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
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.


Edit request for {{Decade years navbox}}

Please copy the latest edition of {{Decade years navbox/sandbox2}} and make it the new edition of {{Decade years navbox}}. The rationale is here. I think it works fine. --トトト (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC) トトト (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@トトト: Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird processing result of a DR

Hello,

what happened to File:Landtagswahl 2019.31.jpg that should have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Saxony state election 2019? There are no JPEG data left, but a file page is still there. I used two different browsers to check, where one is seldom if ever used to access Wikimedia sites (so, it's likely not a caching issue on my side). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the file. I remember a similar case to this at w:File talk:Ignatyevo Airfield - NASA World Wind.jpg, w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_209#File:Ignatyevo.jpg_not_rendering. Usually this means the file's data has been lost for some or another reason. The thumbnail was still there though. This case is weird because the file is so recent. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think something is wrong, the file File:Άγιος Γεώργιος Φερών.jpeg which was uploaded 7 days ago is missing contents. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? That file was uploaded in 2014. And deleted yesterday. --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific copyvio uploader

It looks like Siveohalloran12 (talk · contribs) has uploaded multiple copyright violating images - they all look like internet publicity material, not their own work. I have tagged a couple for speedy deletion but it might be quicker for an admin to go take a look and do a mass-nuke. --10mmsocket (talk)

There are no previously deleted contributions. New user so I nuked and warned Gbawden (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hello, can an administrator please delete the file redirect File:Nadja Stiller Com C07-089-001.jpg? The file was recently uploaded and has since been renamed to File:Nadja Tiller Com C07-089-001.jpg. I forgot to suppress the redirect while reaming and I'm not sure if {{Db-author}} would be applicable here. Ratekreel (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done In the future you can use COM:G6 —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted! Thank you, Matrix. Ratekreel (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix & @Ratekreel, I'm sorry but G6 doesn't apply here per Commons:File renaming#Leaving redirects. G2 is a good go in such cases. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aafi, I think the policy is relevant in case of vandalism or when one's not sure if it's vandalism. Ratekreel (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All broken redirects are under G2, and otherwise suppression is against policy, if the previous name is not clear vandalism. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
typos, wrong names etc. should be tagged with G2, and yours was a G2 case. G6 doesn't fit in here. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing this up —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about admin responding to concern with ""Cross-project shit-stirring by a suspicious user" "

A wikipedian referenced my uploading/adding of images as one sign of alleged COI, so i wanted to check if Wikimedia had concern about efforts here being used against editors. But instead I got that comment on a deletion (I'm not saying I have an issue with the deletion of my comment on other noticeboard, i dont know. But they havent indicated where else i could raise my concern. Whenevery (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bringing WP issues here? This issue seems irrelevant to Commons Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of WM Commons for a content contributor ("user"?) is to improve WP content. Whenevery (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actions of someone using our content anywhere outside Commons is irrelevant. We are only concerned about the behaviour of Commons users on Commons Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well they're described by WM as a "family" with "shared values", but thx for answering my question from the user noticeboard. But no response about the admin on Commons calling me a "suspicious user" here after I referred to an allegation at WP? Whenevery (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The place to handle problems they are not properly handled in a local Wiki is Meta and not Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx I've always been confused about meta & wm & wf, never really looked into it as was focused on content. I was just looking at the WF Universal Code of Conduct, seems the AgF & civility & possibly psych requirements were not met in the edit comment ive raised here & the colleague justifying it. Whenevery (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my fellow admin - I think you are stirring and looking for attention. Commons is not wikipedia - don't bring your drama here Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's false, there was no drama I simply retired from WP. Whenevery (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring EN-wiki drama to commons. Commons isn't en-wiki, and we don't want its drama spilling over here. (Note to admins: A user posted a very friendly notice explaining that their editing patterns are not what they expect of new editors). @Whenevery, I don't know why you came to commons, and it doesn't matter to me why you came to commons, as long as you aren't here to vandalize, advertise, use commons as a personal web host, or bring en-wiki problems to commons. We are part of the Wikimedia family of projects, but just as wikibooks doesn't complain to wikivoyage, Commons doesn't want to hear about en-wiki's drama. We will happily support all of the wikimedia projects by hosting, catagorising, and maintaining their freely licensed images, but we are not another drama board. If you have a problem on en-wiki, solve it on en-wiki. The values of commons (and all Wikimedia projects, is to make the sum of all human knowledge, and make it available for free for everyone. Commons specifically is the largest collection of free to use images on the internet. All images here are under CC-BY-SA or less restrictive license, all of witch are irrevocable, meaning you can use them forever. Commons does see a lot of cross wiki vandalism/abuse without people bringing it here. We don't solve cross Wiki problems, that's metawiki's whole purpose. If you have any more questions, leave them on my talk page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's already been explained, but thx for further. Again I didn't bring any 'drama', that was the rude characterization that i was trying to get addressed here. I was confused at an idea that adding images to an article is an excessive interest. I had noticed a lot of articles, even important ones, had no images, so I wondered how true that was. You yourself now bring in a WP detail, so I now have to note that I wasn't new to editing, I mentioned so, and why would that be assumed after decades of WP anyway, and that fact in itself was then used to allege sockpuppetry. Whenevery (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain what you mean by "I have to note I wasn't new to editing"? (I got caught up in a similar situation on en-wiki, and want to make sure you are thoroughly explaining yourself without causing miscommunication.) When most en-wiki admins hear that, they assume you had a prior account (especially as your account is about a month old on en-wiki, and only a week on commons, yet you are writing high quality articles on relativly obscure topics), and will block you for sock puppetry. I can't speak to the adding images part, but what caused concern was high quality, well sourced articles about a particular court case, not something new users normally do unless they have involvement in the actual case or personally know the people involved. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: there are terms that, while they contain a word that might be considered somewhat obscene, are not really all that strong. "Shit-stirring" is one of those. If one editor said another was "shit", or even that all their contributions were "shit", that might call for admin action (although still probably not on a different wiki from the one where the matter came up). Accusing them of "shit-stirring" is quite different from that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adamant1 made a lot of Speedy deletions I do not agree with, please do not delete them

User:Adamant1 made a lot of Speedy deletions I do not agree with, but there are too many to revert them. See Commons:Deletion requests/List of libraries in Paris for an overview. Please do not delete them (yet). See Commons talk:Galleries#How to handle Gallery pages with a wrong format? for the discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of the enwiki article and therefore clearly out of scope and as I do not see this fact mentioned anywhere also a copyright violation. Such copies from Wikipedia are regularly deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how lists of places without images are galleries or wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion under either G1 or G2 depending. G1 literally says "Mainspace pages (galleries) that are empty or contain no useful content, such as pages that contain text but no images or other media" qualify for speedy deletion. Sure with "galleries" like Commons:List of hospitals in Paris there's the boiler plate image on the top, but so what? It's clearly not a gallery regardless.
Not to mention the whole "list" thing doesn't seem to be widely used outside of galleries for France. Even if someone wanted to convert such a page into a gallery then it should have the same name as the parent category. The word "list" is totally meaningless and just shows that the creator never intended for them to be actual galleries. And I could give a crap if there's a conversation about it. Nothing says the guidelines should just be ignored while or when a couple of people are discussing something on a random talk page. At the end of the day who cares? This isn't an encyclopedia and the person who created the "galleries" isn't even active anymore. So I don't really see a legitimate reason to keep the pages. It's not like someone can't recreate them under the normal names of the categories and with actual images if they wanted to anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a List of libraries in Paris, not in the enwiki and neither in the frwiki.
The List of libraries in Paris is not just a list, but also shows a gallery. And the links are to Commons categories. That to me makes it a "a guide to the subcategories of a large main category", one of the purposes we mentioned on the discussion about good galleries. I admit, it would have been better if each line in the table would have got an image as well, then it would be a gallery page like List of paintings by Paul Gauguin, of which there are many more. And perhaps there is a better format for it. But are that good enough reasons to just delete it? To delete a work where so much effort has gone into? Without even a warning? (Because a speedy deletion can be deleted even before the creator had a chance to react.) Please have some more respect for the work of others, even when the creator is not active anymore. It might be usefule (see page views). So I prefer that we first have a policy for these kind of gallery pages before they are recklessly deleted. JopkeB (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=925718966"