Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

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 section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		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 at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • 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. {{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.


Defford

I have recently tried to update the Defford Village Hall section, but cannot insert two new images although they show (albeit in poor positions) on a preview and exist in the history section. It is some months since I made changes and my technique has suffered! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsoldier38 (talk • contribs)

What does a guy have to do to get a blatant copyvio deleted around here?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Any further comments should go at Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012#Speedier response to deletion requests from OTRS agents MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for ranting, but seriously, when I mark an image as a copyvio with an OTRS ticket, it needs to be deleted. I tagged File:Denarius to Orpheos.png for speedy deletion, citing ticket:2012021210005133, 20 hours ago. The image is still there, and the copyright holder (who is not at all happy about their work being passed of as somebody else's), is quite legitimately wondering if I was lying when I told them I had requested its deletion and is certainly not being left with the impression that commons takes copyright violations seriously.</rant> Would somebody be so kind as to nuke that image so I can give the copyright holder something more than "I'm working on it"? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but 20 hours is nothing. The copyvio-cat currently contains 166 images. Please don't forget that even the few admins who regularly perform speedy deletions are unpaid volunteers, who have to do this dirty work in their spare time. I've speedied the image now, purely per trusting your "claim", as I can't look into the ticket (myself not on OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS e-mail appears to be entirely correct -- it came from the author of the cited source of the image. Perhaps we need either a new template for {{Really speedy delete}} or a rule that what when we get a takedown notice on OTRS that it should come directly here?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I fully understand that we're all volunteers, and I very much appreciate you deleting the image, but the people who email us about copyright violations don't understand that, and if they do, they're much more concerned that we're infringing their copyright than they are with how the project works, and to them 20 hours is not "nothing". Maybe I'm too used to enwiki, but if a copyvio there waited 20 hours (especially one that was reported by OTRS), it would be considered a big deal. Jim's ideas seem worthy of consideration to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
Well, then the WMF should seriously consider providing more resources to Commons.
Technically: OTRS-based copyvios that go into the copyvio-cat (currently) have no special marker that would distinguish them from other ("regular") copyvios. If an admin opens one of these, he/she will surely delete it rapidly, if it's clear enough. But if the first step is missing, then then second will come late. Therefore, Jim's proposal, though funny-looking on first view, might provide a solution. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and then we'd had to verify that {{Really speedy delete}} really was added by an OTRS member... no thanks. The fast track to deletion is a DMCA takedown request. If OTRS wants to provide a less formal but also guaranteed-to-be-quick way for removing infringing material (and I do think that this makes sense for clear cases), then the OTRS team should see to it that their volunteers are admins here, so that they can delete files themselves. We might even make a rule that OTRS volunteers may get a fast-track deletion right here at the Commons. (If we trust the OTRS volunteers enough to confirm releases, we should also trust them to delete files in response to OTRS tickets.) Lupo 12:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem there is that copyvio queue is a sub-queue of info-en, which is manned mainly by editors from enwiki. I fully understand why the Commons community doesn't want enwiki editors treating Commons as an extension of enwiki, but my understanding is that RfAs here just for the purposes of expediting OTRS work are typically declined. As an aside, it's easy enough to verify whether somebody is an OTRS agent—they should have the userbox on their userpage, in which there's a "verify" link (or if you use Popups, you can just hover your mouse over their username). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be easy to execute the Jim's idea, we could have a template only for OTRS members and we can easily filter/verify the edits by using an abuse filter like this.  ■ MMXX  talk 23:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I respect their work, I wonder if we're placing too much trust in OTRS to just speedy delete anything they tell us to, without even seeing the e-mail describing the reason. How do we know they're really the copyright holder? For example, we frequently get complaints from subjects of photographs who have no legal right to request deletion. Or even stranger complaints, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horses, Little Clovers Farm - geograph.org.uk - 1289544.jpg - what if that had come in via OTRS instead of the Help Desk? These deletions still require careful oversight with enough data given to actually verify a copyvio. However, I have no problem with a prioritization scheme that directs our attention towards files that people are actively complaining about at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you underestimate OTRS agents. Just because I haven't told you what sort of verification I've done, or haven't told you who the sender is, doesn't mean I haven't checked to make damn sure the image is a copyvio before I tag it. I'm well aware that it's a lot to ask of admins to delete something based on sixteen digits that mean nothing to them, but there is very little more information I can give you because OTRS tickets are confidential. And as an aside, subjects of photographs do have legal rights wrt to the use of the photo, just not copyright. Personality rights issues come up at OTRS as well (though not ever so often), and often require an even greater level of discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a pragmatic step, I would encourage using IRC (#wikimedia-commons) to see if there is an available admin to privately discuss an urgent copyvio request, my experience is that there's a reasonable chance of sorting it out by that route though you may need to try more than once if it is at a quiet time. In the longer term, perhaps the speedy template could have a parameter, and automatic categorization, to distinguish requests with supporting OTRS tickets which might attract one of the admins with OTRS access to take a look and treat these as a priority. If there are not enough Commons admins with OTRS access, that's a different problem that the Commons community needs to consider in the RFA process. We certainly do not want to be advising members of the public making the effort to raise a personal complaint by email that they need to then resort to worst scenario of having to use legal processes to get anything done. In practice such a step is far more likely to cause resistance, dispute and potentially encourage privacy violations rather than a friendly resolution.
I suggest that if anyone wants to pursue these options, they take the matter up on Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012 rather than engineering a solution here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not that OTRS agents are not capable of identifying copyvios, but that in situations that are ambiguous they may decide differently from the community as a whole. At present, it is difficult for an OTRS member to defer to community discussion in an ambiguous situation, since they're bound to not reveal the contents of their communications. For example, if we had a derivative work where the original work may or may not be de minimis, but weren't allowed to know which part was the original work, that would be rather challenging to resolve. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed be rather difficult to resolve, but I'm sure a workaround could be thought up. It's not a scenario I've encountered in my OTRS experience thus far. The overwhelming majority of tickets that come to that queue (at least while I'm online) are either blatant copyvios or not copyvios at all. There's the odd case where the subject conflates copyright and personality rights, people reporting supposed violations of Wikipedia's copyright/unauthorised use of the Wikimedia logos, etc, but they're usually clear-cut cases. Cases that aren't clear-cut should go to DR rather than speedy anyway, in which case the OTRS agent should give as much information as they can (and certainly naming the work that's alleged to be a copyvio shouldn't be withheld—that's plainly daft), and, if necessary, ask the the sender if they will permit the release of more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should take this to Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012, with a new thread on "how to get speedier responses to OTRS deletion requests". There are some related ideas at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/11#Ideas_to_help_reduce_OTRS_backlogs. Rd232 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I've started Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012#Speedier response to deletion requests from OTRS agents (though I worry slightly that the issue will stagnate by moving it to a less-watched page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was a personal message sent to a couple admins asking them to get on it before complaining about a slow moving bureaucracy? As someone who has worked in a bureaucracy if I need something done fast I find a specific person do it. If this repeatedly fails to work then, yes, some sort of correction to the "system" is needed.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


promotional pictures

promotional pictures Special:Contributions/Mobilemex, could somebody delete those what are out of scope--Motopark (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User rights

Could somebody restore my user rights to what they were before being sysoped and desysoped? My rights used to be: OTRS member, file mover, patroller and rollbacker, see here. Desysoping crat forgot to restore them. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I can't do the OTRS one but it looks like that has not been removed anyway. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (It's true the OTRS group was still present.) Jcb (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Jcb. --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening

Please direct as much public attention as you can to this Village pump notice. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 20:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is an "admin" topic. --Saibo (Δ) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done

Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02 is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T36519

Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02 is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded (automatically by mediawiki) - therefore days starting at 9th Feb. are not included (see bottom of the page). What to do without disturbing the DRbot? Just wait until some DRs are closed and the page gets smaller therefore? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this happens every month, more so, of course, in times like now when the backlog is large. As you suggest, the problem will fix itself as DRs are closed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02 is just an index page, overloaded because it's transcluding too much. We can't fundamentally fix this because of DR-bot, but maybe we could create additional sub-indexes to ease navigation? Like Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02/week1 for the first week of the month, Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/02/week2 for the next. DR-bot will still archive threads from the day pages (like Commons:Deletion requests/2012/02/18), and both the main indexes and sub-indexes will see that. Eventually, when the sub-indexes aren't needed any more, they can be manually deleted. On the other hand... what do we really need the massive month index for anyway, if we have the day pages? Would the subindexes actually be any use? Rd232 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem currently is that for some reason the inclusion in the day index page does not show up in "what links here" on DR pages, too. I sometimes use this to view temporally related DRs. But I am sure that some users also use the month pages. If it is technically not possible (can't we get a higher limit for those Commons:Deletion requests pages?) then maybe additional weekly pages or 0-15 16-31 would be sufficient. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the current system. When I decide to attack the backlog, rather than the current list, I can go to a month and see enough work to keep me busy for a while. In due time the bot archives the closures, and then the next visitor can clean up a new batch from that month. It is self-limiting -- if the backlog is short, then the whole month shows in one place. If the backlog is long, then there is plenty of work in what shows.
Although it is not a big deal, I don't think I like Rd232's suggestion of dividing it into weeks -- that just means that you have to go to five places to see the whole month. I prefer to see a usable chunk of the whole month teed up in once place.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it was the best idea I could think of. If Saibo's bug is implemented, that's much better. Rd232 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a request in BZ to simply raise the limit. --Saibo (Δ) 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Omics publishing group

Not real DR ?, please delete--Motopark (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 08:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Northiran

...was recently blocked for abusing multiple accounts on the English Wikipedia, as a serial sockpuppeteer (with copyright issues). In that investigation, he was linked to the User:Mazandiran account, and his uploads here are the same uploads Mazandiran made to the Farsi Wikipedia (and presumably to Commons too, although only one of them survives) . Mazandiran is blocked here for the same reasons as on en.wp: therefore, might a block and/or upload nuke be in order? Regards, Jarry1250 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support block and upload nuke. This and other edits match the M.O. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mazandiran for background. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining uploads of پارسا آملی (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) should also be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wakey wakey! Is this thing on? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get the staff these days... Didn't see it - ✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there are still a bunch of uploads to nuke.[1][2][3] The reason that I noticed that this still hadn't been dealt with was that I stumbled across File:Kaoon.jpg when fixing files with bad Panoramio source links. (Like with their other uploads, that file description page is a complete fairytale. Panoramio doesn't do GFDL, and the source link points to a completely different photo.) —LX (talk, contribs) 12:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - nuke is not happy for me at present and just times out after doing nothing and I've not got time at present to go through them by hand. --Herby talk thyme 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the uploads made by this user appear to be copyright images for which xi does not have permission to release as free images. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Funnysarvi[reply]

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nudie pic

Someone keeps inserting File:Sodiq7hfrjl8yclbb9.jpg on the wiki for Jessica Biel. I don't know who Jessica Biel is, and I certainly don't know if this is her. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thumbnail of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png broken

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png/640px-Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png , which is one of the thumbnails of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png , is broken, so that pages in Wikipedia which use the image cannot be displayed accordingly. May I ask you to refresh the cache?

Pictures without licence

Pictures without licence Special:Contributions/ModestasMalinauskas, please delete.--Motopark (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. - A.Savin 12:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

Our uploader has the same username as the artist -- Modestas Malinauskas, see https://www.paveikslai.lt/en/pictures/328/. So, the questions are:
  • Is he notable? Although his work appears in several on-line galleries, I don't see any indication of its having been hung in any museum, so I would be inclined to say "no" to this.
  • Is our uploader actually the artist? I think so. Note that our uploads do not have the watermark that is on the named source's copies. OTRS can answer this question.
In any event, this is not a speedy -- it will need a Mass DR, I think, if you want to delete them. I will drop a note on his talk page to see if we can answer both questions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons I gave above, I think the deletion was not correct. They should be restored until we determine whether we want to keep them or not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The files had a "no license" template since 12 february. The uploader had more than 7 days to fix it but she did not. - A.Savin 12:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the uploader is clearly a novice -- we try to be kind to newbies. The question should never be "Did the uploader do this correctly?" but rather, "Do we want these images, and, if so, what do we do to keep them?". And if the uploader is the artist, then "she" is a man.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comment on his talk page. - A.Savin 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

username same than web-side adress

see edits of Special:Contributions/Leonyl.de--Motopark (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef -- Inappropriate username.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what we shall do with uploaded pictures where are web-side as source.--Motopark (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke?

Alefrancia76 (talk · contribs) uploaded a great number of images copied from various websites. I have tagged many of them as Copyvio, but some of them are "difficult" to find, but seem to be clear copyvios (such as those with a watermark): this diffculty is due to the fact that the Italian National Fire Brigade (CNVVF) website archives seem not to be indexed (is it correct in English? :D) I suggest a massive deletion of all his uploads.--DoppioM 15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every image uploaded by the user ia a clear and tagged copyviol. I suggest a massive deletion because they all come from subpages of http://www.vigilfuoco.it/ .--DoppioM 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Speedy tags

ResolvedDeleted by Morgankevinj and Denniss.

I'm getting tired of adding the speedy tag only to have the editor remove it. Could somebody have a look at these before the speedy tag gets removed again.

Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kensico Grave Marker.JPG

I'm not sure where to take this question, but here seems like a good place to start. The picture in question was a tombstone carved in the shape of the famous Trylon and Perisphere of the 1939 World's Fair. It was deleted from here on the grounds that it's a "work of art" and hence fails the lack of "freedom of panorama". This was done with virtually no discussion, and the admin who zapped it keeps dodging my general question: Are ALL tombstones "works of art"? And if not, where do you draw the line? Furthermore, that tombstone was essentially a "ripoff" of the famous World's Fair symbols, by someone with no apparent connection to it, so it's not even "original". I'd like to get a definitive answer on which tombstones (if any) are fair game and which ones are off limits due to being "works of art". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a good place to start? No, not all tombstones are a works of art. Some are. Drawing the line is difficult. Nobody will or can give you a definitive answer on which tombstones are fair game; if there's any sort of art that's not clearly PD, it will take the eyeballing of what passes for experts around here to make a decision.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes one nominator and one deleter "experts" on the matter, with no other discussion beyond the question I raised which was ignored? And how is a knockoff of something else a "work of art"? And where is the right page to take this? Not the talk page for the deletion page, certainly, since it's already boxed up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Village pump/Copyright, perhaps. Or Commons:Undeletion requests. The standard for copyrightability is not high, but I can't speak to this case because I didn't see it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tombstone is a representation of the Trylon and Perisphere from the 1939 World's Fair. Since they were pre-1990 architecture, they do not have a copyright and so the tombstone is a DW of a PD work, hence probably PD itself. I think an UnDR for this image should succeed.
In general, though, tombstones are as much works of art as any other sculpture and the same standards of originality apply. In addition, any text, beyond a few words, may also have a copyright.
Bugs, in thinking about DRs, please remember that Commons Admins delete around 1,300 images every day; half a dozen of us do half of those and the backlog is growing, so we necessarily work fairly fast. This was a case where the Admin agreed with the nom -- it probably appeared fairly obvious to him. I would have done the same thing except for the special circumstances of the Trylon and Perisphere.
Remember, too, that the community (25,000 editors are active each month) reverses about 1/10 of 1% of the deletion decisions made by Admins. An error rate of 1 in 1,000 is not bad.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All well and good. If only he would respond to all this, he could just correct his error without going through a bureaucratic process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual real name usurp needed

Moved to COM:BN as suggested --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a general policy real name usurpation discussion at Commons:VP#How_to_handle_a_complaint_from_someone_with_a_rare_name_that_happens_to_be_the_same_as_an_uploader_of_sexually_graphic_images and would like to follow through on the specific request. The general discussion concluded that the principles of en:Wikipedia:U#Real_names could apply to Wikimedia Commons.

This request is supported by email correspondence on Template:OTRS ticket and to meet our values of transparency, I have confirmed they are comfortable for this matter to be raised on an open noticeboard. The issue is that the complainant has the real name "Tim Tight" and he is concerned that nude or sexual images uploaded under account User:Timtight might be assumed to be associated with him in real life, particularly as he appears to be the only person in the USA with this real name. He is not connected with the account in any way, this is a coincidence of naming. I have emailed the current owner of account User:Timtight who does not mind having his account renamed (his email reply available on the OTRS ticket) to avoid any distress to anyone with this as their real name. As well as the account rename, a number of images that include "Timtight" in the title would have to be changed (the file histories might have to be revdel-ed so as not to be associated with the old account name).

To simplify matters, the complainant has created the account User:Ttight which can usurp the Timtight account. The current owner of Timtight does not particularly care about the rename and I suggest they are moved to the available User:Tim111 as suitably anonymous (and without apparent SUL issues [4]). In summary User:Timtight → User:Tim111 and then User:Ttight → User:Timtight.

This is not a standard usurp, so I have not gone through Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests, particularly as the "from" account has only just been created (yet to make any edits) and this does not fit the normal criteria. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What an unusual situation, glad to see that it's being resolved. Admins can't rename accounts, though, so COM:BN would probably be a better place for this request. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for all admins

I think it's better if images with {{OTRS pending}} on it won't be deleted too soon. We have a huge backlog with 300 open tickets at the moment which go back until the end of January (so yes, we could use more volunteers imo). People are now complaining why a file is deleted, but the admins aren't aware of the backlog of course. Please wait a while... Trijnstel (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No permission is set automatically after 30 days. Now-(End of January) < 30. Concerning volunteering. Interesting. But the backlogs on Commons are also huge enough. It's never boring here. -- RE rillke questions? 16:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request editing of protected file

Can a sysop change the Hungarian description of File:Qantas Boeing 747-400 VH-OJU over Starbeyevo Kustov.jpg, please? The proper text should read: A [[Qantas]] egy kb. 11 000 méter magasan repülő [[:hu:Boeing 747–400]]-as gépe [[:hu:Moszkva|Moszkvából]] (Sztarbejevóból), a földről nézve Canon 400D fényképezőre szerelt 1200 mm-es távcsővel és 2× nagyítású Barlow lencsével, javított színsémával. Thanks Csigabi (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC) (Sysop on huwiki)[reply]

Yes, it is protected: "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled". There are mistakes in the Hungarian description which should be corrected. Csigabi (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cached copy

why I see cached copy of deleted picture File:Duniya Vijay.jpg--Motopark (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I purged the cache and now its gone. If you can still access it, please click this link --Sreejith K (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now I know one way more.--Motopark (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Own licence

Are this valid licence Template:CopyrightbyFreak222.--Motopark (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translated from German: This file is intellectual property of Freak222! Who wants to use it, ask for HERE!. This template indirectly conveys that the file is not free and that's against Common's policies. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I have deleted the template as it obviously cannot be used on Commons -- a user cannot require permission to use a file. It was unused at the time I deleted it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this DR

Please close this DR Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Rename--Motopark (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - A.Savin 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Shahbulag

In the description of this photo I added an information that this castle is Shahbulag, cause that's true[5]. I also added an inf. that this object situated in Agdam district of Azerbaijan and sourse where photos of this castle are published. But this user remove[6] my creates, saying that only he knows what is on his photo. I think this action is desinformation and vandalism. Please do something. --Interfase (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a warning on his talk page. You both must discuss it before either of you makes any other changes. Google has many images which appear to confirm your belief that it is Shahbulag.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is Shahbulag, what is this, this and this? --Ліонкінг (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tigranakert is an archeological site (not a castle) near this castle - ruins of an ancient city. The castle was built by Panah Ali khan in 18 century. --Interfase (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can You proove by neutral (non pro-Azeri), reliable and identifying sources that the modern name of the castle is not a Tigranakert and that the archaeological site and the castle have different names? --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sourse also is "pro-Azeri"? --Interfase (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do You have any doubts that Turkish sources are not pro-Azeri and anti-Armenian? (Look an adress at the end of Your source. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article "Agdam" from "Dictionary of modern geographical names" published in Russia in 2006, where we see "Крепость Шахбулаг (XVIII в.)", which means Shahbulag castle (18 c.). What can say now? Also "anti-Armenian" sourse? --Interfase (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat the question: Can You proove by neutral (non pro-Azeri), reliable and identifying sources that the modern name of the castle is not a Tigranakert and that the archaeological site and the castle have different names?
You're editing Russian chapter of wikipedia for more than 4 years, You've made there more than 12K edits and I can't believe that You don't know that this site is a clone en, ru. I mean that all information from the source dic.academic is copypasted from the several version of the article in ruwiki. It seems to me that You listen me, but can't hear me. Firstly You give unneutral, not reliable but identifying source and then You give neutral, but not reliable and not identifying source. But most important is that nor of this two sources gives an answers on my two questions. Is it smth really difficult? The problem is that there're no such source and we returns to the start. You're continuing affirming that the name of the castle is Shahbulag while You've never been there and I've visited the castle for three times in different years, have uploaded this photo and have more than half hundred photos of the castle and I know that the name of the castle is Tigranakert. If You can prove another point of view, do it. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the site is published in the "Dictionary of modern geographical names", word to word. Go to library and watch. All sourses added by me are reliable (and 1st, and 2nd...). And you also know that this is Shahbulag. I think you only play with the rules. --Interfase (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can You read attentive what I ask? You've not written anything on the plot of my questions. Only proposing for me to visit the library, dispute about reability of sources which don't gives an answers on my question (by the way, if You can't understand that unneutral (1) and "mirror" (2) sources are not reliable when I've prove it, You can call a mediator and he will say You the same) and discussion on my personality. I'm still waiting for answers on my questions (they are in bold). --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already proved that the modern name of the castle is Shahbulag. I showed you a reliale sourse where castle is called Shahbulag. But you cannot prove that the name of the castle is Tigranakert. --Interfase (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've asked You two questions for three times [7], [8], [9]. I've given a links on the video, photos and official site + as You know and it's not a secret, I've uploaded the file, so You understand, that I was there at least once (on the question if You ever had been there You have answered that it doesn't matter). Forgot about Your links, they are not a plot of the dispute. I just ask You to give an answers on two questions:
  1. Can You prove by neutral, reliable and identifying sources that the modern name of the castle is not a Tigranakert
  2. Can You prove by neutral, reliable and identifying sources that archaeological site and the castle Tigranakert which are situated in one place have different names?
It is all what I want to hear. You're wasting at least both Your and my time. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I alreadey showed you a sourses using Shahbulag name.
  2. See articles about Shahbulag castle and Tigranakert. Different places. --Interfase (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Interfase (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them. They represent the point of view of Azerbaijan which don't control this castle for 19 years and have not done anything to repair it. But the question was another.
Article in enwiki "Shahbulag" is created by users Angel670, Anastasia.Bukh and Interfase. All this users can't be neutral in AA-related articles, because all of them "sympathize" to Azerbaijan. No one neutral user or user with another believes have not checked this article. As a result there are 12 sources, 9 from them are Azeri sources. About three another sources:
  • 1 - not neutral source. There is mentioned that in this sources are collected the texts with the perceptions of Muslim authors from Central Asia and the Caucasus. Also there are mentioned that the team of the source is consisted by 5 authors, one of them is from Azerbaijan and no one is from Armenia. It's not a secret that Armenians are Christians.
  • 2 - The text is reproduced on the publication: Adigezalov Mirza Beg. Karabag-name. Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan SSR. 1950 - no comments.
  • 3 - unreliable source with unneutral phrases like ...confirms that this land belongs to Azerbaijan.
You've mentioned that castle and ancient city has different places. I again understand that You've never been there. Ancient city is consisted of two parts: lower city and upper city. Between them is situated the castle about which we're speaking now. Both articles are mentioned with the same coordinates: 40°03'55?N 46°54'21?E. So Your statement that they're situated in different places is wrong.
Can You give direct answers on my question? Note: don't waste the time providing different pro-Azeri or not reliable links saying that the position of Azerbaijan which don't control the castle is that the name of the castle is Shahbulag. It is not my question, if You can't understand.
If You've smth to add, You can do it now. If You think that we can start discuss the final result, decide if we can do it without mediator or with a help of mediator. If we need a mediator, propose Your variants. --Ліонкінг (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think he also knows that this is Shahbulag because he was there (as he says 3 times). --Interfase (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion, if I understand this discussion correctly. Is it true that this place has two names -- because of language, ethnic, or custody differences? If that is correct, we can certainly show both names in the image descriptions, without any comment on which one is "correct". There are many geographic places that have more than one name -- "La Manche" and "The English Channel" -- neither is correct, they are just different.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New template in response to Fox News article

I have created a basic template, {{Nsfw}}, to indicate some of the more potentially embarrassing images on the Commons. This was a response to an article complaining about alleged porn on the Commons. Is that a good idea or not? Rickyrab (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it should be turned into a deletion template, such as Template:Db-nsfw. Rickyrab (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, arbitrary standards made up by opinions subject to the whims of the user placing it, no prior discussion regarding placement of template. There should definitely be a full discussion and debate before anything like this template is put into use. -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This matter has been discussed over and over for the official policy see Commons:CENSOR#Censorship. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it deserves another discussion, then. And, yes, some of the standards may be arbitrary, but they are popular in some cultures. Me? I don't feel one way or the other about the pictures in question, but some worrying mom or dad might. Rickyrab (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this thread related to administrators? Not at all, right? So let's close that misplaced discussion here. --Saibo (Δ)

+1. Just a word on the "worrying mum, if they worry about porn on commons, they should worry about their kids going on the internet alone.". That said we have COM:CENSOR --PierreSelim (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved--Saibo (Δ) 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Löschung einer Datei inklusive aller Versionen

Ich ersuche um Löschung folgender Datei inklusive sämtlicher versionen [[10]] Grund: Ich bin neu in der Wikipedia Commons, versionen Sind bedienfehler. Datei überflüssig, WIRD NICHT MEHR Benötigt. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrus3743 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-24T22:50:00‎ (UTC)

Hallo und willkommen in Commons, Petrus3743! Die Datei File:Finden eines Bruches nahe Pi.png habe ich auf deinen Wunsch hin gelöscht (diese meintest du doch, oder?). Wenn du Angaben auf der Dateiseite ändern willst, dann musst du einfach, wie auf jeder Wikiseite ganz oben auf "Bearbeiten" klicken. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved--Saibo (Δ) 00:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on the main page?

Please can someone look into this quickly: File:Scientist-meets-publisher-English.ogv is currently on the main page (as media of the day). But I cannot find the cc-0 release anywhere on the source. And anyway, it seems inconsistent with the terms of use at [11] (which say personal use only, etc, etc). It's nearly bedtime here, but this looks urgent to me. (And I've got some funny "script error" which means my usual "Nominate for deletion" tool is broken :-(). --99of9 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the following pages. Please revert asap if you think I'm wrong.
--99of9 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can something like that become the Media of the Day? Some random quotes from that video: "Sign here, sign here, sign here... Our operating profit margin is over 30 percent, thank you for your work... please give me the copyright on your article and I will buy a house on the beach... I like to buy houses on the beach..." And so on. Thats an disapointed writers personal opinion pressed in some non-creative, not very suitable, aninmation with bad 'camera work' and a computer voice. That file not worth beein featured on Wikimedia Commons. Dont we have any standards or any selection process for MOTD?? --Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The video has been created using Xtranormal, whose terms of service (WebCite) state "For clarity, Xtranormal does not assert any ownership over your User Content; you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights." The creator has put it under a CC 0 license (cf. YouTube copy), so it isn't a copyvio. For background, see the blog post announcing the video, or another recent post (WebCite) on the matter by the same author.
Yes, the animation is very limited from a technical point of view, and no, there does not seem to be a selection process for MOTD at the moment.
As to whether that is a personal opinion, see, for instance, this statement by the Association of Research Libraries or the following pieces in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic, or Wired. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=67512440"