Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Administrator's assistance

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 here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)



License review needed[edit]

Hey,

There are some tougher files that need a license review. Anyone willing to help reviewing them or willing giving his/her opinion? The files in question are:

Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

404 error[edit]

I created an account, the link in my e-mail took me to a sign in page, logged in, but then there is a 404 error for that page. Not sure if my confirmation is complete or not now. Thanks, TacomaTalks@hotmail.com.

Inactivity run for August-September 2014 has ended[edit]

Hi! The inactivity run for August-September 2014 has now ended. One administrator has resigned their access during the run, and four have been desysopped today on Meta due to inactivity. @Steinsplitter already thanked each and every one of the users on their talk pages, but please join me here in thanking @Bdk, @Gmaxwell, @Heb, @Rüdiger Wölk, @Sfu and @Zscout370 for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over the years. Thank you all, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that while @Gmaxwell is no longer an administrator, he retains his CheckUser privileges on this wiki. odder (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It makes no sense for him to still be a CU. He can't block socks, he can't see deleted files/pages to investigate possible sock behavior, he can't protect sock target pages, etc. INeverCry 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Trijnstel: @Tiptoety: @Magog the Ogre: @Jameslwoodward: @Elcobbola: @Krd: What do other CUs think of this? INeverCry 20:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
+1, Imho his cu rights should be removed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
+1, same as Steinsplitter and INeverCry. It should be rule for CU and OS, first sysop. --Alan (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
A user inactive as admin is also inactive as CU, so CU status shall be removed for the same reason. --Krd 20:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm not sure that our rules permit simply changing a CU's status for this reason. The rule for removing a user from CU is zero activity for a year. There's nothing that says that a CU must be an Admin, although, as INC says, there's not much he can do. Gmaxwell has had one CU action in the past year, on October 14, 2013, then 24 actions on July 5, 2013 and several in June 2013. I think that it should be explicitly stated that one cannot be a CU if one is not an Admin. I'd also like to see the required activity level raised for both, but any of that will require a policy change. Meanwhile, we can simply wait until October 14 and change Gmaxwell's status then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
For security reasons, I do not support having inactive CheckUsers. That said, there is no Commons Policy regarding the activity levels of CheckUsers or Oversighters. I say that we just wait until October 14th, 2014. Tiptoety talk 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There should be a WMF policy that CUs/OSs/'crats have to be admins. That there isn't one is an obvious oversight. None of these advanced rights can be fully made use of without admin tools. INeverCry 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It is up to the individual projects to make these rules. Hard to believe Commons is asking WMF to make rules for us! Rich Farmbrough, 19:48 15 September 2014 (GMT).
Tiptoey, this editor has been active on WMF sites within the past week or so, and since its SUL, I'm not sure that your worries should be serious. I agree that 14 October is pretty near and no action is needed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48 15 September 2014 (GMT).

If an A/CU is inactive as Admin he's most likely also inactive as CU, if he's active as CU but does not perform Admin actions he should be excempted from A inactive runs. I agree a CU should always be Admin or he might be restricted in his CU work.--Denniss (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

True, but as it stands now the definition of "inactive" is different for the two roles, which brought us to the present situation. If the required activity period for the two roles were the same, we wouldn't be discussing this.
I don't see how a CU can be active without using Admin powers, unless all of his or her CU checks turn up false. My experience says that's very unlikely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a local or global policy that prohibits users to hold CU or OS rights without being an admin at the same time. It's also very unlikely a global policy will be accepted as there are some projects which allow users to apply for CU or OS rights. For example nlWP and frWP have CUs w/h admin and trWP has an OS w/h admin. (Though I also remember that enWP wanted to appoint a non-admin as OS but concluded that it's not possible to use all OS options w/h being an admin.) The projects with CUs who are not admins at the same time have their permissions changed so that these CUs have the ability to see deleted edits (see frWP, nlWP and bugzilla:20775). Their role is also different than here in the sense that they only perform the checks on request and then let local admins decide whether a block is useful or not. I do agree though that if we believe only admins can be checkusers, an RFC should be created in order to add a sentence to our policy. To prevent cases like this in the future. I wouldn't mind a more stricter inactivity rule either (and maybe it's useful to combine both the CU activity and edits?). Just my 2c. Trijnsteltalk 10:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the three deWP checkusers (Filzstift) isn't elected admin afaik, but has received technical admin flag due to being CU. There was/is same practice with non-sysop arbcom members. --A.Savin 11:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
While I can envision scenarios in which a non-admin CU would not be entirely useless (e.g., assistance analyzing/interpreting data; updating, copyediting, managing the CU wiki; etc.), I nevertheless think the two permissions need to go hand in hand. I suspect it hasn't been explicitly codified because it is common sense and an implicit expectation. Simply, if you're not active enough to retain even the admin flag (especially with the activity requirements being as low as they are), you ought not to be considered active enough for a CU flag. I agree with Trijnstel, if I understand her correctly, that there is sense in "advanced" permissions having "advanced" activity requirements. Эlcobbola talk 14:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You understood me correctly. :) Trijnsteltalk 14:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would make more sense to simply change the inactive definitions on the two policies to support one another, for example "...and also has met the inactivity criteria for other advanced roles which typically also use administrator rights." Rich Farmbrough, 19:45 15 September 2014 (GMT).

Possible copyright issue regarding File:100 3227.JPG[edit]

For File:100 3227.JPG, the previous version appears to have a copyright issue with the depiction of copyrighted packaging (see Commons:PACKAGING.) Please consider as to whether a revision deletion would be useful. --Gazebo (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it please be possible to look into why the image from the previous revision is still present at the top of this page and via this URL even though the revision itself is no longer listed? --Gazebo (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gazebo: I've moved it to File:GB Hunter.jpg, and this seems to have solved the issue for me. Have a look. INeverCry 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)