Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Commons:AN)

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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 report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
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
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
Commons discussion pages (index)


User:Hebron IsraelEdit

User:Hebron Israel has an extremely insulting and provocative name: the city of Hebron is not in Israel, but in the occupied Palestinian territories. Is it possible to do something about this name/user? Huldra (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

the location and status is in dispute so it's not insulting. However, it implies a shared account. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, it is not in dispute. Not even the Israeli government claims that Hebron is part of Israel. Only extreme rightwing, typically Kahane followers, claim that. ( And Meir Kahane was a designated terrorist, according to US law), Huldra (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the user name on itself is not something we are going to act upon. The uploads however are probably not own work and have unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Such a name is not OK. Would any one here agree with a user name such as "Nazi Germany"? This is quite similar. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Except that Nazi Germany was a real political entity. Hebron Israel isn't -- two separate entities. PumpkinSky talk 02:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yann, how is "Hebron Israel" similar to Nazi Germany? Can you point out the similarities between them and let us know how "Hebron Isreal" is inappropriate? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be an extreme political statement in a sensitive situation. You can argue whether they are a misguided innocent or a professional troll, but that's not the point. Ultimately if there is a majority here who think this is OK, why should I care? Yann (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Huldra, there is nothing like "Hebron Israel" anywhere. So, it is meaningless like most usernames here including mine. "User:Hebron is in Isreal" is not the same as "Hebron Israel". Has this account been used to attack Hebron or Israel? I really don't get the issue here. Could you please, educate me? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Wikicology Sure. The Israeli Kahanist settlers of Hebron commonly say that Hebron is in Israel (we have corrected them countless of times on the Hebron article on en.wp). Typically, take this picture user User:Hebron Israel uploaded: look at the title: "Tomb of Abner Ben Ner in Hebron Israel.jpg " Or a lot of the other pictures they uploaded are the same, from "Hebron, Israel". So yes: "Hebron Israel" means the same here as "User:Hebron is in Israel". Huldra (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"MP3 uploader rights"Edit

Hi, Not sure if this is in the right place ... but is "Mp3 uploader" an actual right ? .... I assumed anyone could upload MP3s here?,
This caught my eye so just wanted to ask,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, to prevent copyvios en masse, we had discussions on the Village pump (I believe) and limted it to approved users. (Personally, I want to rename this userright to "Extended uploader rights" - just in case of future lititations such as for 3d-files. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I suggested "Trusted uploaders", but George Ho wanted it to be more specific. See Commons:Village pump#Conclusions. Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I figured that "Trusted" looks more one-sided and biased. I don't mind a broader right, but I wanted a more neutral name. I don't mind a narrower right either, and I didn't mind "MP3 uploader", which I thought is a better suggestion and more neutral than "Trusted". --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh riiight, Bizarre as it may sound I didn't know if someone adding it at PERM was some sort of sneaky vandalism, Okie dokie thanks all for answering much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 13:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Imho "Trusted uploaders" would be a better name, so we could use it in ABF/semi-automated tools as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, if people have done discussing the principles, can I formally request that everyone in Fæ/Userlist, i.e. all active users with >10,000 edits, are given the right? The right should be no big deal and this will encourage more people to at least try it, without getting put off by having to work out what the request procedure is. Thanks -- (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I'm one of the few Commons contributors that actually has uploaded several hundred audio files, and had to convert the source from MP3 to Ogg format. Even with direct experience and a reason to participate, I found the discussion rambling and I stopped reading it. Please consider how to avoid complexity when there are long debates, this is supposed to be a friendly multi-lingual project. As for the outcome, for every policy decision there should be an attempt to measure any extra burden this introduces on newer users. If all policy changes in a year just add to the burden, then the project is literally making access and participation worse, and the project will die out faster in the long term. Thanks -- (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
It would be enough to allow autopatrollers's uploading mp3 stuff. I am not sure why we need a own user group here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with it perhaps being incorporated into COM:Patrol but it shouldn't be incorporated into COM:Autopatrol (Patrol has only been granted to 606 editors (admins and long-time experienced editors) whereas Autopatrol has been granted to 5,000 editors (all more or less newbies) - Seems kinda silly to give the right to those that aren't essentially veterinary editors and admins) but anyway I do agree that it doesn't need to be an own right. –Davey2010Talk 14:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)(Updated 22:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC))
@Kaldari: Are you convinced that the discussion reached a conclusion in the light that the policy side of implementation is still uncertain? Thanks -- (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

These 3 imagesEdit

Would anyone like to mark these 3 images below. The first one is heavily used but I cannot see the license anywhere.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done In fact those images are copyrighted + All rights reserved. The ones from the ministry that are explicitly released as free of use are published here. --Ruthven (msg) 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clearing this issue up Ruthven. I could never find the license for these images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests by User:Daniella10171989Edit

User:Daniella10171989 was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:INeverCry, but left a whole slew of baseless deletion requests mostly marked Out of scope - unused personal image. They really are baseless, I looked at just a few random ones, and most of them are of people that have EN Wikipedia articles, for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allisonmosshart.jpg: Allison Mosshart, Commons:Deletion requests/File:AllyCupcakeburnett2009TFPshoot.jpg: Ally Burnett, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alireza Zamani.jpg: Alireza Zamani, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali 2.jpg: Ali Anouzla, ... This could be used as a list of images to be added to articles. All the deletion requests from User:Daniella10171989 should be closed out. She may never cry, but I'm close to now. !@#$ it, what happened to a fine Commons admin to make her do this? --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support nuking and rolling back any edits by INeverCry socks. He seems to have this delusion that his mass DRs and robotic categorizations are productive. No. They only inflate his edit count and his ego, and the large number of "unused personal image" DRs create a ton of extra work to investigate and close. We don't need it. Guanaco (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nuke/reverted the latest sock, BrooklynRoger1958. Guanaco (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support It's possible that there could be something here that merits deletion, but only at the level that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Clearly it would be a waste of time to look through a bunch of mostly bogus requests by a banned user. We would literally do better to spend the time looking into random files. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave behind a DR that's gotten a delete vote, but all ignored requests and all requests with only "keep" votes I'm getting rid of. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
PS, I've left delete votes at three of them, and edited the files in question so that they won't be caught by mass rollback. Question — is there a way to nuke pages that have been edited by nobody else without touching pages that someone else has edited? [1] includes the pages on which I just added delete votes. I've been opening up the deletion nominations and deleting them, and opening the file nominations and reverting (the thing is that GRuban made productive edits to a bunch of them, so rollbacking won't get rid of all the deletion links), and that's how I happened on the three deletion-worthy files that accidentally made it in here. Basically, I'm not sure how to get rid of all the vandalism automatically without trashing some productive stuff. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not think this is possible, but when you mass-delete files you are prompted to select those which need to be deleted. At this point, if there are only a few with known names to be left, it can be relatively easily done.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
:-\ My fear is that I'll delete some nominations where someone's voted to delete; I don't want to open up all of the nominations if I can help it, but if that's the only way to avoid deleting a good-faith vote to delete, I'll open them all up. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, one of the INC-nominated and then reverted ones, was this rather clear copyvio File:AmyWinehouse001.jpg. I've tagged it again as no-perm. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense; as I said to someone else, any good-faith support for deletion of an image, and I'll not touch it. I'm just hitting things that haven't gotten responses, or things that have only gotten support for keeping, aside from the occasional image (in this case, three "Alexis' Birthday Party" photos) that's a blatantly obvious candidate for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
PS, Túrelio, if you want me to revert any edits or undelete any deletions, please let me know, or leave a note at COM:REFUND and link this statement. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Elle Me Dit Mika.jpgEdit

I am uncertain about what to do with the single cover of "Elle Me Dit" by Mika. The image may be unqualified for copyright in the US because (per COM:TOO#United States) the threshold standards are very high. However, the CD single was released in France, yet the record labels (Casablanca Records and Barclay Records or Universal Republic Records) belong to Universal Music Group, an American multinational company. France's threshold standards are very low, so I wonder whether COM:TOO#France applies. I thought about deletion request at first, but that's asking for deletion. I thought about asking at VP Copyright subpage, but that's asking for mere copyright. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


These 2-3 imagesEdit

The uploader Mbazri states here that these 2-3 images are on the given source but I cannot locate them. Perhaps my computer--with the Google Chrome browser, cannot see the 120 images on this link or views the images differently but I know I checked the source 2-3 times.

Can anyone find these images and/or pass them below? If not, do nothing.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Difference between "photo's" and photosEdit

Hello, anybody hanging around who would take a look at the spelling? As far as I know, the plural of photo is photos, photo's is something totally different. thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

really? You're asking that? Photos is multiple photos. As for "photo's, let m e use in a sentence. The photo's resolution was very low to see clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:BE (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Man, you've placed en-3 in your Babel. Face-smile.svg Anyway, see en:English possessive or use Google and search for term "Saxon genitive". --jdx Re: 12:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess (once more...) I did not explain myself very clearly. There are some categories here: Category:Photo's by Ludovik57, Category:Photo's by JanDerk1968, Category:Photo's by Lisa Delanoue... which I would like to see changed. :) Lotje (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Its an error. See en:Grocer's apostrophe.Geni (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for closureEdit

This RFC is overdue for closure. Alsee (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unapproved bot running way too fastEdit

Special:Contributions/SchlurcherBot is doing the same task as User:KolbertBot, but never sought approval for it. It is editing at around 45 edits per minute, per the Commons bot policy non-urgent tasks should not be editing at more than 12 edits per minute. There's also an issue with inconsistent edit summaries and no "Bot:" prefix clearly indicating the edit was performed automatically. The operator has only made a few edits this month and year, none of which were to seek approval for this task. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The page Commons:Bots is not policy, it just happens to be one of our oldest pages but has the status of a help page. There are a number of statements made that are incorrect based on current practice. Many tools make mass automated edits, and so long as they are not misleading there is no requirement to prefix the edit; this may well be a Wikipedia requirement. If "12 edits a minute" is required by policy, please provide a link to it. Thanks -- (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
"A bot carrying out non-urgent tasks should not edit more frequently than once every 5 seconds." 60/5 = 12 taken from Commons:Bots#Bot_speed. What specific statements are incorrect based on current practice? In all fairness, the COM:BOTS page should be changed to suggest using the maxlag parameter instead, but 45 EPM is excessively fast for a low-priority task. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The quote is a rule of thumb, it's not policy. The rule of thumb may be a reason to raise a question with the operator, but if there is no separate evidence of disruption then it's not a rationale to block; which as this is being raised at AN, sysop action is presumably the intention. Any automation can be disruptive, but the relevant policy to take action is blocking policy. SchlurcherBot may well be acting disruptively, if you can make a block rationale with a case for urgency, then feel free to block the account.
WRT "What specific statements", this is one of them. If there was a community proposal to change policy on "bots", then I'd probably invest more time writing the issues down to help others to understand why more regulation or bureaucracy is undesirable. Thanks -- (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Blocked The speed is not the main issue; it is not having prior approval. Yes, we may have exceptions (we don't have a 'formal criteria', it's case-by-case) for low-speed, manually assisted, urgent anti-vandalism, or bots running on their own userspace, but this task certainly do not qualify. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you please add a more detailed rationale in a block notice on the operator's talk page? I can imagine the case for disruption and why pre-approval was needed, despite a different account having approval to do exactly the same edits, but I would like to read it. Thanks (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Blocking_policy#Use: "Unauthorized [or non-responsive] bot accounts"; Commons:Bots#Permission_to_run_a_bot: "All bots running on Wikimedia Commons must have advance permission to do so", "if the bot's functionality has been changed to carry out some significant new task then a new request should be filed". --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read the discussion above, the bot help page is not policy. Please avoid relying on our rules of thumb, or best practice, if you are choosing to block accounts. Your quote from BP is fine, however the bot account actually is authorized, and extending the bot scope is something that could be done by discussion, not blocking. Please make the case for urgency and disruption that means the account must be blocked. If that cannot be done, the account should not be blocked. Thanks -- (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You consider that a "bot help page" - so there is no Commons bot policy? Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Some of the exceptions for this 'rules of thumb' has been listed. This task certainly do not qualify. Blocking is not an act of punishment, but prevention; and the task much be prevented from running until it is authorized. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999, honestly, I cannot point out which edits are causing any disruption, especially as the task itself was already approved, nor is this a case of flooding. Blocking the account is a way of getting the operator's attention (on a matter that was raised here just a couple of hours ago), but has the disbenefit of stopping any other good stuff they may be doing, it should be only used for emergencies, not anything that is "nice to have". -- (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, tasks are approved on a bot-by-bot bases; therefore 'http->https' is approved only for User:KolbertBot not User:SchlurcherBot. Think of it this way: does approving FlickreviewR the task of license reviewing automatically make RandomUsersBot authorized to review licenses, with the exact same code of FlickreviewR? I'm sorry but no. Yes there may be exceptions, but as said, this is not the case. As for "good stuffs", they are free to rerun after approval, and we may get the benefits back; no need to be hasty on this. And no, blocking is not "a way of getting the operator's attention", but simply "a way of stopping the work until approval"; operator attention was already requested via pings/mentions. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Jon Kolbert, As an administrator, you know what policies exist and the importance of understanding the difference between policy, guidelines and help pages and can advise others. Automation on Commons happens in many ways, it is deliberately not over-regulated, instead relying on working collegiately. That community approach has worked just fine for many years. If you think this does not work, then by all means make a proposal in the normal way. -- (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As a courtesy, the operator should be notified of this discussion. @Schlurcher: -- (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That is why I linked their username in the first comment, which should ping them. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to change the rubric at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems about notification, if we are to officially start relying on pings (which did not exist when first written). -- (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @: for your contribution to this page. Note that I am in the PST time zone and thus, responses might be delayed.
So far my understanding of the bot operating practice was, that Bot owners are allowed to incorporate certain approved and more trivial task to their portfolio to generate synergies. As an example, endless bots are not performing Internationalization tasks on top of their approved tasks (the task my bot is originally approved). I think this is beneficial for everyone. This said and as there was no general disagreement to the task, please see: Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot2 for further reference. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)