Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:AN or COM:ANB

Navigation Administrators' noticeboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Vandalism archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Attention archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disputes archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C K User problems archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Blocks & protections archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other links Talk +/-

Important discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Graphics: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Categories discussion Copyright questions OTRS noticeboard Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks & protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Mailing list

[graph/hist] Toolserver status Last update 10:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) MySQL rosemary up MySQL daphne up MySQL yarrow up Replag s1 0h 0m 1s Replag s2 0h 0m 0s Replag s3 0h 0m 0s Replag s4 0h 0m 1s Replag s5 0h 0m 0s More information...

[edit] Backlog Notice

This is just a friendly reminder that admins are always needed at CAT:Unknown. Category:Media missing permission and Category:Media without a source are both severely backlogged and any help that could be given there would be excellent.

I personally have been working off the deletion backlog template (on my userpage) and didn't know until tonight that the template's code didn't reach far back enough (chronologically) so there was much more older stuff I was unaware of. I've since extended the reach of that template, but I still need to make it go back further due to how the backlog looks right now. Killiondude (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Category:Duplicate has now 872 files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the {{badname}} and {{duplicate}} put files into two separate categories (the badname ones as a subcat). As in my experience most {{badname}} marked files are indeed duplicates (re-uploaded under a correct name) and there is seldom much difference in the information contained on the image page (as both were uploaded by the same person) - so these can be swiftly dealt with. But {{duplicate}} is often mis-used (eg for crops or different versions of the same image), and the two images are usually uploaded by different people and therefore the description pages are often different and need merging before the duplicate is deleted - so much more careful consideration is required. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Wills on this point. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 12:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Good suggestion from Tony Wills here, I expect a subcat for badnamed files would be easily manageble, and keep all those upload-typos from crowding the duplicate category. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have thought of the same. But instead of asking users to upload again why not ask them to use {{rename}}? Or maybe a new template just for "I'm the uploader and just gave file a bade name". Re uploading wastes a lot of space. --MGA73 (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on {{rename}}: If you make use of this template, the file actually gets re-uploaded as well, but under another user name! Now this file won't be listed on the user's gallery ... :( axp_de^Hello! 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, {{badname}} is the template for "I'm the uploader and just gave file a bad name". Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, using rename an admin will move the file. Badname is used when uploader has uploaded file twice (or more). --MGA73 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I'm not sure if rename would be the preferred action for a user who makes a bad name upload though - if the user makes a new correctly named upload all we have to do is delete the first one - no links to fix at other projects + the file will be be listed in listed in the correct usergallery as Axpde points out above. Are there really advantages of rename compared to this? Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

← Is there a category like w:Category:Administrative backlog here? I'm still finding my feet as a commons sysop and would like to help, but am not always sure where to look. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

@Finn Rindahl Well... Advantage is that it takes less space. But if it takes 6 month to get af file renamed I can understand that users can't wait. When renaming all we have to do is check usage. Move and remove the template. When deleting we have to check usage. Check all info is transfered correct. Then delete. So it is not "a clear cut".

@Stifle It would be nice with an admin-backlog. But I guess every admin has his/her own little favorite :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just made Category:Duplicate - bad name - lets see if that makes it easyer. --MGA73 (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-admin closures

What's the policy on this? A user closes deletion discussions he participated in and where there's no consensus to conform to the result he prefers, I'm talking about this and this and more than I can count in his contributions. Isn't the purpose of admins looking at this some non-biased review? He's closing discussions like he's an admin. Hekerui (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an enormous backlog of category:Deletion requests. I am trying to help out to the best of my ability. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think admins are any less biased? I personally have no problem with these closings; Pieter is a very experienced user, and his judgment is as good as any admin's. Besides, these are very old DRs which need someone to finally make a decision one way or the other; I see no point in letting them languish there waiting for an admin to do their job. –Tryphon^☂ 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closure is obviously slanted towards keeping things, because it's the only option. Hekerui (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, nominate me for adminship, and I will delete too :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At a meta level, yes, it is acceptable for non-admins to close uncontroversial deletion requests. Not speaking as to the legitimacy of the examples you listed, but it isn't inherently problematic to the best of my knowledge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We can always need help. But non-admin closure can be a problem. Admins have gone through a process and is "trusted". Non-admins have not. So we should check who closes what to make sure that closures are not made by someone who does not know the rules or policies.

So I prefer that admins help to close DR's faster. Easier said than done - I know. --MGA73 (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem if non-admins close DRs every now and then. Since they're all logged at User:DRBot/non-admin one just has to check this page to see if the closings are legimimate. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Leyo 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The instructions at COM:DEL explicitly state that this is fine: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it." Of course, the conditions of understanding the process and being sure of the decision apply to administrators as well. (I disagree somewhat with the wording in that I'd argue that non-admins can close controversial requests as well, provided that there is clear consensus. For example, despite the continued controversy over depictions of Muhammed, there is clear consensus to keep such illustrations, and non-admins who know what they're doing can safely close the frequent censorship-driven drive-by deletion requests that we see for these.)

That said, I would expect that all admins active in deletion request handling also have User:DRBot/non-admin on their watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Commons:Deletion requests/File:F minor chord for guitar ( barred).png, which looks like a good idea to me: closing DR's by changing them into speedy. Would this be uncontroversial? There are lots of DR's in the backlog that are blatant copyvios or simple exact duplicates, and this would be a way of handling such cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that several admins have User:DRBot/non-admin on the watchlist so lets trust that no mistakes happen (or they are spotted). If DR's are changed into speedy and not deleted "at once" I think that DRbot will take them for kept and put a notice on the talk page? --MGA73 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppeting through IP address

At first I thought it was just "accidental" that User:Officer was making some edits with his IP address, and others while logged in - but then I noticed he was actually double-voting on his own Requests for Deletion (all of which appear to be headed for speedy keep, since he was told the day before he made the requests that OTRS was pending on them). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghan Muja crossing from Saohol Sar pass in Durand border region of Pakistan, August 1985.png for example, the "IP" nominated 2 of the 9 images all nominated for deletion...except User:Officer then actually logs in and casts a "delete" vote agreeing with his own IP address. You'll notice the IP address actually used the identical wording in his nomination as User:Officer did in his nominations. Sherurcij (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I'm not using IPs. I just happen to come across that IP's nomination and decided to copy paste its words for the remaining ones. The IP is in Germany, I'm else where.--Officer (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's true I apologise of course, but the fact the IP has made 7 edits, all to pages you've edited does raise some alarm flags. Sherurcij (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like I'm mistaken after all, as this shows, an IP address nominates the file for deletion, and then User:Officer goes back and refines the deletion request. (Also note that he's trying to get a file clearly labelled as Attribution-only on Flickr deleted as "marked all rights reserved" even though it's an ISAF photo, and Turelio overruled the deletion request). When it went to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medic with the Afghan National Army.jpg by the IP address, guess who the first user to vote (and the only one to vote "Delete" on a clearly PD image) was? Again, User:Officer. There does seem to be some evidence of trying to votestack. Sherurcij (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time I placed the copyvio tag the Flickr page (ISAF) still had "all rights reserved". [1] I saw that ISAF flickr account since 2007 and all their images were protected but they now changed their license. Again, I'm not using IPs. It doesn't make any sense when I have a legitimate account in use.--Officer (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to continue the discussion here. Given the suspiccion by Sherurcij I checked 132.199.211.18 for users, there are no users. The edits on the ISAF Flickr images might be done by mistake or without knowledge of a license change as Officer said. @Officer, please make sure to check the copyright status again befor nominating and be more careful. The doubts in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medic with the Afghan National Army.jpg are ok, I share your opinion, the discussion was stoped because there is another reliable source saying that the image is PD and not because the Flickr licensing is considered valid always. @Sherurcij: Please solve the problems with the deletion request on Franzen images, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghan Muja crossing from Saohol Sar pass in Durand border region of Pakistan, August 1985.png and obtain the required permission. The images are uploaded 1 year ago and there is no OTRS permission documented, that means they are uploaded outside the regular process and a deletion request is the most harmless way to response that problem. --Martin H. (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ISS_Lunar_Outpost_Detail.jpg

Could someone track down the OTRS for this? I just realized I sent it originally to permissions at wikimedia, and I'm not even sure that's a valid address, so I just sent it again to permissions-commons at wikimedia. Thanks a million -Nard the Bard 18:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Best to post questions like this at COM:ON. permissions at wikimedia.org as well as permissions-commons, permissions-en, and an assortment of other addresses all end up in the same queue. I've just searched the mail queue for this but it hasn't shown up. Can you give us some fragment of the email address it was sent from or the subject line? Stifle (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll send you a private email, thanks. -Nard the Bard 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

This is obviously from the series and permission not freely given and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.24.125 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

 Done. Killiondude (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive admins

For admins listed at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section, who should place a steward request for removal of access where users have not requested to keep their access? Stifle (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stiffle,

You mean the inactivity list for aug-sept? Those list is completely done, I requested the removal on Meta and all those people that didn't sign have there access revoked.

Best regards,

Huib talk 11:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that!. If we are all done, it's not current any more perhaps... Maybe we should move that list to "prior" (leaving current empty for now) ? Not sure. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have emptied the page, and I have hide the part about the signing so it isn't so confusing anymore. I will send a note round to the current inactive admins this month with the message that they need to preform some admin actions otherwise they will get in the inactivity process in February.

I think its a good idea to warn before starting to process, its more mellow that way. Huib talk 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see; there was just nothing there to say it was completed. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked for removal on meta, left a thank you message on all talk pages, removed all the admin templates from the userpages, removed them from all lists but forgot the most important part, marking the page as done. Silly me, how could I forget that :( Huib talk 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Not sure if we should have revoked Cary Bass's mop. Heh. -Andrew c (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he can resysop himself if he really needs to (: Stifle (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions of User:Roman n k

Hello!

Can somebody with russian/ukrainian language skills check this user's contribs: [2]. This user uploaded several images of ukrainian homepage. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Permission is needed. Website legal page [3] states:

"Настоящий веб-сайт, а также авторское право на текст, графику, изображения, программное обеспечение и прочие размещенные на веб-сайте материалы, являются лицензированной собственностью СКМ. Использование материалов настоящего веб-сайта разрешается только в личных некоммерческих целях. "

"This webpage and author rights for the text, graphics, pictures, software and others materials hosted on this website is licensed property of СКМ. Use of materials of this website is permitted only for personal non-commercial purposes." --Justass (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MS certificate copyrighted/able?

Does the original shown in File:MCAS Excel 2007.PNG have enough "creativity" to be copyrightable (by MS)? What's your opinion? (It's the uploads's own certificate; but he doesn't own the design, of course.) --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's copyrighted. Should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster

Can someone close Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster. I think we are done discussing it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for going through all these files. -- User:Docu at 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cbf--PD--.jpg

File:Cbf--PD--.jpg has been deleted, but there are still 9 pages using this file. CommonsDelinker hasn't been active on Monday, Tuesday and Friday. So there are probably a lot of deleted files which were not delinked. -- Common Good (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Strange template

Hello Administrators!

I am a quite new User on Commons, this I have not enough experience and information about deeper regulations of Commons. There is a quite strange template for media files. This case is discussed in a deletion debate here. The creator of this template brings very curious and non-verifiable reasons. I think professional help is needed here. Thank you! Greets, A.Hakansson (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] toolserver.org Gallery pages

I've noticed that when one does an "Upload a new version of this file" even just for a minor edit like removing a watermark (which I've been doing several of recently), the file appears on my gallery, and more importantly, disappears from the gallery of the original uploader. On principle, I don't think this is right; the file should stay on on the gallery of the original uploader, so that they can e.g. keep track of what they've posted. I'm also uneasy about images appearing on my gallery when I don't deserve any credit for them. Can the gallery software be changed so that the file remains on the original uploader's gallery, rather than the editor's? - MPF (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not something that administrators in general can assist with. The Gallery tool is maintained by Duesentrieb (talk · contributions), as stated at the bottom of the page. I agree that files should still be shown in the gallery even if it's not the latest revision – I hadn't realised they weren't. I think showing updates is fine, but it would be good if the results could be filtered to show original uploads, update uploads or all uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll cross-post there - MPF (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This exact topic was discussed few year back at Village pump. At some point I was working on watermark removal, after re-uploading about 1000 files, my gallery page for my older files is quite useless and I am regularly getting automatic messages about deletion requests or requests to categorize "my" images. Also original uploders of the images were not happy I have seen cases of them reuploding the exact images I uploded just to get them back in the gallery tool. It would be good to have an option in toolserver.org Gallery pages to show either the original, last or any image upload. --63.167.255.155 13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point (or at least imply it) in that the issue may be broader than the Gallery tool. I think it would be a good idea to have the various scripts and bots message not only the latest uploader but all uploaders when concerns are raised. Is the current modus operandi the result of afterthought or technical convenience? Would a change be desirable and if so, what steps would need to be taken? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Derivative of Wikipedia ball

Would this File:Adults in Halloween Dress.jpg be acceptable with a "Wikimedia copyright" tag? --Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Or even without it, not unlike the cosplay images. –Tryphon^☂ 15:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, somebody had it already been deleted for copyvio[4]. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

undeleted until this discussion ends, I think the wikipedia logo isn't the minimums here. Huib talk 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is persecution of members legal?

User:Jaroslavleff started page to insult User:EvgenyGenkin.

I say it as a arbiter-in-reserve of ru.wiki Arbitration Committee with an access to information related to the suit about his unbanning.

I do not know, if there is any Commons rules to prevent such behaviour? If there is such - can you warn User:Jaroslavleff?

If necessary I can present additional information. Carn (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons has the same rules about respectful behaviour and assuming good faith as any other project. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean I am not assuming good faith in respect with Jaroslavleff, and by writing notice above I show unrespectful behaviour? I should know for sure if the answer on topic if "yes" or "no". Persecution as trolling can look like respectful behavior in each small situation.

I do not want to punish someone, I want to prevent possible harm associated with the resignation of the persecuted members from the project.Carn (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] deletion request

expert19612005 Hallo Könnt ihr bitte meine Bilder löschen? Ich weiss nicht wie das geht. Habe angst das mich jemand von meiner Arbeit erkennt. Habe nicht richtig darüber nachgedacht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert19612005 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 18. Nov. 2009 (UTC)

Alle? --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Julica-und-fefe.jpg

Could I get some admin eyes on the edit warring going on at File:Julica-und-fefe.jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. The author has the right to decide how he wants to be attributed, even if it is a link. -- Cecil (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to have a look at Special:Contributions/77.176.210.177. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will do. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. But one question: Why cant I (semi-)cascade protect the userpage User:Ralf Roletschek/gallery? Thats the first time I want to use this tool and I cant :/ --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is not possible to semi-cascade protect per bugzilla:8796 (although in this case it would be extremly usefull). --Martin H. (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CFD not completely closed out

Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/U.S. Routes by state subcategories was closed and the categories were renamed per the result of the CFD, but the original categories were not deleted (see Category:U.S. Routes by state; the old categories are the "U.S. Routes in..." and "U.S. highways in..."). Can someone clear these out? Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 10:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done using Twinkle. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg

I've escalated the page protection due to excessive version-warring (very old painting overwritten by totally different modern photo) to full protection. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconds befor I decided to do the same. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)