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
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 (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 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.


Image deletion?

Hello, I have sent 3 emails to oversight since February that never received a response, and opened a deletion request on June 8, what does it take to get anything done around here? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have a backlog of DRs going back to March. And your request is complicated by the fact that the file in use. Abzeronow (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 3-month backlog at Oversight is... kinda scary... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see the Oversight mention. I don't think there's a backlog there. Abzeronow (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, my requests were simply ignored, forcing me to post publicly, adding even more links between myself and the image... awesome... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I closed the request. In my opinion anonymizing is not needed, although if somebody will anonymize the file, I'm not against it. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adolphus has been blocked for disruptive behavior, as they called your actions "bullshit", calling me a "poor excuse of an admin", and edit warring on the deletion request. I think it is obvious they are here not to help. Sad coming from an user who has been around for 16 years. Bedivere (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an email from Adolphus requesting help. It was not an unblock request, but they state they walked away after the block, and didn't make the IP edits. (EDIT: I have received a clarification that they felt they could not make an unblock request because their talk page access was blocked. I'll respond to them later today by e-mail.) @Elcobbola: Abzeronow (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not mind shortening the block if these other edits weren't indeed theirs. Bedivere (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe them when they're stating this. Abzeronow (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I was pinged. If it's related to a CU, I cannot make a check or comment that would have the effect of connecting an IP address to an account. Эlcobbola talk 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realize my mistake on that. Adolphus was stating they had their block lengthened for IP edits that they say weren't theirs and they thought a CU should have been done before such. I also had wanted your input in general, since you are definitely more experienced in the unblock process than I am (this is my first involvement in that area). Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is there in the way of Arbitration around here? I am concerned about an admins future use of the tools, after they have failed to show understanding of the policies they are enforcing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Template:Partnership-Layout on dark mode

Template:Partnership-Layout is not compatible with Vector 2022 dark mode [1]. The main text is invisible. As an easy fix/workaround, please add the class notheme next to layouttemplate partnershiptemplate of the table element. Thanks! – Simon04 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tested it on Template:Partnership-Layout/sandbox and found no visual difference. Also I can't access the screenshot (says "Access Denied: Restricted File", could you please allow access or upload it on an external site such as imgur? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing my own DR

I know there was some recent back-and-forth about when it is and is not appropriate to close your own DR as "delete". I did not find the guidance there terribly clear. Is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet antifascist and anticapitalist poster by Iosif Ganf.jpg clear-cut enough that it would be OK for me to close it as delete, or should I wait for another admin to get to it? (Not asking for someone to act right now on that particular DR, just trying to clarify where other admins draw this line.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas this is a clear-cut case I would still wait for a week and leave it to another admin. I personally think it is fine to close own deletion nomination as delete only if it is equivalent to a speedy case (for example, a file was nominated as suspicious copyright, and a source was found during the nomination which would make it eligible for speedy). This nomination is not a speedy case as it involves application of a (difficult) copyright law and adding the page to appropriate category. Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hide file history

I accidentally made a mistake in adding a profile URL as source for a VTRS image (permission text has already been sent to VTRS team) and the author has asked to hide the source link. Can an admin please remove the first version of this file: File:2024 Toronto—St. Paul's federal by-election.jpg that has link information, and also adjust the history so the old version of the file and changes is not visible. I'll be more careful for future uploads. Thank you so much! // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move enwiki TimedText to Commons

Can you export en:TimedText:Stalin_Speech_Life_Has_Become_Better.webm.en.srt (associated with File:Stalin_Speech_Life_Has_Become_Better.webm) to Commons without losing attribution? Then I can get the TimedText deleted on enwiki. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done with Special:Import, also tagged G8 on enwiki. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback additions of thousands of uncategorized images to Category:History

Hello. I've already asked on Commons:Bots/Work requests but am not getting any response. I'm also not a rollbacker so can't do this myself.

On 31 May 2014, @Mitte27: added thousands of images to Category:History, presumably to remove their uncategorized status. Example: Revision #880487992. Since then they have mostly remained untouched in this category. This is undesirable since these images appear to be categorized now, but they're really not. Would it be possible to rollback their changes? Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the bot request page I have asked them when they plan to sub-categorise. If there is no satisfactory response, we can initiate a community discussion at VP or here. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that NearEMPTiness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has an ongoing problem with adding invalid licenses to files. I first noticed this with a group of railroad files they claimed public domain status despite having no information about original publication. They then made a a comment suggesting a license that is not even valid for US photos, leading me to check their recent uploads. The results are very concerning - they seem to upload a large number of photos with invalid public domain licenses. A representative sample from the last few days:

To me, this indicates that NearEMPTiness does not properly verify licensing before uploading. The comment I linked above, and the improper use of a number of different license tags, make me worry that they simply don't read the licenses at all. While some of these files might actually be public domain with additional research or a different license tag, it is the responsibility of the uploader to providence accurate licenses. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NearEMPTiness: at the very least, this requires that you explain yourself. I see you edit frequently, including quite a few edits since this was posted. Please respond here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Thank you very much for requesting a comment. Please assume good faith and commment on the examples shown above yourself, or be a bit more patient, while other adminstrators are doing so. I am not aware of any rule that users need to comment on any observations published on this noticeboard, but so far, I have never been mentioned on this noticeboard. Although, some users think that licence issues are always black and white, I know others, who believe that they are differnt shades of grey. There is absolutely no need to threaten me as you have done on my discussion page ("explain what is going on here, or this account is very likely to be blocked."). Please judge fairly and communicate wisely. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NearEMPTiness: It was not a threat. It was stating to you that a pretty serious accusation had been made, of the sort that is likely to result in a block if upheld. What Pi.1415926535 wrote here seems to me to be concrete and specific enough to respond to , but if you'd rather not, fine; just don't say later that you were blindsided. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=889369233"