Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:ANB)
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)



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).

I have received a e-mail from Gmaxwell, he can only access the internet via tor right now and therefore he is completely blocked. I added torunblock to his account and given him a link to this discussion. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • COM:DESYSOP states that "inactive Commons administrators (including those holding bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter privileges) will have their rights removed." Does the bold part mean that also bureaucrat, checkuser and oversigher rights are to be removed when sysop rights are removed? If not, then I think that we should modify Commons policy to say so, or modify group rights per the Dutch Wikipedia example. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about this edit. :/ But imho this policy should include CU/OS/CRATS. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dr Manuel de la Peña.png[edit]

If I click uploaders edits, I get info, user are not registered.--Motopark (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The user was renamed today, so it may take some time until all links are fixed. --Didym (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It looks like fixed now. Global renames will be queued in the job queue and executed, therefore not in real time. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons administrators your responsibilities do not lie to Commons alone[edit]

What could be done?[edit]

Now, lets stop the non-productive emotions and try to get things optimized.

  • A) Diagnosis: Were existing procedures and policies properly followed?

One example is File:MALAYSIA BILL RHODESIA AND NYASALAND BILL (2) (Hansard, 11 Juli 1963).djvu
Chain of events: 1) Template PD-UK-EdictGov claimed as invalid (August 3) and deleted (August 11)[1]; 2) All PD-UK-EdictGov-licensed media tagged with no-permission (August 11) and deleted (August 19).
IMO possibly sub-optimal steps:
1) Uploader hadn't edited since April 2; thereby unlikely able to comment at the template deletion discussion.
2) Uploader was NOT notified about the no-permission-tagging of his uploads.[2]
3) Uploader was notified about file deletions only after the deletions had been performed.[3]
However, even optimal notification of the uploader wouldn't have changed anything in this case, as he was no longer present at Commons.

  • B) Solution for notification problem on WikiSource

1) Denniss mentioned a "bot informing local projects about DRs of used files". I've also a vague memory of such a bot. Does anybody remember its name or site?
2) In July this year, MediaWiki-developer Magnus Manske presented ExCommons, a Javascript-tool that claims to target a similar problem.[4] When you have inserted it into your common.js and have authorized OAuth file upload, after the 1st deletion-click it shows a list of projects that use the to-be-deleted file and — in a second step — will attempt to copy the file to the local projects. However, Magnus himself found that MediaWiki will not let you upload a file locally if the file exists on Commons, unless you are an admin on the local wiki. Despite of its current shortcomings this tools might eventually be tweaked to either be used for notification or for transfer of the to-be-deleted file to WikiSource. --Túrelio (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:CommonsNotificationBot, offline since June 2012. And yes, npd and similar tags should be added using the proper function to notify the uploader. --Denniss (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Users should always be notified when a file is tagged with {{subst:npd}}.
Files can be uploaded locally on other projects even if the file exists here, but you must choose a different file name. For this reason, User:Commons fair use upload bot changes "File:Example.jpg" to "File:Example - from Commons.jpg". --Stefan4 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mumbai 125 KM 3D A Light and Shadow Films Official Poster.jpeg[edit]

Deleted plenty of times before, please check upload--Motopark (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted again, the OTRS ticket is not valid. @FDMS4: --Didym (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Twain video[edit]

Hi all. Not sure where this goes because I'm not familiar with how WebM videos work, but File:Mark Twain at Stormfield (1909).webm when viewed from Wikipedia has inappropriate captions. It was reported to OTRS and I can confirm that the captions look like they've been vandalized, but I have absolutely no idea how to fix them or even where they live. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Fixed. I've deleted TimedText:Mark Twain at Stormfield (1909).webm.en.srt, the file causing the problem, and VOA blocked the creator User:Erikolomaman. In future, if you see anything like this again, do an advanced search for the title in the TimedText namespace and speedy nom the offending file. I've create protected it for a while as well. INeverCry 03:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Awesome, thanks bunches. I never would have figured that one out :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Verax666[edit]

Need some help, my info missed, see history.--Motopark (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Handled at AN/U. INeverCry 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Bot User:CommonsDelinker and Voting booth[edit]

The bot User:CommonsDelinker has renamed here an image in the Voting booth article, Booths.png to Booths.gif, but the images are quite different, one a view of voting booths in the Paris Bar Association, the other the word "Booths", presumably someone's logo. If I revert the bot will come along and do it again someday. --BalCoder

You came to wrong venue - complain to admin who commanded the move. — revi^ 09:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This is actually a bot error, it shouldn't replace if source or target file exist locally. --Denniss (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) :It is because a file with same name in local wiki exists. We prefer renaming the local file; but I did it here now because the file here is very recent. Jee 10:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Denniss: Still wrong forum. He should have asked to bot maintainer. — revi^ 10:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Revi, he is a guest, coming from another wiki. Just help him and move to proper forum if needed. :) Jee 10:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jee: Ok :P Pinging @Steinsplitter, Multichill, Siebrand, Krinkle: maintainers of toollabs:delinker/. — revi^ 10:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It is bugzilla:61656, but nobody is working on it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a similar bug when files are deleted. If an image is deleted on Commons, the bot goes around and removes all files with that name from all projects, even if some project has a local image with the same name. Is there a bug report for that somewhere? I can't find any. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)