Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
introduction		Help deskVillage pump
copyright • proposals • technical		Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks 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
14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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 (index)

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. {{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.


User:Sealle[edit]

Most seem to be in agreement that we've resolved things to their satisfaction. Let's all go work on other stuff. GMGtalk 00:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is in my opinion unfit to to be an admin, he blocked another admin and denied them the use of their talk page to discuss the issues, this is in no way condusive to resloving the matter and Sealle has also clear stated Bidgee, you got this link to make sure your file wasn’t used anywhere else. I haven't deleted your contribs and I have nothing to apologize to you for. Thanks for the lesson, if any issues, concerning your activity, arise, please be sure I won't feel like supporting you. Sealle (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)diffdiff added at 13:06 my emphasis. The trigger an image uploaded here by Bidgee that was later used by a newspaper sourced from here that image was tagged a copyright violation by an IP yet every piece of information publicaly available clearly showed this was not the case. Gnangarra 12:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Gnangarra, I don't have time to give answers on all the pages where you start discussions. You can find my reply here. Sealle (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
<ec> The other page is about the block, this is raising the issue that you're unfit to be an admin. my reasonings is the way you handled the matter and made it clear you intend attacking the users contributions in the future regardless of their validity. Gnangarra 12:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Where exactly is the edit warring supposed to be? GMGtalk 12:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

From the time you came and posted not one but two warnings (misuse of the revert/rollback) on my talk page, is when you became involved.

Second no warning for edit warring (on my own talk page might I add) was ever given, which was the "reason you gave" + removing any way I had to request a review. The block was in violation of the Commons:Blocking policy.

Thirdly, there is no where in the Commons:Talk page guidelines state that I cannot remove warning (one that were made in bad faith, after you didn't like what I had said). Sadly block logs cannot be removed and only quick blocks can be made to note that the original block was a bad one. There should be a note placed on my block log noting the block was a bad one (invalid).

I have been have a troll(s) attack me on Wikipedia and have started on Commons, using a photograph that is close to me personally and trolling on my talk page. Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Bidgee, no warning for edit warring (on my own talk page might I add) was ever given or you somehow failed to read it: [1]? Sealle (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That is a civility template with a custom message. Also there is no policy nor guideline regarding users removed templated warnings from their own talk page (again read Commons:Talk page guidelines). I'm done with this project. Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • <ec> why are posting user page images to a third party site, if a warning was given there would be a diff to point to, this just further shows you lack the capacity to be an admin. Bidgee has asked for you to put a note in his block log indicating you made a mistake, I suggest you do just that. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bidgee: Gbawden said "I screwed up on that one", personally I count that as an apology. Now let's deal with that block..

Sealle, the time to grovel is now. You know where this is headed otherwise. That's all I have to say. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What's most disappointing here is that Sealle blocked Bidgee despite being involved. That is definitely an abuse of tools. pandakekok9 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It is also disappointing that Sealle continued to "warn" and rollback Bidgee despite the latter being harassed by an IP sock. Imagine being harassed by someone and an admin doesn't stop it, instead they encourage it (intended or not, but even if it's unintended, Sealle should have thought about that). We need more admins who are mellow, not the other way around. pandakekok9 14:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a typical example of quarrel rising from nothing. Both participants failed to remain mellow. Please listen the song Let it be and calm down, and this applies to everybody, including commentators. At moment here's possibility that everything can be forgiven to both, but if the quarrel continues, then the situation worsens. Taivo (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Administrator Sealle this morning removed all of the files I had published since March last year. You need to know that he can remove all your content from the store at any time without any reason. He did this instantly without prior warnings, as well as without any preliminary discussions. You all need also to know that he can block you if he decides that your objection was offensive, although as he allows himself to indirectly humiliate other users on the discussion pages. In my opinion, What Sealle is doing is unfair, rude and unfounded. He does not respect my/your work and contribution.GMStudio (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
All uploads of GMStudio were today deleted by Sealle as copyright violations. I looked the situation and they were really all copyright violations, Sealle acted correctly. Taivo (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't want to ruin this topic right now providing my evidence (proofs), since I have already spent several days in discussions on the Russian- language Wikimedia page with another participant. I have to talk about the same thing many times, but to no avail, because I see that some administrators absolutely do not understand all the subtleties of copyright. I can prove it. In short, the very fact of mass removal of media content without prior discussion and explanation in a short period of time indicates a disdainful and disrespectful attitude of the administrators to the Wiki participants who make their ContributionGMStudio (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC).
  • As others have pointed out, per COM:TPG archiving is recommended, but it is not mandatory. That makes it a bad block any way you look at it. I don't understand why offense was taken at this comment which just seems to be pointing out that the English Wikipedia links were the only ones that needed restored, at least as far as delinker is concerned. The block wasn't made any better by the fact that the IP was being so disrupting Sealle had to protect the talk page, and I had to scope around in the bushes for a half hour to put together a half decent set of range blocks to put them to bed. @Sealle: I think you need a one second block to annotate in the log that this was out-of-order, and we can look to move on with our lives. Otherwise, we can get a community consensus here that it was a bad block, and one of us can do it for you, which wastes more time and looks worse on everyone all around. GMGtalk 21:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd admit that I was a little blunt (not mellow), however Sealle should know the guidelines and policies for talk pages, blocking and also communicate with words (not templates). Not asking for Sealle to be de-sysop, but recognise the block they made was completely out of order (removing talk page access should only be rarely done) and was a bad one. I don't expect apology but do expect that it be annotate as a bad block.
  • Off topic, thank you to 4nn1l2 who has been dealt with what looks to be another Anon IP attack. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bidgee: Sealle has recognized that their block is unjustified. He reverted his own block notice and hid the block from non-admins (as you can see in your own block log). I assume this is acceptable enough for you? pandakekok9 08:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocking anyone for one hour is silly - what on earth is this meant to achieve? To do this to a deeply respected contributor who's being harassed is appalling. I'm also concerned by Sealle's use of vague standardised templates to attempt to communicate with Bidgee (for instance [2]). It's hard to understand what the grounds for this block was, but it looks like Bidgee was blocked for removing these inappropriate templates. If Sealle felt that Bidgee was being uncivil, they should have engaged them in conversation to attempt to resolve the issue, not spammed them with templates. This is terrible judgement and even worse communication. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to this from en.wiki (changes on my watchlist). I can honestly say, despite witnessing six or seven en.wiki ArbCom desysopping proceedings, I have never seen an admin behave this atrociously: aiding in harassment, abusing rollback, and then blocking the victim is unbelievable. Although all projects are separate, y'all could definitely learn from how en.wiki handled this: en:User talk:Bidgee. In brief summary, I noticed an editor leaving harassing messages to Bidgee on their UTP, called in a request for a page protect, and within 15 minutes: 1. the harasser was blocked, 2. the UTP was protected to prevent further harassment, and 3. the harassment was revdelled from the page. Contrast that against what happened here. Bitterly disappointing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The block was definitely uncalled for, and the total handling of the situation by Sealle was less than optimal, to say the least. I for one keep templating the regular users for isssues like copyvios, missing permissions or some such, but once you've begun a conversation – as happened on the UDR page – any talk page replies concerning the matter should not be templated save for justified block messages. That said, I'm inclined to agree with Alexis that Gbawden's acknowledgment of having "screwed up" equals an apology. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 1) Editors can remove warnings from their talkpage, 2) Gbawden should've apologised to Bidgee and should've also apologised in the restoring edit summary - If I were in Bidgees shoes I would've hit the roof!, 3) This twat really didn't help and I'm surprised Bidgee kept their cool as I sure as hell wouldn't, 4) What was the point of the one hour block? ....
Given editors can remove warnings from their talkpage this block was not only invalid but it was also adding salt to an already open would,
This really is atrocious behaviour especially from a well respected and level-headed admin. Disappointed doesn't even cover the surface. –Davey2010Talk 19:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just noting for the record that Sealle has now redacted the block from the log. I'm not sure there's much else for us to do here. GMGtalk 10:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
So I guess this thread can be closed now? OP agrees that problem is solved, Sealle recognized that their block is a mistake, and Bidgee seems okay about it. pandakekok9 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
+1 Massive respect to Sealle for redacting the block from the log, Everyone makes mistakes including admins.... we're all human and like I said all make mistakes from time to time, I too would be happy for this to be resolved as Sealle has IMHO resolved this amicably. –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This can be closed, Sealle revoked (revdel the block log) the block. Enough has been said and no further action is warranted, time to move on. Bidgee (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:1[edit]

Hi! {{1}} is deleted but it is used in a link here File:De schipbrug met zicht op deel van de binnenstad.jpg for example. Perhaps an admin could check the template and find out what is missing in the link and if other stuff needs to be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Fixed the link on the file page. Should have been {{!}} representing a "|".

This template is also deleted but still in use. Perhaps it should be undeleted or maybe just removed from the pages where it is used? --MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This template had been deleted correctly because of being a fake with insulting content. Could be created from scratch, pattern shown @ {{By courtesy of Quatre jours de Dunkerque 2015}}. --Achim (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thank you! :✓ Created --MGA73 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Giant Honeyeater (photo)[edit]

Accompanying photo to Giant Honeyeater (Gymnomyza brunneirostris) is actually of the Yellow-billed Honeyeater (Gymnomyza viridis). The duplication evidently arose after 2014, when the former subspecies (G.v. brunneirostris) was elevated to species level by the IOU. It is therefore necessary to locate & insert a correct image of the Giant Honeyeater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermccart (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do as long as neither page title nor image title is given. --Achim (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Creator:Emil Pap[edit]

Hi! Does this template match Category:Emil Pap? If yes can you please undelete? --MGA73 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thank you! I added the creator to the images so it is not unused anymore. --MGA73 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:President Trump Holds a News Conference on the Coronavirus.jpg[edit]

Hi! Could someone please review this file? It is protected and is in Flickrreview category. --MGA73 (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be in the public domain? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I reviewed the license as {{PD-USGov}}. 08:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes it should and thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:New PPR.jpeg[edit]

This file has more than one Flickr file in upload history. Perhaps an admin can either delete the old versions or move them to a new name so we can have all versions reviewed? --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Old French postcards[edit]

Dear Administrator,

You might have noticed that thousands of old French postcards are uploaded on Commons. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Postcards_of_France_by_department https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Postcards_of_villages_in_France https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Postcards_of_France_by_city ...etc...

It is easy that they are very often of the same date range and type: Post-stamp, edition, quality and technology of the picture etc... so I tend to think they should have the same license. I focused on French postcards to describe things as accurately as possible.

Because they are thousands of them, I deduced that uploading similar postcards was not a problem, and this is what I did for some dozen of images, in good faith, checking that the send date, stamp was typically before 1910.

However, the user Patrick Rogel created deletion requests, disagreeing with this opinion.

Here is the discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rc1959#Avertissement_de_suppression_de_fichier_multim%C3%A9dia

I am a bit lost, because due to the very big number of similar situations, I believe I am on the safe side in term of license, in the vast majority of cases (There might possibly be some specific cases). Otherwise, it would mean that thousands of similar French postcards of the 1900s or 1910s, uploaded years ago, should also be deleted.

Of course, I am happy to "do my job of contributors" and check images one after the other. I tried to do that, but to no result yet. But, given the scale of the problem, which impacts so many images from so many contributors, I believe it is safer to escalate the problem to Administrators, give a general rule for these postcards, that would not be discussed.

Many thanks for your help in this painful situation. Kind Regards. Rc1959 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Swapan Purkait.jpg[edit]

Dear Admin,

I would like to request you to kindly help me to delete this photograph at the earliest. I confirm this is my own upload. Kindly help with the same. Warm Regards. Spurkait (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The OTRS-confirmation seems to be from the subject pictured, not the rights holder (but: passport photo). There is no information in the email that would conflict with a speedy deletion. Ciell (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Admin, ::@Ciell:This is my passport photo, and i have given the permission for the same, never realized what i was doing. I would like to request you to kindly delete the photo. Looking forward for your kind help on the same Spurkait (talk)

✓ Done. We have zero control over other websites that may have used the photo as you had licensed it under a license that allows reuse. However, I've deleted it here under our COM:BLP guideline. --Majora (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Taiping2.PNG[edit]

Hi. Could someone review this file, please? This map is *disputed for its maritime territorial claim (see w:Nine-dash line). Greenknight dv (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators do not review maps for accuracy. This is a wrong venue. Ruslik (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Ruslik, I disagree with another user removing the inaccuracy warning tag. Removing the tag is not how dispute resolution works, @Tangmingxyz. --Greenknight dv (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Covid19 toilet paper restrictions.jpg[edit]

Sadly this is protected and I cannot add the template for deletion. Sadly Australia, unlike the US, has a restrictive copyright when it comes to text per COM:TOO Australia and COM:FOP Australia. It would need permission to be sent to OTRS by the supermarket (whether it is Coles or Woolworths) that they license this under CC-Zero. Bidgee (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally even the UK recognizes that standard fonts don't merit copyright protection. That looks like a standard Microsoft Word font to me so I think it might be ok on those grounds. Whether the entire text as a whole merits copyright protection is also debatable. I can DR it for you if you want to give me the exact wording you want as the rationale though, Bidgee. --Majora (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Not so much the font, sadly. It would be a standard template created by the supermarket chain (which is where the TOO kicks in, even though you and I could create that with ease). DR rationale "Poster template/design (although simple, falls under Australia's restrictive threshold of originality) and the text (wording) is considered copyrightable and freedom of panorama does not give any exemptions for text based work." Bidgee (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done --Majora (talk)
Thanks Majora. Bidgee (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

License review by non-image-reviewers - Should be changed to disallow[edit]

Hi, there are some edits like this, the filter is set to warn but if it's not allowed for non image reviewers to review files, IMO it should be disallowed. Current situation : we can check the logs for violations. But it makes more sense to prevent these edits, no more requirement to patrol filter hits(if anybody really patrols the hits). I was notified about this edit here, my bot can easily check all edits but I think it makes more sense to stop these kind of edits. Let's say my bot identifies a problematic edit, what next: It will just ignore review, but the problem still stays I never said I will revert problematic edits in the BRFA it's not an anti-vandal bot. Or if anyone has the time to write a bot based on edit filter hits, you can go ahead with that. Or open a Phabricator ticket. // Eatcha (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=404975546"