Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Administrator's assistance

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)



Inactive Image-reviewers[edit]

The following 63 accounts have been inactive for 2 years or more (some are many years more, and a few accounts are marked as retired) and have the Image-reviewer right. I am unsure if this is supposed to be part of standard rights housekeeping, but worth asking these users if they still need it. If they do, then there may be a case to ask them to request the right again as expectations have changed since they last used it. Raising on this noticeboard, though no objection if someone feels it needs to move to BN -- (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Notified all affected users (User:Monobi talkpage is fullprotected). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no oppose, i am inclined to remove the flag from all accounts where last edit is before 2011. Concerns? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fine with me. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me too. If the accounts are inactive then they don't need them anyway. We always have procedure to restore them. ~ Nahid Talk 12:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
+1. -- Geagea (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
+1. Thank you for raising this issue. Green Giant (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
✓OK I removed the flag from all accounts where last edit was before 2011 and RG2, Privatemusings, Miranda and Computerjoe because less than 4 edits in 2011. And i removed all right from З2Х - rights never used and inactive since 2011, 2nd account of 32X. Users can request lr flag back at COM:LRR. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@: can you please update the list. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
-- (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated list. I think at the most we should give them seven days from when they were notified, so anybody who hasn't responded by 9 February should have the permission removed. Green Giant (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed all of these users from image reviewers group.Thank you for your efforts. Please let us know if there are any users in this group who have not edited in the last 18 months as they will need notifying soon. Green Giant (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the list of remaining image-reviewers inactive for 18 months (taken as 548 days). -- (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Users notified --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
If I want to keep the flag, do I ask about it here or somewhere else? vvvt 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you intend to do image reviews? If you're not going to be active in image reviewing, the flag should be removed. INeverCry 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states that any admin who wishes to retain the rights must log at least five actions following notice of de-adminship. I don't see how a similar requirement of reviewing at least one file shouldn't be required here; any user who wants to retain the flag should be using it. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it should be added to COM:LR? --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, trustworthy users should be able to retain the right even if they're not actively reviewing for them to be able to use upload_by_url.    FDMS  4    21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is a fair comment, at least they would be using the tools, this demonstrates a need. However, in the case of editors who don't either edit or use the tools I don't see why they should retain them, even if they ask for them to be retained. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Certainly, contributors that have a history of using the upload_by_url right have a rationale to keep on using it. I see no harm in removing the image reviewer right and giving it back on an informal request whenever this is the case. Keep in mind that this list was based on completely inactive accounts that were dormant for two full years (the last table for 18 months), so none of these users could claim to have current projects on the go nor that losing the right due to what appears to be effective retirement is unfair. Were someone to lose the right because of poor judgement about copyright, that's a different issue and a formal request would be appropriate as if it were a new application. -- (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
To clairfy: I don't disagree with removing the Image-reviewer right from the clearly inactive accounts listed above, because, as pointed out in your first comment, expectations have changed since they last used it. I only disagree with automatically removing the right from inactive reviewers, and am not sure about removing it from inactive accounts in the future. Unlike a lot of the administrators' tasks, license reviewing does not require a "community connection", just knowledge of copyright laws and local policies (and, of course, trustability); and unlike on OTRS, inactive accounts don't cause any harm to the LR system. If the only reason for automatical rights removals would be that the community's "trust is lost", rollback/filemoving/patroller rights should be removed as well.    FDMS  4    14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Unarchived. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Because there is no oppose (FDMS4 is only opposing a completely automated process but have no problem with removing the users listed above) and only support i ✓ Removed the right from all accounts. Excepted accounts who made edits after notification. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sofiadesmond32[edit]

Could an admin please look at the (so far) only contribution of User:Sofiadesmond32, on User:Ragesoss's user talk page? It looks like a spam message sent via WikiLove -- something I haven't seen before. -Pete F (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - thank you for bringing this up; I've blocked the account as a precaution but we will need to keep an eye open for more of this. Green Giant (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please delete[edit]

Ivan seznec, creator has beend deleted twice speedy deletion tag and ones deletion request--Motopark (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

pictures deleted[edit]

hello , do not understand why the images by Maurodeathrage have been deleted, do not think of violating any copyrights seen that the photos in question are taken from me , takes my mother and it are in my possession i wait an answer

thanks a lot

Mauro Tonon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.175 (talk • contribs)

Hi Maurodeathrage, I am not an administrator but perhaps I can help a little. I see that these files were discussed here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maurodeathrage (and there were some additional pictures flagged on your user talk page, here.)

If I understand you correctly, you own these physical pictures (newspaper clippings), which you received from your mother. The issue is that, even if you own the physical pictures, somebody else likely has the copyright -- the photographer, usually, or their heirs. Unless the pictures have fallen into the public domain due to their age (a complicated topic, which varies depending on the country of origin), only the copyright holder has the right to assign a free license to the pictures. I hope this helps. It's unfortunate, but the problem lies with the copyright laws of various countries, not with Wikimedia Commons; we aim for a high standard of reusability (so that those who find pictures here can confidently republish them elsewhere). -Pete F (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'm not talking of the newspaper clippings (only 2 images ) , on which I can agree ( delete them as well) , but all the other photographs of my mother with other celebrities, can't know wikicmedia who could have photographed, I take the paternity of these photographs, IT WAS MYSELF THAT TUUK THOSE PICTURES !!!!!!!

thanks a lot

Mauro

You claim to have shot File:Isabella Tonon al Derby Club.jpg. However, when this image had been shot, your mother was only 30 years old. ... --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you know how old she was my mother in the picture? then you know who took these pictures , right? if you really want to know, the picture I took in collaboration with my father (r.i.p.) Now you start to calculate how many years could have my mother in the picture? are you kidding? is ridiculous!

anyway, if you believe that I am a vandal or an abuser of copyright as well delete my account

thanks thanks thans

File mover right for Jean-Jacques MILAN[edit]

I am passing along a request from Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk · contribs), who asked me on Meta Wiki. (I am not an admin here.) In short, he says his work often surfaces factual inaccuracies in file names, and he would like to be able to correct them himself. I know that file moves can be a little delicate, and that it's a good idea to ensure that a user has a good understanding of the guidelines for renaming: Commons:File renaming So, Jean-Jacques, I suggest you leave a note here stating that you have read and understand that guideline. -Pete F (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploads by Unauthorized Bot - Out of scope?[edit]

User:Unauthorized Bot has uploaded 32,500 PDFs of legislation documents(?). Looks like out of COM:SCOPE (See also this DR, but unrelated to the SCOPE). I don't like to tag 32,500 files for DR, therefore i bring this up here. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It also created all the subcats of Category:Monitorul Oficial which was originally created by User:Bogdan. I think this was his bot if I remember right, but don't quote me on it. Looks like it was run by him. INeverCry 08:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
They are in scope if there is a project to use them. Hopefully Bogdan/the bot operator has one in mind. -- (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)