Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Skip to the bottom

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Community Portal   Village Pump
(copyright & proposals)		   Help Desk
(Upload help)		   Administrators' Noticeboard
(vandalism, user problems, blocks and protections)		   Graphics Lab  
Administrator's assistance
Vandalism
(edit | watch)		 User problems
(edit | watch)		 Blocks and protections
(edit | watch)		 Other
(edit | watch)
English: Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
Suomi: Raportoi ilmeisistä vandalismitapauksista. Muut estopyynnöt jätettäköön estojen ja suojauksen ilmoitustaululle.
Italiano: Segnala qui le utenze responsabili di vandalismi palesi. Richieste di blocco per qualsiasi altra ragione vanno effettuate nella sezione Politiche di blocco e protezione.
日本語: 明白な荒らし利用者の報告所。それ以外を理由とするブロック依頼はブロックと保護へ。
한국어: 문서 훼손을 저지른 사용자를 신고하는 곳입니다. 다른 이유로 인한 차단 요청은 차단 및 보호 요청 문서에 남겨주세요.
മലയാളം: ഉപയോക്താക്കളുടെ ഉറപ്പായ വാൻഡലിസത്തിനെക്കുറിച്ച് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കുക. മറ്റ് കാരണങ്ങൾക്ക് ഉപയോക്താക്കളെ തടയാനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകൾ തടയലുകളും സംരക്ഷണങ്ങളും എന്ന താളിലാണ് അറിയിക്കേണ്ടത്.
Svenska: Rapportera användare för tydliga tecken på vandalism. Begäran av blockering för någon annan anledning ska rapporteras på anslagstavlan för blockeringar och skydd.
Українська: Повідомляйте про користувачів, що явно займаються вандалізмом. Запити щодо блокування з будь-якої іншої причини повинні бути повідомлені на дошку для оголошень щодо блокування та захисту.
English: Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
Suomi: Raportoi ylläpitäjän väliintulon vaativa käyttäjän ongelmallinen toiminta. Käytä käyttäjäongelmien ilmoitustaulua jollei ylläpitäjää tarvita.
Italiano: Segnala qui eventuali conflitti con altri utenti che richiedano l'intervento di un amministratore. In caso un amministratore non sia necessario si consiglia di utilizzare la sezione Risoluzione dei conflitti.
한국어: 관리자의 개입이 필요한 분쟁을 해결하는 곳입니다. 관리자의 개입이 필요하지 않다면 분쟁 해결 게시판을 이용하시기 바랍니다.
മലയാളം: മറ്റൊരു ഉപയോക്താവുമായുള്ള തർക്കത്തിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർ ഇടപെടണമെങ്കിൽ ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കുക. കാര്യനിർവാഹകരുടെ സഹായം ആവശ്യമില്ലെങ്കിൽ തർക്കങ്ങളുടെ നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡിൽ ആണ് ഇക്കാര്യം അറിയിക്കേണ്ടത്.
Svenska: Rapportera tvister med användare som kräver hjälp av en administratör. Använd anslagstavlan för användarproblem om ingen administratörshjälp behövs.
Українська: Повідомляйте про суперечки з користувачами, котрі потребують допомоги адміністратора. Подальші кроки показані на сторінці щодо вирішення суперечок.
English: Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
Italiano: Utilizza questa sezione per segnalare problemi non riferibili al vandalismo. Qui vanno anche le richieste di protezione e sprotezione pagine.
한국어: 문서 훼손 관련 관리자 요청에 맞지 않는 차단 요청이나 문서의 보호/보호 해제 요청을 이곳에서 할 수 있습니다.
മലയാളം: വാൻഡലിസം നോട്ടീസ്ബോർഡിൽ അനുചിതമായ അപേക്ഷകൾ ഇവിടെ നൽകാം. ഒരു താളിന്റെ സംരക്ഷിക്കാനുള്ള/സംരക്ഷണം മാറ്റാനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകളും ഇവിടെ നൽകാവുന്നതാണ്.
Svenska: Rapporteringar som inte passar anslagstavlan för vandalism kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sidskydd eller borttagning av sidskydd kan också begäras här.
Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit kuuluttaa vandalismin ilmoitustaululle sopimattomat ilmoitukset. Tällä ilmoitustaululla voit myös pyytää sivun suojaamista tai suojauksen purkua.
中文（简体）‎: 这里可以报告不适合破坏行为布告栏的报告。这里亦可以请求页面保护/解除保护。
Українська: Повідомлення, що не підходять для дошки для оголошень щодо вандалізму можна залишити тут. Запити щодо встановлення чи зняття захисту зі сторінок також можна запитати тут.
English: Other reports that require administrator assistance (i.e. requested moves/renames) 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.
Suomi: Tällä ilmoitustaulla voit kuuluttaa muille ilmoitustauluille sopimattomat ylläpitäjän huomion vaativat tehtävät ja ilmoitukset, esimerkiksi suojattujen sivujen siirrot. Pyynnöt sivuhistorian yhdistämisestä tai jakamisesta tulee tehdä täällä.
Italiano: Segnalazioni varie, non ricomprese tra le precedenti, che richiedano l'intervento di un amministratore (spostamenti, ridenominazioni, etc.); Se il tuo problema riguarda l'unione o la separazione delle cronologie pagine, allora puoi rivolgerti qui.
한국어: 다른 관리자 요청 문서에 맞지 않는 일반적인 관리에 대해 관리자의 도움을 요청하는 곳입니다.
മലയാളം: മറ്റ് മൂന്ന് നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡുകളിലും ചേരാത്ത അപേക്ഷകൾ (പേര് മാറ്റൽ തുടങ്ങിയവ) ഇവിടെ നൽകാം. നാൾവഴിയിൽ മാറ്റം വരുത്തി നാൾവഴി ഭാഗിക്കാനോ യോജിപ്പിക്കാനോ ഉള്ള അപേക്ഷകൾ നൽകാൻ ഇവിടെ ഞെക്കുക.
Svenska: Andra rapporteringar som kräver administratörshjälp (t.ex. begärda flyttningar/namnbyten) som inte passar i någon av de föregående anslagstavlorna kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sammanslagning eller delning av historik ska lämnas in här.
Українська: Інші повідомлення, що потребують допомоги адміністратора (наприклад, запити на переміщення/перейменування), які не підходять до жодної з трьох попередніх дощок оголошень можуть бути залишені тут. Запити щодо об'єднання або роз'єднання історії мають бути зроблені тут.
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
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
English: 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.
العربية: هذا هو المكان حيث يمكن للمستخدمين التواصل مع الإداريين، أو الإداريين مع بعضهم البعض. يمكنك الإبلاغ عنه التخريب، المستخدمين الذين يسببون مشاكل، أو أي شيء آخر يحتاج للتدخل من قبل إداري.
Azərbaycanca: Bu bölüm istifadəçilərin idarəçilərlə ünsiyyət qura biləcəklər bir yerdir. Bir idarəçiyə vandalizmle müdaxilə ehtiyacı, problemli istifadəçilər ya da başqa bir şey ifadə edəbilərsiniz.
Català: Aquest és el lloc destinat a que els usuaris puguin comunicar-se amb els administradors, o viceversa. Podeu notificar edicions vandàliques, reclamar l'atenció sobre usuaris problemàtics, o indicar qualsevol altre assumpte que requereixi la intervenció d'un administrador.
Česky: Tato stránka slouží uživatelům ke komunikaci se správci zde na Commons, nebo ke komunikaci správců mezi sebou. Můžete zde nahlásit vandalismus, problematické uživatele nebo další záležitosti, které mohou díky svým pravomocem vyřešit jen správci.
Deutsch: Diese Seite ist für Gespräche mit Administratoren. Du kannst hier Probleme melden, die den Eingriff eines Administrators nötig machen, zum Beispiel Vandalismus oder Probleme mit anderen Benutzern.
Ελληνικά: Αυτή είναι μια σελίδα στην οποία οι χρήστες μπορούν να επικοινωνήσουν με διαχειριστές, ή οι διαχειριστές με κάποιον άλλο. Μπορείτε να αναφέρετε βανδαλισμούς, χρήστες που προκαλούν προβλήματα, ή οτιδήποτε άλλο χρειάζεται την παρέμβαση ενός διαχειριστή.
Esperanto: Ĉi tie estas loko kie uzantoj povas interkomunikiĝi kun administrantoj, aŭ administrantoj unu kun la alia. Vi povas raporti pri vandalismo, problemaj uzantoj, kaj ĉio alia, kio bezonas intervenon de administranto.
Español: Este es el sitio destinado a que los usuarios puedan comunicarse con los administradores, o viceversa. Puede notificar un vandalismo, reclamar atención sobre usuarios problemáticos, o indicar cualquier otro asunto que requiera la intervención de un administrador.
فارسی: این جا مکانیست که کاربران با مدیران، یا مدیران با یکدیگر می‌توانند ارتباط برقرار کنند. شما می‌توانید خرابکاری، کاربران مشکل‌ساز، یا هر آن چیز دیگری که نیاز به اقدام مدیران داشته باشد را گزارش کنید.
Français: Cette page est destinée à permettre aux utilisateurs et aux administrateurs de communiquer entre eux. Vous pouvez utiliser cette page pour signaler des actes de vandalisme, des utilisateurs au comportement problématique, ou tout autre fait nécessitant l'intervention d'un administrateur. Si vous ne maîtrisez que le français, la page Commons:Bistro reste cependant utilisable et vous y trouverez des administrateurs francophones.
Frysk: Op dizze side kinne meidoggers oerlizze mei behearders, of behearders mei inoar. Jo kinne hjir fandalisme, problematyske meidoggers en oare saken dy't oandacht fan in behearder freegje melde.
हिन्दी: यह वह स्थान है जहाँ सदस्य प्रबंधकों से, तथा प्रबंधक एक दूसरे से संवाद कर सकते हैं। आप बर्बरता, समस्याग्रस्त सदस्य या कोई और विषय जिसके लिए एक प्रबंधक के हस्तक्षेप की ज़रूरत हो, यहाँ बयान कर सकते हैं।
日本語: このページは、管理者同士、あるいは、利用者ユーザがJA:管理者,EN：administratorsと連絡を取るための場所です。問題のあるユーザを報告したり、荒らしユーザを通報したり、管理者の協力や仲介を必要とする事項などにご利用ください。
한국어: 이 문서는 사용자가 관리자, 혹은 관리자가 다른 관리자와 의견을 교환하는 곳입니다. 문서를 훼손하거나 문제가 있는 사용자를 보고하거나, 관리자의 중재가 필요한 사항이 있으면 이곳을 이용해주십시오.
Македонски: Ова е место каде што корисниците можат да комуницираат со администраторите, или пак администраторите меѓусебно. Тука можете да пријавувате вандализам, проблематични корисници, или било што друго кога има потреба од администраторска интервенција.
മലയാളം: കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുമായി ആശയവിനിമയം ചെയ്യാനുള്ള വേദിയാണിത്, കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർക്ക് തമ്മിൽ തമ്മിൽ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യാനും ഈ താൾ ഉപയോഗിക്കാം. നശീകരണ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, പ്രശ്നകാരികളായ ഉപയോക്താക്കളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുടെ ഇടപെടൽ ആവശ്യമായ മറ്റെന്തെങ്കിലും വിഷയങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ താങ്കൾക്ക് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.
Bân-lâm-gú: 遮是予用者佮管理員、抑管理員佮管理員咧講代誌的所在，你會當報告破壞、製造問題的用者抑其他需要管理員處理的代誌。
Norsk bokmål: Dette er en side for å kommunisere med administratorer. Her kan du melde fra om problemer som krever administratorers inngripen; for eksempel vandalisme eller problemer med andre brukere.
Polski: Jest to miejsce, gdzie użytkownicy mogą kontaktować się z administratorami lub administratorzy ze sobą nawzajem. Możesz zgłosić tu akt wandalizmu, problematycznego użytkownika albo cokolwiek, do czego potrzebna jest interwencji administratora.
Italiano: Questa è la pagina in cui gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o questi ultimi tra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore.
Magyar: Ezen a helyen üzenhetnek a szerkesztők az adminisztrátoroknak, vagy az adminisztrátorok egymásnak. Itt jelentheted a vandalizmust, a problémás szerkesztőket, vagy bármi más olyat, amihez adminisztrátori közreműködésre van szükség.
Português: Este é o local no qual os usuários podem se comunicar com os administradores, ou onde os administradores podem conversar uns com os outros. Aqui você pode relatar casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador.
Română: Această pagină este destinată comunicării dintre utilizatori şi administratori sau între administratori. Aici poţi semnala cazuri de vandalism, utilizatori cu comportament problematic, precum şi alte situaţii care necesită intervenţia unui administrator.
Русский: Это место, где участники могут обратиться к администраторам, а администраторы обсудить вопросы друг с другом. Вы можете сообщить о вандализме, некорректных действиях участников и всём прочем, что, по вашему мнению, нуждается во вмешательстве администраторов.
Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit keskustella ylläpitäjien kanssa. Voit esimerkiksi ilmoittaa meneillään olevasta vandalismista, ongelmakäyttäjistä tai mistä tahansa muusta joka tarvitsee ylläpitäjien huomiota.
Nederlands: Op deze plaats kunnen gebruikers communiceren met de beheerders, of de beheerders met elkaar. U kunt hier vandalen, of probleemgebruikers melden, of andere dingen die de aandacht van een beheerder nodig hebben.
Slovenčina: Táto stránka slúži používateľom na komunikáciu so správcami tu na Commons, alebo na komunikáciu správcov navzájom. Môžete tu nahlásiť vandalizmus, problematických používateľov alebo ďalšie záležitosti, ktoré môžu vďaka svojím právomociam vyriešiť len správcovia.
Српски / srpski: Ово је место где корисници могу да комуницирају са администраторима, или администратори са другима. Овде можете пријавити вандализам, проблематичне кориснике, или било шта друго што тражи интервенцију администратора.
Svenska: Det här är en sida där användare kan prata med administratörer, eller där administratörer kan prata med varandra. Du kan rapportera vandalism, problematiska användare eller någonting som behöver en administratörs ingripande.
Türkçe: Bu bölüm kullanıcıların yöneticilerle iletişim kurabilecekleri bir yerdir. Bir yöneticiye vandalizmle müdahale ihtiyacı, sorunlu kullanıcılar ya da başka bir şey bildirebilirsiniz.
Tiếng Việt: Đây là nơi người dùng có thể liên lạc với bảo quản viên, hoặc giữa những bảo quản viên với nhau. Bạn có thể báo cáo phá hoại, thành viên có vấn đề, hoặc bất cứ điều gì khác cần đến sự can thiệp của một bảo quản viên.
中文（简体）‎: 这里是用户能够与管理员或与管理员及另一个人沟通的地方。你可以报告破坏行为、问题用户或其他需要管理员干预的事情。
中文（繁體）‎: 這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員之間進行通訊的地方。您可以在此回報破壞、有問題的用戶，或其他需要管理員介入的事情。
Shqip: Ky është një vend ku përdoruesit mund të komunikojnë me administruesit, ose administruesit me njëri-tjetrin. Mund të raportosh vandalizëm, përdorues problematik dhe gjithçka tjetër ku ka nevojë për ndërhyrje të administruesve.
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg

Note

  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links if required as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • If appropriate, 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.


Contents


Broken location template [edit]

One of the location templates seems to have been modified and screwed up - every image with geocoding I now see (in addition to the geocode) has in red {{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude. I can't find what was changed though. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

+1. But I see this error message only on my two very recent uploads, and only when there are decimal places. All previous ones look OK. Very strange --A.Savin 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Update: now I see it on several of my older uploads as well. It also seems that the files are now automatically sorted in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags which recently contains about 9.000 files. --A.Savin 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

see also Template talk:Object location#Decimals are an error? and Commons:Forum#Meckermeldung_in_Koordinaten
maybe caused by [1]?
i've left a notice on Commons talk:Geocoding. Holger1959 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
{{#coordinates:}} seems to always complain about an invalid latitude when you give it a valid one. Would point to a problem with mw:Extension:GeoData? I imagine if you force any pages that look ok to be rerendered (edit or purge them) then they will show the error, but only pages using {{Object location}}. Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags currently has 1385 members –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I undid the last edit on {{Object location}} to see if it has any effect (it doesn't seem to). Bit of a long shot because it's a bit old for something that people are only just noticing now –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This has done nothing except make the error more visible as the template is rerendered across ~80000 pages, sorry :/ (Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags was already slowly filling as people rerendered pages by editing them)
This does however seem to rule out the template as causing the problem.
The strange behaviour of the parser function is shown at User:Moogsi/Invalid latitude. Probably. I'm way out of my depth so I'll leave it here –⁠moogsi (blah) 04:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem in the GeoData extension. It was broken here and fixed on 11:14, 2013-05-02 (unknown timezone), but the latter isn't deployed yet. Lupo 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Deployed now. Max Semenik (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed by the lovely MaxSem, now deployed –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 10:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thank you, too Holger1959 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Tracked in Bugzilla (?)
Bug 48488
To me it still appears to be broken. A few minutes ago my File:Stuyvesant Fish house 2013-04-29 12-17.jpg was showing "invalid latitude". When I changed the coords from DM.xxS to DMS.x it stopped complaining. Has DM.xxx with S=0 become an unaccepted format? If so, hundreds of my coords will show this error flag even though Google Earth is going to the correct location when I click. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Until the pages are "touched", they will continue to show the error (see #Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags below). The coordinates you entered are still fine, you don't have to correct anything yourself –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems like we still have a small problem here, as Jim.henderson says above. Some pages that previously showed no error before the bug still do. It seems to be a case of co-ordinates in H|M|S format, where M is a decimal and S is 0. This affects far fewer pages than before but it's still a problem –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Problem is demonstrated at User:Moogsi/Invalid_latitude. Bug report is bugzilla:48488 –⁠moogsi (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags [edit]

Picking up the above discussion (Broken location template): Any idea how long it will take until Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags will be updated? There are currently 12.000+ files in the cat, of which approx 11.500 are most likely without error. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 08:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

{{object location}} was edited again after the fix was deployed. 80000 pages transclude the template, so at least another day until they are all done? –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This kind of categories can take a long time to correct themselves, so I would give it a little longer than a few days. Last time someone corrected {{#coordinate}} when files did not clear from the category, after a week or so, I just run python "touch" code. --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a couple of days now and nothing happend, still 10.000+ entries. However, the touch.py-Method (take each page and save it, without making any changes) does work. Can someone please trigger the bot? -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
My bot will processing on it.  @xqt 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done  @xqt 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass speedy image deletions without due process or rationale [edit]

Seventeen PD images, all used in articles, were just mass deleted summarily over just 14 minutes, without tags, warnings, notices, or any rationale of substance. I have asked User talk:Denniss‎ to explain, without comment yet. All of the deleted images had clearly verified non-copyright status. Any review would be appreciated. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"
You might take that to Commons:Undeletion requests. --Túrelio (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This isn't an undeletion request, but a request for due process. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
These images just had your usual claims - no copyright notice, not renewed, publicity still et al. But most/all of these images just showed the front page and not the back so impossible to verify your claim. One image even had a visible copyright notice. --Denniss (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a list of images that have been deleted or will be - trying to fix all the affected Wiki pages - hope its not in the hundreds. And have these images been added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikiwatcher1? Moxy (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no basis for thinking a copyright notice for a publicity photo would be printed on the back. Quite the opposite: as such notices are in 99.99% of the time printed on the front. Anyone can scan eBay or any site with such images, and you will always see the photo described on the front with any notices. Unilaterally deleting valuable PD images based on totally illogical criteria, should not be allowed.
In fact, copyright laws have made this issue clear, with legal scholars having stated that publicity photos are "traditionally not copyrighted." In any case, the very first image on the list did have the reverse side showing. Can someone try to explain why an "Official Policy" of the Commons, the Precautionary principle, is being totally ignored? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Another deleted image, File:Gene Hackman 1972.JPG , as I review some, also had the full front and back. After it too was deleted without notice or rationale, User:Moxy immediately added a replacement to the article it was used in, as they did with the others. This "reverse-side" image rationale is erroneous. So not only are fully valid PD images being deleted, but there is no DR notice as required. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I was asked on my user talk page to comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought speedy deletion of images as probable copyright violations was intended for cases where we have solid reason to believe the image is copyrighted and that the uploader is not the rights holder. If we merely doubt that the image is in the public domain, but have no particular evidence, it should go through DR. No? - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This user has a long history of uploading images with wrong claims of no copyright, not renewed etc, please see also the link posted by Moxy. And to have at least a minimum verification of the no-notice claim we need to have uncropped images of both front and back. Images without this get deleted without further notice. Then we have cases with claims of no copyright registered or not renewed, uploader does not seem to actually look for a possible registration but resists on the publicity still argument pasted all over the image pages. And the Matthau image has a copyright statement (although no date but sufficient to believe they have registered it later). --Denniss (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't {{PD-US-defective notice}} apply for Matthau? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support due process, take this to a DR and use a process the community recognizes rather than making it up as you go along. Denniss, if your action is not unambiguously covered by a section in Administrators or Deletion policy, then the request here to follow "due process" seems entirely right, no matter how chequered Wikiwatcher1's history is. If Wikiwatcher1 is persistantly breaking Licensing then it would be better to follow the deletion process as stated, and apply Blocking policy if Wikiwatcher1 is not appropriately changing their behaviour. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Denniss is incorrect on most of his statements. There is not, and never has been, any requirement that an image needs to show the front and back. That would be a complete waste of energy and server space, as copyright notices are rarely put on the back. You are also wrong about my not doing a copyright search when necessary, since I always use it when a search is necessary. Nor do I ever "rest" on the publicity still argument, but only add it as a "See also," with a link to the legal sources for added general information. And you are also wrong that the Matthau image would imply that simply because it was published between 1978 and 1989, that fact is "sufficient to believe" it would have been registered later. The exact opposite is true, as in the U.S. at least, per all the legal experts cited in film still, "Publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted." However, you are correct that I have a long history of uploading images. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
As WW1's en.wiki CCI points out, as of Dec '11 we need stronger evidence of PD-ness as affirmed by the Foundation's legal side (thus applicable to all foundation projects). That said - without knowing if WW1 is under any specific blocks or remedies on commons - the lack of due process to give time for WW1 to better demonstrate copyright was not done, and I don't see anything under speedy deletion for commons here that would allow these to have been deleted without the 7 day period. I agree there's reason to question their PD-ness but nothing that would allow speedy deletion. But again, I can't tell if WW1 is under sanctions here on commons or not. --Masem (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I think what's needed even more is evidence of copyright-ness, since lack of it creates the PD itself. As Copyfraud shows, along with cases like Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., there are way more works that WP won't use due to simple fraud. As the author of the book Copyfraud (2011) explains, "The Bridgeman Art Library is not alone in claiming copyrights in digital reproductions of public domain art. Corbis, founded by Bill Gates, is a digital archive of art and photography . . . with over one hundred million images. . . Corbis's license agreement requires users to 'include a copyright notice and credit adjacent to each Image. . . " And, "seemingly undeterred by its loss in court, the Bridgeman Art Library continues to assert copyright in reproductions of the Mona Lisa and other public domain works."
A large percentage of images I uploaded years ago which were later deleted, were because User:We Hope saw the image on Corbis's web site, (example) where the web page itself had a notice. BTW, Corbis and Bettman have only filed actual registrations on a few thousand images, all newer ones, out of their claimed ownership of over a hundred million. In doing any further PD policy work, it wouldn't hurt to contact Mazzone for input. There's no reason that WP needs to submit to "overreaching," which he states "interferes with legitimate uses and reproduction of a wide variety of works, imposes enormous social and economic costs, and ultimately undermines creative endeavors." And FWIW, I'm willing to help on any research. I've had a few years of law school, took the copyright course at Boalt, and even consulted with the copyright attorney for Google when they were starting out, among other things. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for speedy deletion here. Regular DR would be sufficient. I think the images should be undeleted and regular DR should be applied if still necessary. --Jarekt (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If you follow this discussion you may also be interested in Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mateusmoreira55 [edit]

This user uploads the same copyrighted image even after many speedy delitions again and again. Actually his uploads are of different sizes and different names but otherwise are same. I suggest to stop him! -- Ies (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Blocked already 4 minutes ago. --Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Open and transparent bot operation [edit]

I suggest that bot operation should be open and transparent, in so far as possible. I suggest when one sees a bot make a series of mystifying actions, the edit summary for an explanation, or for a link to a page where an explanation can be found.

Maybe there is a good reason why certain images don't belong in one category, and should really belong in another category? Fine. But a good faith contributor who made an honest mistake, they deserve an edit summary that is informative they can see why some other human being thought it was a mistake.

Here is a case in point. Yesterday I created Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed, and populated it with some new images I uploaded, as well as moving some existing images that I thought fit from the overpopulated Category:Union Station (Toronto). Today I find that someone I have no idea who directed SieBot to usurp all those images and put them in a narrower category -- Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto). Again, I have no idea why the mystery usurper directed the bot to usurp those images.

What I do know is that some of the usurped images don't belong in the narrower category, and neither do about two dozen related images I will be uploading, as time permits.

In my opinion mysterious and high-handed category usurpation is an ongoing problem -- particularly when it is standard practice for administrators to delete empty categories on sight, and there is no good way for an administrator to check to see whether a category was recently emptied through vandalism, or through an innocent, but controversial usurpation.

I suggest that bots, like apparently Siebot, that accept direction from a list, or reasonable equivalent, should leave edit summaries that leave an explicit audit trail to the real human being who directed an action. In this case, rahter than edit summaries that said: "(Robot: Moving category Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed to Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto))" is should have left one that said something like: '(Robot: Moving category Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed to Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto)) -- as per [[Commons:Recategorization lists/Categories that don't comply with XXX..." -- where XXX was a policy, or a link to a discussion with wide participation. At least that way one could learn why someone thought the recategorization was a good idea. Possibly the explanation there would be sufficient to convince interested parties that recategorization was as good idea. And, if the interested party wasn't convinced, they could directly ask the person who directed the recategorization to explain more fully.

In my opinion the WMF projects should not be run so insiders can do whatever they think best, without explanation. Those insiders may be corrrect, are probably correct, at least most of the time. But, since the projects rely on volunteer effort, and new volunteers are arriving all the time, I suggest the purpose of each bot action should be understandable to any interested party prepared to read and follow the links in its edit summaries. Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Geo, I was the one who moved this category. The name was inconsistent with the rest of its category tree, the form of disambiguation was inconsistent with the rest of the subcategories for this station and the capitalization was wrong. This is fairly routine clean-up work on its face, given that the category and its content were otherwise maintained as is. If you had a different intention for this category than was obvious from the content or the name, then you should absolutely raise that as an issue (as you have), and explain why you think the move was problematic and needs to be looked at. Unfortunately none of us always know what is going to be controversial or what is going to be routine, and in those cases the way to move forward is to assume good faith and discuss the issue. No disrepect was intended, and I certainly wasn't trying to make your life difficult.

Nobody here is entitled to do anything without explanation. There is so much category clean-up being undertaken every day that we can't initiate a CFD every time (although if there is some suggestion that something could be controversial, the move should be preceded by a note on a talk page, a CFD discussion, etc.). Images move using SieBot or by way of Cat-a-lot don't come with an edit summary (although for Siebot you can always see who initiated the move by looking at the edit history at COM:CDC). However, in such cases the clean-up of the former category should be accompanied by an edit summary (in this case I haven't even had a chance to address the former category yet as this move only just happened and Siebot did not appear to be functioning when I first added this request).

If you disagree with a move, start a discussion on the category talk page or the mover's talk page, or start a CFD. In all the discussions I have seen, I have never seen anyone not engage you respectfully when discussing a category you created. In this case, I think you may have started a discussion on the category talk page, so I will see what you have to say over there.

Third, I am not sure why you think someone "usurped" something here. That's not what happened. That's the second time this month I have seen you make such an accusation against someone who changed a category name you created to make it consistent, and it isn't an accurate or helpful accusation.

Finally, I agree with you about edit summaries for Siebot. I actually stopped listing reasons when I initiate a move at COM:CDC quite some time ago because it seemed pointless to do so. If there was some way to capture the rationale in an edit summary, or even just the initiator's name, that would be helpful. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I had initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed half an hour prior to initiating this thread.
I still see the bot not leaving useful edit summaries as a serious problem. I have been contributing to the commons since 2005, and had never heard of COM:CDC until this discussion. So i regard it as essential that the bot link to the COM:CDC discussion. I would urge people to not use this bot until it does leave edit summaries that would help a contributor figure out why it had performed its actions. Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
CDC is news to me too. I absolutely agree that the bot should be modified for full accountability. — Scott • talk 10:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker is not working [edit]

Hi, the Delinker is not working. No replacement and no deletion. Can anyone fix them? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  08:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Toolserver is currently (mostly or completely) down, just wait for it to come back. --Nemo 09:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Translate extension [edit]

This has some (unanimous) support but needs more comments, can you please link it from MediaWiki:Watchlist-details or sitenotice? Thanks, Nemo 09:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done at MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary (See talk page for the change from Watchlist-details). --whym (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Updating Licensing tutorial image in Macedonian [edit]

I translated the Licensing tutorial a while ago but failed to see that I had not used the option to make it propely legible. I have since corrected this, but cannot re-upload it to File:Licensing tutorial mk.svg in any way (there is a note to that effect where the re-upload link should be). What should I do? Can someone enable re-upload for a time while I do it, or? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just unprotected the file—go ahead and upload the corrected version. odder (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks a lot for the prompt response! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Promotional username [edit]

User:INaCAGE Music and User:INaCAGE (band)--Motopark (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. I've blocked both accounts and deleted their contribs. 3 accounts of this user have been blocked on en.wiki for spam/promotion. INeverCry 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver down [edit]

Toolserver's geohack is not working, clicking on 'Camera location' on a file leads (after a tiresomely long wait) to a timeout. This is a long-lasting problem happening on-and-off (more often failing than not) for some time (several months). I note also Nemo's comment above (09:20, 12 May 2013) "The Toolserver is currently (mostly or completely) down, just wait for it to come back" - but how long must one wait? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Any hopes of getting it working again? - MPF (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WMF is rolling out a new labs project which will house some bots that currently reside on Toolserver. It all takes time, and there are decisions that the bot operators will be needing to make. All we can say is watch the appropriate spaces. Wikipedia Signpost reports on these matters occasionally in their technology section.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Category renaming [edit]

Is it possible to rename the following categories:

This is the new proposed name for our Thematic Organization. Thank you.--Arnaugir (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure this is the correct name? Just making sure that you don't want to use the è in Wikimèdia… odder (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, without the è. :-) see: [2]. Thank you. --Arnaugir (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done, please let me know if there are other categories that you want to have moved. odder (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Zmaan-888 [edit]

User has been uploading numerous copyright violations. S/he was warned on 14:07, 8 May 2013 but has continued. All uploads need to be deleted and the user likely merits a block. Thanks! --auburnpilot talk 03:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 03:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki page edit request [edit]

Coming here because I don't expect to get any input at the talk page.

Could you please edit MediaWiki:Uploadtext to add "identifiable" before "people taken without their consent"? The following sentence talks about identifiable people, but someone might be confused or might try to wikilawyer something by claming that all photos of people would need permission; I just want to ensure that nobody uses this statement as a result to ask for the deletion of images such as File:Paducah Masonic Temple site.jpg, which obviously shows living people but not in an identifiable way. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion of Armenian FOP-deleted images [edit]

Dear colleagues, Recently the (noncommercial) restrictions to the freedom of panorama in Armenia have been lifted. Therefore I think that most of the files deleted per Category:Armenian FOP cases can be undeleted. I have dealt with two cases, but I think I will not have more time to do so today. Perhaps some of you can help going through these. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Try to be careful with adding {{FoP-Armenia}} in case someone has missed the recent change at COM:FOP#Armenia. If there is an FOP template there, there's a smaller risk that someone will nominate the files for deletion again. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Marisa Pavan.jpg [edit]

Hi,

It has been suggested on English wikipedia that this image is in fact of her sister Pier Angeli. Google images searches tend to support this. If this is the case then the image needs to be re-named. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriately named images [edit]

I would like to humbly suggest that in this category it is inappropriate to use names like 'black cock' rather than more respectful terminology. I note as well the racist implications of using this kind of slang, when other photos are named in a more scientific manner. And finally I humbly suggest that you look with extreme skepticism on all human sexuality related images that are uploaded by single purpose accounts with no proof (nor even evidence) of the claim that this is 'own work'.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1st part (4 images:[3],[4],[5],[6]): ✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that "colored" is not racist, while "black" is? I know a lot of black individuals who would disagree with you. If you wish to make it even more racist than it is now, you can say "colored boy" (the term 'boy' needs to be pronounced with the southern accent) that will not only make a neutral (but non-pc) term racist, but will also get a rise out of "OMG CHILD PORN" croud. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
As I am not a native-english-speaker feel free to rename them more appropriately, though a bit less aggressive attitude towards other users would be welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realise that you are not a native speaker of English. In many countries (USA included) the term "colored" is considered extremely offensive by many people. As for the question about the appropriate name I would go with either "Black cock" or "Black penis", preferably the former since the image is not medical in nature and there's no reason to apply medical terminology. But, of course, Jimbo doesn't like it. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Why the former? Penis is the default neutral term in English; it's not medical terminology. Cock is vulgar. Maybe it would be nice if English had terms between penis and cock in formality, but it doesn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest tally-whacker? russavia (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Typo in #3... unless it's a pacifist vegan penis.Clin — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Around server-time 18:13 UTC I have renamed them again, now to File:Penis8 uplByMs65876.jpg, File:Penis7 uplByMs65876.jpg and File:Penis3 uplByMs65876.jpg (I didn't touch the 4th file as it's subject to a DR), assuming that this is at least 200% pc. --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, and welcome back to Commons. We welcome your comments, and this is something that could be looked at. Perhaps you would like to pitch in with this effort. You can use {{Rename}} on any image to request a rename. Your reasoning would be #7 from Commons:File renaming. If you would like to pitch in and do some of these we would welcome that. You might even find a few problematic images, for example copyright violations, that you could take to COM:DR for community review. We are of course a collaborative community and if everyone pitched in and helped, these issues would be dealt with in a much nicer time frame. In fact, scrub the use of {{rename}}; I've just given you the file mover right, so you can now move files to a more appropriate name; just be sure to get a quick grasp of that policy, and quote the rationale (in this case #7) in the reason, and you're set to go. If you run into any snags, we're here to help. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"And finally I humbly suggest that you look with extreme skepticism on all human sexuality related images that are uploaded by single purpose accounts with no proof (nor even evidence) of the claim that this is 'own work'." That's the default practice, unfortunately. There are countless explicit images that fit that description, and they tend to survive every deletion request unless you have absolute proof that the image is problematic. --Conti|✉ 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the word "Black" certainly is not racist, replacing it with "colored" is more likely to cause offence to the general public and replacing it with "African" or "African American" would be bizarrely inaccurate. As for "cock", yes it can be swapped to penis as a slightly more accurate word, however this is such a common English word for penis that Commons even redirects the category cock to penis. If there needs to be a discussion about what counts as defamatory language on Wikimedia projects, I suggest we move from the 1970s use of American English and move to modern international English by starting with the word "queer", which apparently has been determined to be okay to use to randomly describe gay contributors to Wikimedia projects, and the WMF actively defers to that consensus when interpreting its website terms of use. --Fæ (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to determine the cultural heritage of a human penis from a photograph of said penis. Attempting to do so will only result in an arbitrary classification that is virtually guaranteed to perpetuate racial stereotypes. It's a question of accuracy not "political correctness". ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed an interesting question. How about we simple use the HEX/RGB/Pantone colour of said penis, and rename ALL penis photos to the format "#000000 male genitalia.jpg". This way we avoid having to making racist judgement on the name on said penis, and we also avoid discussion on whether to call it a penis or cock. And then we would also avoid people with a #000000 penis from complaining that #FFFFFF coloured penii are not separately required to have their colour distinguished; and then also possibly avoiding the argument of whether a white penis is really white at all. (we only need to look at en.wp lately to see how such things could result in bad publicity). We would need a bot to do this though. Any takers? russavia (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I won't strike the comment above, but I will say I didn't know that this was an issue that Jimmy himself raised. Sorry if I took this too light-heartedly. I've explained the issues above to Jimmy over at en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Inappropriately_named_files_on_Commons, so anyone who's interested might want to take a look there at the issues I've raised. Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Black penis would be an acceptable name IMO. Colored just feels racist. A pantone thing wouldn't work, since colour balance is always wrong. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominican fake flags [edit]

Hola.

Este usuario Cvkfekjf238 ha estado subiendo una gran cantidad de banderas falsas o creadas por él mismo a Commons. Las banderas fueron borradas el año pasado y resubidas nuevamente por el mismo usuario.


Hello. Sorry for my english.

This user Cvkfekjf238 is been uploading a lot of fakes flags to Commons. The flags were deleted the last year and reuploaded again by this same user.--Inefable001 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

name change [edit]

please change name of this image File:Miodu Polish Rapper.jpg to "Miodu Polish Singer", he is not a rapper, and also fix the name of File:Czarny (Brat Squad).jpg to "Czarny (Beat Squad)" DingirXul (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time please use Template:Rename. Thank you.--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate canvassing against about re-admin of Jcb [edit]

This morning I stumbled over a long series of identical postings "a heads-up" by User:Geo Swan, notifying around 50 other users about the recently started re-admin proposal for Jcb. Its wording, however moderate, doesn't veil the opinion of the poster, which he is free to have, of course. Though he pre-announced this action on the rfa-page, this action is highly inappropriate and clearly canvassing. It doesn't matter whether canvassing intends to promote a candidate or to take him/her down. If a 'crat (or anybody else) sees the need for a longer rfa-discussion to involve more users, he/she can easily request to extend the rfa-discussion, as has been done in the past.
As we hadn't much re-admins on Commons, just a view into history: when some admin-colleagues (from both sides), who had either been emergency-de-admined or self-de-admined during Jimbo's porn-purge, asked for re-admin, this wasn't advertised around to everybody who might bear a grudge against the respective candidate.
As I intentionally choose this board instead of COM:AN/U, I don't aim for sanctions against Geo Swan, but for a clear rejection of such action. --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While the wording of the message was neutral (unlike the earlier proposal), I agree that the selected audience was presumably heavily slanted towards Geo Swan's opinion (they opposed the restoration of admin rights, and the RFDA was 67% in favour of desysopping). Incidentally, two of the notified people seem to be indefinitely blocked. Jafeluv (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. I left the heads-up for everyone who weighed in during the de-admin discussion, unless they had already found the re-admin discussion -- without regard to the position they took. Geo Swan (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I never meant to imply that you cherry-picked which users to notify. The fact remains however that you could very well assume 67% of the notified users to be sympathetic to your own stated position as they supported the original desysopping. Jafeluv (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, but please consider what it seems you are saying. Aren't you implying that only the opinions of administrators and other insiders who Jcb worked with as equals, those likely to notice this discussion, were welcome in this discussion? Aren't you imploying that ordinary contributors -- those who Jcb did not treat as equals, those who experienced his mockery, his intransigence, at first hand -- that our opinions aren't welcome?
Let's be clear here. Did you mean to imply that those who voiced opinions calling for Jcb to lose his administrator privileges in 2011 are less entitled to voice those concerns -- if they still hold them, than the people who have already weighed in here? If so exactly why would that be?
Let's be clear here. One of the comments in the re-admin discussion refers to assurances Jcb gave via IRC. It would be understandable that even after Jcb had his administrator privileges removed he might hang out in the IRC channels administrators share. It would be understandable if Jcb's former colleagues blew off steam to Jcb, and said they couldn't wait until he was re-instated. It would even be understandable if some of Jcb's former colleagues discussed with Jcb if May 2013 was long enough to wait before nominating him for a re-admin discussion.
But it would be really unfortunate if it looked like some of Jcb's former colleagues expected that the formal discussion on the Commons was going to be a pro forma rubber-stamping of a earlier decision arrived at on the administrator's IRC channels.
I consider it natural that it may not have occurred to anyone that even loose informal off-commons coordination of this re-admin nomination would be worse than if I had left a biased note, and I had only left it on the talk pages of people I thought would agree with me. That at least would be open and transparent. And of course I left a neutral note, and I informed all the participants in the de-admin discussion, without regard to their views.
I am not going to ask you, or anyone else, of the extent to which you discussed the re-admin on IRC, prior to the nomination, or whether you are discussing the re-admin on IRC now. I will only suggest, that, really, in the interests of open-ness and transparency, it would be best if, henceforth, you confined your comments to the Commons, so we were all on a an equal playing field.
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously I'm implying that they're just as entitled to voice their concerns. What you're implying is that they're more entitled to do so than the average contributor, since they need to be specifically notified. However I won't try to read your mind or guess whether the reason might have been the fact that the majority of people who opined in the previous discussion agreed with your current stance. Jafeluv (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The people who participated in the de-admin discussion weren't more entitled than the rest of the Commons community. Rather their participation in the previous discussion was a strong indication: (1) they were more likely to be interested in the re-admin discussion; (2) without regard to whether called for Jcb to keep the mop or to lose it, their prior participation was a strong indication they had an informed opinion. I try to approach each discussion with an open mind to the possibility that people who disagree with me are correct, and I am wrong, and that if I pay attention and am respectful they might convince me. So I don't discount the opinions of people simply because they disagree with me. Are you open to the possibility that people called for Jcb to lose his mop might have valid reasons to continue to mistrust his judgment, and to mistrust how he would use them if it was restored? WIthout informing the non-insiders who participated in the de-admin discusssion of the re-admin discussion the re-admin discussion would have a bias towards indisers -- those Jcb was nice to. This not a conspiracy, but I thought it was problematic. Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the premise that the people who participated in the RFDA represent "non-insiders" any more than the people who would have naturally participated in the new RFA. Among the people you notified [7] the vast majority are Commons regulars, and over half of them are administrators (i.e. Jcb's "peers", so to speak). Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question: Yes, of course it's quite possible for someone who voted to remove sysop rights in the first place to have valid reasons to continue to oppose that person's adminship. That's not under dispute, is it? Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, off-wiki coordination would certainly have been worse than your on-wiki notifications. And again I'm not saying you only notified the people who supported the desysopping; simply that the majority of participants did. Jafeluv (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarification please -- when you say "been worse" -- do you really believe I did something wrong with leaving neutral heads-ups? If so, I'd appreciate you trying harder to explain to me what you thought I did wrong. Not informing the participants in the earlier discussion would have meant only Commons insiders, who monitor fora like that, would find that discussion, and participate there. There is nothing wrong with insiders, the kind of people who Jcb is likely to have felt were his peers, and who he cooperated with, and treated as equals, deciding to trust him. And, it is just as natural and valid for the people Jcb did not recognize as his peers, who he treated shabbily, to continue to see him as unworthy of the trust of having administrator privileges restored. The way I see it, informing all the participants from the de-admin guaranteed a wider participation -- one more reflective of the entire Commons community. I really can't see why this concerned you. If you reconsider whether I did something wrong, and decide I didn't, or that you can't really explain why you think I did something wrong, I'd be grateful if you said so. No crowing on my part. I promise. Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
What I'm saying that your notifications make it look like you're trying to gather more support for your own position in the RFA. You say that was not your intention, and that's okay, of course you know better than I do what your actual intentions are. But that's certainly the way it may look to an outside observer, especially considering how vehemently you seem to oppose Jcb's candidacy. Now then it may be discussed whether it should be a common practice to notify earlier participants when someone is re-nominated, and if we have agreement that everyone should be notified every time, there's definitely no problem on my part. Currently it's not the common practice as far as I know. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think is the majority position here is that a neutral heads-up to those who participated in the previous discussion was appropriate. I think most people agree that the heads-up I left was neutrally written. I suggest to you that, so long as the heads-up was appropriate, which most people agree it was, and so long as it was neutrally written, which most people agree it was, that it is not relevant if I thought people who called for the removal of his privileges in 2011, would still feel he didn't merit restoration of those privileges today.
Frankly, I did think more of the people who felt removal of his privileges were in order in 2011 would think restoration was not in order in 2013. That hasn't turned out to be the case. But I only learned of this discussion by accident. If I had learned that Jcb's privileges had been restored, after the fact, and had checked the re-admin discussion, and saw that hardly anyone who had spoken for de-sysopping in 2011 had voiced an opinion in 2013, I would have been extremely dissatisfied, and wondered what the result would have been if everyone who participated in the de-admin discussion had received a neutral heads-up. I don't think I have anything to apologize for in this.
I asked you above to clarify whether it is still your position that I was at fault, and, if so, to explain what you thought I did wrong more fully -- or that you explicitly withdraw your suggestion I did something wrong. Sorry, it seems to me you are still maintaining the position I am at fault, and you still can't provide a good explanation as to how I am at fault. So, please either withdraw the suggestion I am at fault, or make a greater effort to explain your position. Geo Swan (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Firstly I don't think such notifications should be used unless we agree to systematically notify everyone in resysop requests. This is the first request of its kind AFAIK so the policy hasn't evolved yet. Secondly in the interest of neutrality I don't think the decision should have been made by someone who has taken an obviously strong position in the RFA. However I'm glad that 99of9 raised objection to the initially proposed message and that the message which was eventually sent out was at least neutrally worded. In short I disagree with the action, but I don't think you were acting maliciously. Jafeluv (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I wrote above that, so long as a heads-up is seen as neutrally written, it is irrelevant who wrote it and who delivered it. Do you mean to continue to imply that I am at fault, because I delivered the heads-up, that my position in the re-admin discussion disqualified me from delivering a neutrally written heads-up? Geo Swan (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You can ask me, I had one trivial note on IRC (#wikimedia-commons, an open channel) in response to another point. I'll happily publish the relevant discussion (I have a temporary log) unless it turns out that doing so compromises some other expectation for privacy. I openly mentioned it in the RFA, as I don't think it is a good thing to somehow pretend related discussion does not go on in real time on IRC. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reassurance that discusion on IRC was passing and trivial. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Assuming the last paragraph was aimed at me specifically: If you have something to ask me, why not just ask it instead of presenting loaded suggestions? Jafeluv (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
With regard to other re-admins, of admins "who had either been emergency-de-admined or self-de-admined..." -- well Jcb was neither emergency-de-admined, or self-de-admined. Rather 61 people weighed in during a discussion that ran for 15 days, ended up with 11 subsections, and was over 170,000 bytes long.
I first asked about leaving a heads-up on the 14th. [8] Turelio has linked to the second instance. I didn't leave the heads-up for random people. I left it for everyone who voiced an opinion in the de-admin disucssion -- without regard to the views they expressed there. Normally isn't canvassing only informing those you thought might agree with you?
I only noticed the discussion by accident. Given how contentious it was, if I had come across the re-admin discussion afterwards I would have been very annoyed that no one had left me a heads-up. However, if other people agree with Turelio I'll bear that in mind. Geo Swan (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is such a bad form of canvassing (although I admit I would not do it myself). It is similar to the situation where an admin must be notified when a user they blocked is about to be unblocked. In general it is good to ensure administrators have the backing of the whole community, including those who have previously felt qualified to have an opinion on the candidate. I was more concerned to ensure the text was nearly neutral. In this case, I don't think the closing 'crat will have to adjust much to account for this notification/canvassing, given that many of the previous opposers are now supporting (including the re-nominator mattbuck). (en:WP:Votestacking says "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all 'sides' of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis." so again this is technically similar) --99of9 (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not find this notification unacceptable canvassing. All of these people took part in the de-sysop discussion (some for and some against) and so clearly have an interest in this re-sysop discussion. If the notice is not neutral enough, then it should be changed, however Geo Swan openly solicited opinion before sending this out. There is no policy that this action by Geo Swan runs against, Túrelio if you feel Commons needs a COM:Canvassing policy or guideline, I suggest you propose one (so that contributors such as 99of9 are not forced to refer to en.wp policies). I would support a sensible policy, particularly if it had the capacity to recognise rare situations may arise when on-wiki consensus may be manipulated or derailed by off-wiki canvassing. --Fæ (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I'd also happily support COM:Canvassing, it's absence shouldn't be taken as an indication that blatant canvassing is ok. Commons has long operated without much written policy, but simple community convention. In the case of canvassing, I've seen numerous censures and failed RfA's because of it. (But I agree that this case was not particularly blatant, and was at least consultative.) --99of9 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that this could be read two ways, particularly since the instigator is an oppose vote. On the one hand Swan did raise the issue at the re-admin discussion and got approval. He posted the message for all of those (including me) who had not seen the new discussion. On the other hand, the discussion at the re-admin page of the proposed posting was open for only a few hours and, given that the 61 people had voted to remove Jcb 18 months ago, it might be thought to be a biased list.
On balance, though, I think it was a good thing -- one that should be policy. When someone who has been voted off asks to be reinstated, it seems to me that all of those who participated in the original discussion deserve notice. It is true that that a large majority of that list will have voted originally to de-admin the person, but, as the votes in this case shows, people change their minds and I see no reason why a re-admin should not have to face a list that includes all of the previous accusers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
+1. Though there are bound to be die-hards and blow-hards that invariably grief discussions with old wounds, most of our community is willing to give good faith contributors a second chance when their past transgressions have not been overwhelmingly heinous. Darn, I might have to live up to this myself. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
+1. I felt this was a good thing as it was happening, with transparent discussion on the RfA page. In hindsight, the thing that would have been better would have been for somebody more neutral to deliver the messages. But I don't think that's a big deal, and it doesn't reflect bad intentions on anybody's part. Geo Swan, thanks for taking the steps you did to inform past participants. -Pete F (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem whatsoever with what GeoSwan did. He raised the issue at the re-admin discussion and left a neutrally-worded note on talk pages. I fail to see (in these circumstances) how the list of the 61 individuals was "biased" (saying so suggests that the 67% of the notified users who supported the original desysopping are likely incapable of reasonably or fairly assessing the re-admin proposal). To the extent Geo's action troubled some people, the better course would be to propose guidelines for discussion as to when and how such notices should occur in the future. Absent that, Geo did nothing wrong. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Even if this act can be considered as innocent attempt with good intention, it will affect the result adversely. For a healthy result, the voting sample should be a generic representation of the active community; that's why we shuffle cards before distributing to players. Here many of the voters are attracted by the "invitation" and some of them may inactive now; so no chance for a healthy sample of voters. So the result will also biased. JKadavoor Jee 16:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with that at all. This is a re-admin discussion, not a double-blind clinical trial. There is no target "voting sample" or requirement that there be a "generic representation". People in the first discussion may have useful thoughts for the second discussion. We routinely advise people who participated in one discussion of another discussion that pertains to the same subject. Again, I would suggest that if people are concerned then they should pick the appropriate forum to propose guidelines for this type of situation, rather than making up requirements here on the fly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
+1 Skeezix -- very well said, couldn't agree more. -Pete F (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Geo Swan has acted properly. By choosing everyone who had an interest last time regardless of their voting pattern, Geo Swan found an economical way to gather a good, and interested, cross-section of the community. A wide section of the community spoke last time, a good representation of opinions, and exactly the same wide selection was notified. There is also the VP, which is probably tldr and wouldn't be as effective at targeting an 'interested' group of editors. I see no pattern in choosing one side or the other to stack votes, so the advertising is entirely appropriate, and probably the best way at the current time.
That said, there is room for improvement in the process, Jkadavoor makes a good point about the active community, how do we properly inform the community of these kind of discussions specifically without it drowning in the clutter of the VP ? I would suggest and support we come up with a better way to have a fresh and wide consensus for such matters, at the moment we don't have it, we don't have a clear procedure written down, because, if even the best case scenario by a GF editor causes such a long discussion then there has got to be a better way. Penyulap ☏ 08:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Very good points Penyulap! If I had my way then any time an admin is called under fire three times then we pull their tools. If they repent then we give them back. We are short on admin so I would rather we pull and push leashes to keep them coming and going. This would keep them on their toes and more focused on the projects. Others could be added on with only 5 !votes creating a few hundred more to help with the workload. Deletions and undeltions should never be the big deal that they are now. They are just binary bits that are never really gone. In other words nobody loses an eye or limb when a file is deleted or undeleted. I think we should give Penyulap the tools on a 30 day trial after 5 !votes. If Penyulap makes a mess in two days then pull them. If Penyulap does well then we can have them made permanent on 0 !votes until Penyulap gets three strikes against. Penyulap for admin! !vote 1.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
oh that gives me a hearty laugh, but I won't want or be given tools, there are too many naughty people who know I don't miss a trick, but I think some of your humorous idea would have popular support, the 'take away' part, the only problem is that to enjoy the savour of taking them away, you'd have to thrust them upon me first. Won't happen. Sorry.
On the serious side, it is most important that the admins are comfortable and not on edge, it is stressful, and it is important not to do things that cause even more stress. I think your idea may well fall down on that one. What's needed is a method and a process that avoids the stress and confrontation as much as possible. It's not hard to improve, but we have to see the process from everyone's point of view to find the common ground. Penyulap ☏ 12:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Close both. Give the admin his tools back. If any problems arise in the future then any tool taking discussions can refer to these speedy tool giving back discussions as ammunition to take the tools away again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Notification of a RfA discussion should not be done unless it includes all users and is in accordance with policy or guidelines. In the absence of specific guidance, Geo Swan acted properly by discussing notification prior to his action. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Name change [edit]

I would like to change the name of File:La nena obrera.jpg to File:La petita obrera.jpg --Andri8 (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time please use Template:Rename. Thank you.--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/RobertoRobertuz [edit]

see edits of Special:Contributions/RobertoRobertuz--Motopark (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for 1 week. Thank you for reporting.--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Some spam [edit]

Please, look at this pics: Special:Contributions/PoliNat_S.L.. Spam, IMHO. Longbowman (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I go through and crop out all the company text/watermarks and just overwrite the files? They are nice images and it sure was nice of the company to free licence donate them. The company logo itself should stay if they rate an article on a project somewhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that "donate" is the right word? "Ulteriorate", eh? Longbowman (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I do not insist, but I must say that after you replaced the word, the part "was nice" is deprived of reason. Let us say, they uploaded something like that, but I have no suggestions, why would it be necessary. I tried to insert it in an article on plants, but there is logo. Where it can go else, I can't imagine.Longbowman (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that cropping out the logo would be very useful. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Most of images are copyvio and should be deleted.  ■ MMXX talk 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinkerHelper [edit]

Hello, the User:CommonsDelinker no longer works since 2013-05-10.Therefore, the Helper should not unsubscribe from the list → User:CommonsDelinker/commands the files. I mean its better to stop the User:CommonsDelinkerHelper. His edits should be made ​​there undo since 2013-05-10. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  04:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision cleaning needed for files overwritten by Oyakmohsen [edit]

Please delete the file revisions of unknown origin added by Oyakmohsen to the following files:

Also, please block Oyakmohsen for continuing to overwrite files in spite of being warned at 04:54 not to do so (one additional revision to File:Dariush concert Kuala lumpur 2009.jpg at 05:04; three new revisions to File:Vigen.jpg at 05:30, 05:31 and 05:34; and one new revision to File:Bijan Mortazavi.jpg at 05:58). The user has also engaged in other disruptive behaviour, such as adding nonsense to help pages, creating nonsensical deletion requests, adding noise to translation projects, needlessly requesting one-degree rotations of images and removing information from file description pages. They do not seem to be willing or able to participate constructively. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=96451851"