people uploading vanity pictures? Yann (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My cent is to block indeff whenever they come around. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents:
  • For spammers advertising a business that does not seem to be theirs (including w:en:SEO people), unless it's particularly spammy or they have already been warned on another project, I often warn, then indef on second offense.
  • For pure spam (e.g. boner pill or casino adverts), I indef them immediately.
  • For vanity pictures and self-promotion, it really depends on how spammy they seem to be, but sometimes a block for 1 week to 1 month on second or third offense, then indef.
My motivation for being more lenient there is that I view someone advertising someone else's business as unlikely to be a productive contributor (they're probably being paid to spam, why would they stop?), but a self-promoting person can become one. (On enwiki, I think it's not uncommon for people who created vanity articles about themselves to go on to become productive contributors.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin, but: I'd support a block-on-sight policy for accounts uploading blatantly promotional files related to high-risk spam topics (SEO and marketing services, online casinos and cryptocurrency services, pharmaceuticals, commercial pornography, etc). Users uploading these files practically never have any intent to contribute constructively; warning them after a first offense just delays the inevitable and risks letting further promotional uploads go unnoticed. Omphalographer (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking policy makes it clear that warning is necessary when "disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities" (emphasis mine) are involved by stating, "...ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template." By saying manual promotional activities, I think it refers to promotional (self and otherwise) and advertising edits made by humans, otherwise there's an exception when spambots are in play, which are to be blocked outright.
Many users who create OOS content here often don't know what Commons is about. Blocking these accounts indefinitely upon sighting would be BITEy (in my opinion), unless they're not willing to listen and/or are continuing with creating OOS content even after warning(s) (where blocking is appropriate and the length of block would depend on the intensity of situation with the particular context to it and the discretion of the administrator). --Ratekreel (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Good as a general policy, but note that there are extreme cases where it is clear that the user is deliberately intending to be a disruptive vandal, especially when they are in the midst of a spree of vandalism, when a block without warning may be warranted for the purpose of halting disruption in progress. (This is of course quite different from users editing inappropriately due to ignorance or unfamiliarity with practices.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion request

All of the 20 images by User:Sermspec are copied from https://ptk-sp.ru/proizvodstvo-gibkoy-polimernoy-upakovki. I posted a template asking them to send proof of ownership to VRT, but they (presumably) never responded. Ca (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These images in Brooklyn Museum

Dear Admins and experienced users,

The Brooklyn Museum Bot long ago uploaded these six 2D paintings of artists who died between 1960 to 1973 but no one wants to review them. Can WikiCommons keep these images? I think the PD-70 year rule may be a problem. Just asking for your opinions. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Dear Yann The Brooklyn Museum says "This image (ie. painting) was uploaded by the Brooklyn Museum as a content partnership, and is considered to have no known copyright restrictions by the institutions of the Brooklyn Museum." But with no information of a for lack of copyright notice or renewal, do we know if the remaining images are OK for Commons. I have to sign of now for bed...but it is a hard question. Unless MGA73 knows a bit about their current copyright...which is really complex. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I was Ping'ed. I do not know more about those paintings than allready said. If a museum check copyright and find it to be expired then I think the risk is low. As said above the copyright could be gone for lack of copyright notice or renewal. --MGA73 (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks MGA73 for your advice. I am sure we can trust the Brooklyn Museum here when they say there are no copyright restrictions. I will pass a few more images like the two Brookyln Museum rice fiellds due to this DR too. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with New Category "CMY colorwheels" in Parent Categories' Alphabetical Listings.

Hello Wikimedia Commons Administrators.


I am A Genuine Contributor to Wikimedia Commons.

I have earlier uploaded,

My Own Series of CC-BY Colour Circles,

for which I have been able,

to choose The Correct Categories, where They appear.


There already is The Category "RGB colorwheels".

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:RGB_colorwheels


This Evening, I was able to create,

The Complementary New Category: "CMY colorwheels"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CMY_colorwheels


I was also able to list The Three Correct Parent Categories,

at The Bottom of This Webpage:

(1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Colorwheels

(2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CMY

(3) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Subtractive_colors


The New Category "CMY colorwheels",

does now appear,

in The Alphabetical Lists of Subcategories,

for Each of These Three Parent Categories.


However, The Problem is,

in Each of These Three Parent Categories,

The New Category "CMY colorwheels",

appears in The Alphabetical List of Subcategories,

within The Letter "S" and not "C".


In Addition, in The Category "Colorwheels",

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Colorwheels

The Subcategory "Color stars",

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Color_stars

is also listed within The Letter "S" and not "C". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmjenkins (talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Please can You All,

please check These Errors, for Yourselves, please ?

I do not know why These Errors are happening.

Please can You All,

please try to solve These Errors, please ?


Many Thanks.

Yours Faithfully, Michael Jenkins.

Ukmjenkins (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the sorting issue with CMY colorwheels. @Allforrous: on if I should fix default sort on Color stars cat. Abzeronow (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, wow, thank You, Abzeronow, that was quick !
I think possibly,
You may not need to fix The Default Sort,
on The "Color stars" Category,
because, if You look at The "Colors" Category:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Colors
and The Alphabetical List of Subcategories there,
then, there are Several Subcategories,
within The Letter "S",
beginning with The Word "Color",
with A Second Word beginning with "S".
So, It is important to recognise consistency.
Ukmjenkins (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removal of rights

Please remove my advanced rights. I no longer have a use for them. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I will however grant autopatroller. Regards, Aafi (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyvio uploads

All the 86 uploads by User:Mkrax are highly suspicious, though I've not been able to find sources with tineye. Cited sources like "Some multiple websites" and "At Facebook, websites , and other" just don't conform to Commons standards, though. Mass delete? Advice, please! - MPF (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sampled half a dozen; Google Lens all found the original sources with free licenses on none of them. I've deleted all uploads as copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wonder why tineye didn't find any?? Is it useless? - MPF (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Tineye has definitely become less effective in recent years; I'm not sure why. Under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, you can enable the "Google Images & Tineye" gadget, which adds an easy Google Lens link to file pages. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535 - thanks! Not a great fan of google though, given their reputation for data theft from people's computers - MPF (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Hello, can someone please complete the edit request at Dr. Singh's Portrait. I have made some fixes with source and author. Have also added attribution and Caption in en. ShaanSenguptaTalk 07:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=976825405"