Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
introduction
Help desk
uploading
Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
Commons discussion pages (index)


Protection of blocked user talk pages without specific cause[edit]

I'm asking for some alternative viewpoints from Commons administrators with regard to policy on sysop protection of user talk pages. Yesterday my edit to Dcoetzee's user talk page was reverted by Billinghurst and the page immediately restricted to sysop edits only.[1] This is problematic for a number of reasons and I believe is not an admin action supported by policy in these circumstances. Billinghurst's reply to my request to unprotect the talk page was that in their view edits to a banned user talk page are 'counter-productive', this is not supported by the history of this page, nor based on any current use of the page, nor on any possible action by Dcoetzee or myself. The page has never been misused by anyone, nor has it been used to discuss the WMF office lock in any inappropriate way. Here's a summary:

  1. Dcoetzee's account was WMF office locked by agreement almost two years ago with no public rationale. Since that date there has never been any misuse of the talk page.
  2. The talk page is primarily used to log notifications for deletion requests. Dcoetzee uploaded over 28,000 images on this account including many valued Google Art project images. These and others may have their copyright discussed, and the talk page is the best place for those of us interested in Dcoetzee's groundbreaking GLAM related uploads to keep an eye on what happens to the collections.
  3. Dcoetzee's account was central to the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, one of the most well known cases of "sweat of the brow" claims against public domain images on Commons. The talk page remains an obvious place for GLAMs and others to ask questions about these uploads that can then be picked up by other volunteers or the WMF who watch the page.
  4. I will be resurrecting Dcoetzee's Fair Use upload bot, which transfers files to be deleted from Commons to other projects, questions may be mistakenly raised on Dcoetzee's talk page and this is another reason I keep an eye on the talk page.
  5. The edit that was reverted was to trim a boilerplate notification, something I have a script to do and has been operating in a limited way to keep a few busy user talk pages readable and to preempt the maximum template transclusion problem sometimes seen on long user talk pages. This was the edit reverted yesterday, though in the 18 months I have been doing this there has never been an objection or revert of the changes, neither has Billinghurst claimed my edit was problematic or unhelpful.

I believe that all administrator actions should be made "positively", in that action should only ever be taken where there is good cause to take action and where the action itself is both justified under existing consensus based policy or guidelines and where the action is of long term benefit to the project. In this case the action damages the project as it has become harder to work out how to keep an eye on Dcoetzee's uploads apart from watching all 28,000 images, and impossible to discuss Dcoetzee's uploads in one place. For these reasons I ask that the indefinite protection of Dcoetzee's user talk page is removed.

It would be appropriate for an administrator to add a notification of this discussion on AN to Dcoetzee's talk page. This is currently impossible for non-admins to do and others that watch Dcoetzee's user talk page will find it helpful. Thanks -- (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I Symbol support vote.svg Support unprotecting Dcoetzee's talkpage per 's reasoning above. We don't want any questions or DR notices to be missed. I've left a notification of this discussion on Dcoetzee's talk. INeverCry 20:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "User pages" are not the property of the person operating the account. User pages are something shared with the Wikimedia community under the same free license as all other submitted content. If there is a particular reason to protect a user page then protection might be applied. Otherwise, the default assumption should be that all kinds of users have an interest in the content posted on userpages. In the case of this user page, notices about any of their many thousands of uploads might appear by an automated process on their user page if it is not blocked. The Wikimedia community is harmed when those notices do not appear in that expected location, because people doing maintenance will not be able to find the logs in the usual place. I would not want that page locked without a reason. A sufficient reason might be "certain classes of users get locked pages", but if that is to be the case, then someone needs to put that rule on record before enforcing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - in principle user talk pages should not be protected, unless it's really needed for some reason. I don't see any need to protect this specific talk page - Jcb (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'm not an admin but I support unblocking the talk page based on the rational given. Particularly since there has been no abuse of the talk page, there is no reason to lock it. Reguyla (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I had already explained in the past, why we never should full protect talk pages of users who have uploaded anything. No need to repeat myself, please establish a different rule or unprotect asap. --A.Savin 23:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done per consensus above - Jcb (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon @Jcb:. Are you a neutral party to be closing this discussion? Has this even had a day to be discussed? Please describe the urgency for you action? There is 24 hours in a day, and you take away the ability for the world to comment with unnecessarily early closure, and one that does not even let the person who placed the protection to be able to comment. Truly that is now the process here?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's not make the case bigger than it is. You protected 1 (one) page that should not have been protected in the first place. This protection causes that some deletion nominations go unnoticed. This could be resolved by weird modifications to scripts, but such modifications will probably never be implemented. At least they are not available now. Before undoing such a single protection, it's good to ask for some opinions, but not more than that. All admins make mistakes. We should correct each other when necessary. We did so in this case. No need to spend more energy on this. Jcb (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Jcb's decision to unblock. Taivo (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

In short. I am not in disagreement with some of the points raised. I would not normally block a user talk page, this page is an exception. We don't have a rule or exception in the policy about banned user talk pages, and that is not a surprise, such a decision is by conversation as we are having here. Here is why I think that the protection should remain, and how we can do matters better than direct our users to the talk page of a banned user for the administrative matters that were raised.

  1. User talk pages are the page that we use to contact that party or for conversations with that party. These talk pages are not general conversation pages, nor are they monitoring pages. We cover this subject matter at Commons:Talk page guidelines.
  2. Re blocking of user talk pages. I challenge that we have a principle of not blocking such pages, it is our convention not to do so. Our principle is around blocking of pages as required, and only as required, and the policy implements that principle, our convention flows from there. Yes, it is quite unusual for us to block a user talk page, and I see this page as an exception to our convention.
  3. This is a banned user, and WMF only bans users for the most egregious abuse of user or privilege. The commentary about why is not relevant as the WMF has holistically explained their reasons for not releasing such detail.
  4. As a community we should not be encouraging the use of the talk page of a banned user. The banned user should not have a home to watch, they should not be encouraged or given side doors in which to participate.
  5. If you want the monitoring functions or discussion spaces for the matters that you wish to have then please create them, and we can put in redirects, soft or hard. That is not beyond our ability. We can put in place instructions that directs users elsewhere, we can write exceptions to our scripts so that deletion nominations are put elsewhere. Clearly all within capability, and one would say more suitable for the purpose which you describe. Instruction and information to manage those needs. We should be handling the bigger issues that you raise in a more intelligent and wise approach that we think that watching a user talk page is the best and only approach is simply daft.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. I would state that the requirements that Fae mentions can all be adequately addressed by the community while retaining the protection on the page. I would even say that with a small amount of diligent and thoughtful work that we can have a better result to inform users who are inadvertently using this talk page to better outcomes.

 — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to draw this out any further but in correction to a statement you made above, it has become common practice to lock users talk pages when blocking them, It happens all the time on the WMF wiki's not just here. I don't agree with it, but it is a common tactic. Additionally, this user was banned months ago and the talk page was not locked until recently, why the decision to do it now? Is there some evidence to show this user is socking? Reguyla (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Re 1: Consider en:User talk:Jimbo Wales. What sort of talk page is that? Talk pages are public for a reason, and, until talk page stalking becomes an anti-pattern and discouraged, I do not see how "these talk pages are not general conversation pages, nor are they monitoring pages".
  • Re 4: Banned means that their participation in the project in any way should not be allowed. That does not mean they should not be contacted with talk pages, so that other stalkers may respond to the messages. Banning does not mean the contributions prior to the ban are no longer valid, and the matters posted on the talk page is related to the contributions prior to the ban.
  • Re 5: Yes, afaik hard redirects do redirect the notifications from our scripts, however watcher's watchlists do not get redirected. From a coder's perspective, "we can write exceptions to our scripts" on a case-by-case basis is a hack and should not be done. If you move the page and leave a hard redirect, yes it works, yet I do not find how the result of that is any different from the current unprotected user talk page.
  • Re Reguyla: Afaik, here, full protection of a user talk page upon an indef block does not look common to me here on commons --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Further analysis of protected user talk pages[edit]

@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for the bit of SQL. It is worth highlighting that despite a "purge" on these pages in the distant past (almost all being over 8 years ago), of the total of 218 user talk pages currently indef protected, only a tiny percentage of these actions have occurred in the last few years and there is no direct correlation with WMF office actions. It would be reasonable to conclude that despite a handful of highly problematic troll accounts including some protection added by members of Oversight, removing most of the past indef protections would pose no risk to the project, perhaps that would be worth considering for anyone proposing how the page protection guidelines could be improved. Here's the summary for the last 3 years and you can see the full report here:

Breakdown of user talk pages indef protected
Total Pages protected (admin) Year
1 WayneRay (Odder) 2016
5 WhiteWindow (Tiptoety); Svenbot (Sven Manguard); Belissarius (Odder); Meco (Natuur12); A1cb3 (Tiptoety) 2015
6 Manto30-08 (Hedwig in Washington); SaidHadraj (Alan); Gabry2727 (Blackcat); Rqwqwr1rgnaa (Blackcat); Melkor65 (Natuur12); Cotton (Blackcat) 2014

-- (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(@: can you try changing the admin from the blocking admin to the protecting admin? Idk if the best way is to join the logging table. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC))
@Zhuyifei1999: Quarry updated, please double check the query for me, I'll probably take another look tomorrow based on your suggestions (feel free to email me rather than going on a tech tangent here). I only get a fraction of the same results, so it's quite a different meaning to the one I expected. My uninvestigated guess is that this might be because during the mass renaming of accounts by the WMF, there's a disconnect between original logged page ID and the current page, so those are being dropped when the protection table intersects with logging. An interesting example is Starship9000 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) where the account was blocked in 2013, but the talk page was not protected until 2016, so the overall pattern using this query may look quite different even if the other differences are explained. -- (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Breaking out this discussion as a tangent to the original thread. It does seem that in the Global SUL renamings the wiki database cannot easily track the history of accounts that have been renamed as "<original account name>~commonswiki" since protection and logs were made. It's not a big issue, but it may cause anyone analysing trends to jump to poor conclusions.

In terms of analysing older blocked accounts, there are two that might illustrate how account blocks and page protections may be applied for very different scenarios than simply banned users. Raising these for views from the admins protecting the talk pages as well as others, as these might be cases worth clarifying the guidelines for, as the use of talk page protection may be inconsistent at this time:

  1. Katepanomegas (talk · contribs · logs · block log), this account was blocked in 2013 based on the user retiring and the user talk page indef protected against edits due to apparent anonymous harassment and the account being compromised, though the user did not specifically request it. The account has uploaded 117 images which are still current on Commons. @INeverCry: for a view on whether the protection is appropriate for removal, in the light that the risk of any harassment must be minimal after 3 years and the account itself can remain blocked.
  2. Joymaster (talk · contribs · logs · block log) died in an accident in 2010. The account was indef blocked and the talk page protected against edits. Joymaster uploaded 5,320 photographs which are current on Commons. In the light that the talk page can be usefully open for edits to discuss and coordinate Deletion Requests, per the above discussion/brief consensus, asking the blocking admin for a view on removing the talk page protection while leaving the notice so that everyone can respect the circumstances, @Odder:.

Thanks -- (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@: You want to use the talkpage of deceased user for discussing and coordinating Deletion Requests? Seriously? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Er, yes. This is not intended as disrespectful in any way. Talkpages are not owned by the account holder, and as in this case the deceased user uploaded over 5,000 photographs, I can think of no better place for the community of volunteers to keep an eye on this collection of uploads. If not on the deceased user's talk page, a place where everybody can understand and respect the unfortunate circumstances, then where else?
Out of interest this report shows there are only a handful of blocked accounts where the user talk pages are indef protected and the accounts uploaded over 100 images to Commons. For some accounts there are serious oversight issues that make protection a sensible precaution, for others there is room for discussion about the long term and how best to ensure deletion requests for these collections are noticed and the outcome as transparent as possible for our community. -- (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The full protections of the talk pages for Joymaster and Belissarius were performed as a courtesy due to their having passed away; I think I've done this influenced by a long-standing tradition from the Polish Wikipedia where user pages (and user talk pages) were/are protected on learning such sad news. I have never considered that a talk page might still be useful after a user's passing, and still feel unsure about it—I think maybe one central page automatically gathering notices that will never be read because of a user's death, perhaps based on a talk page's inclusion in a category would be better—but I can be persuaded otherwise. odder (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference between how user pages are handled on Wikipedias, where though it is not consistent, it has become more common to protect user talk pages without cause when it is known that the user has died (see examples at de:Wikipedia:Gedenkseite für verstorbene Wikipedianer) and on Commons where we tend to avoid protection unless there are other reasons for doing so; per the above stats. I believe the source of this difference is a practical one, on Wikipedias active volunteers may create hundreds of articles but more rarely thousands. Consequently an active user's talk page may have a small handful of deletion requests for articles in a year, but rarely more than this unless there has been an issue. On Commons today we are lucky enough to have 3,360 user accounts with more than a thousand images successfully uploaded, so we see active users having several deletion requests a month on their talk pages, without this being a poor reflection on the user. For myself, having loaded nearly two million images, my user talk page gets archived every 12 days yet it always has deletion requests on it; were I to suddenly cease editing, it would be a comfort to know that when deletion requests were raised on my uploads, that interested users could still find the notices on my talk page and act to help maintain and preserve my GLAM related upload projects. Though, as above, it might be possible to redirect deletion request notices somewhere else, this seems an overly complex solution compared to keeping a deceased user's talk page on your watch-list.
@Odder:, though I understand why you have protected these two user talk pages because the users have died, and that this may be done as a courtesy, the statistics show this is not common practice for our project to protect their talk pages against all future notices. As has been explained being unable to edit the talk page is likely to hamper the ability for other volunteers interested in the deceased user's contributions to help by tracking deletion notices and positively contributing to the discussions. It may also put off volunteers from raising deletion requests for these collections which again is not a net benefit to our project. By the way, I appreciate where you have linked to memorial pages on other projects, that's a good idea for the talk page notice. -- (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @: The Katepanomegas acct was blocked as compromised because of edits like this which were also done by several sock accounts. I can't remember now if Katepanomegas emailed me or what checkusering I did at the time. In any event, I'd say you're right that the threat has passed. I've unprotected the talkpage. INeverCry 19:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm doubtful about the accuracy of the quarry as I didn't see User talk:Jorgeroyan there. He passed away in 2014; but that account is/was jointly operated by another admin, Barcex as the user page says. Anyway I didn't see the need for protection; just a template {{Deceased}} on top may enough. Jee 06:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    (In case it matters, the query meant indef full-protected talk pages of indef blocked users. I do not consider protected talk pages of not-blocked users relevant to this discussion; thus added the restriction to the results of the original query, and Fae kept the restriction in his fork.) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing this out. But it is (fully protected irrespective of whether blocked or not) is relevant here as the only benefit of not protecting to see the DRs and other requests by page watchers/passer by. Here an admin can post a DR notice there; not others. This is not good. Jee 10:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, there are 187123 user talk pages (non-subpages) protected without a block. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Zhuyifei1999: These results aren't accurate. Adolf Hitler~commonswiki, Blofeld of SPECTRE, Homo lude, and many others among those 187 are indefinitely blocked with the talk protected. INeverCry 18:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm I didn't know MediaWiki store usernames in the ipblocks tables differently than page titles. That is fixed and query updated. 123 of them are without blocks and 281 with indef blocks. Thanks for spotting that error --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    In that 123, I see at least one deceased user and a few LTA socks (probably locked rather than blocked). Many of these 300+ protections likely resulted from sock stalking at the time, while others, like Essjay, are ancient history. INeverCry 00:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Here's a linked list of the 123 unblocked accts: User:INeverCry/Protected talk pages. INeverCry 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @:, @Steinsplitter:, @Odder: User talk:ArtMechanic is a fully protected talkpage of a deceased user who died in 2010, and yet notification of DRs by admins have been posted there up to 2 days ago. Admins like me, Ellin Beltz, and EugeneZelenko are responsible for a lot of DR/CSD work, so these deceased user talkpages are probably going to get hit with notifications anyways if they've done a significant ammount of uploading. Perhaps watching these pages is a better idea than protecting them, though we have a lot of retirements so watchlisting may only be a short-term way of monitoring them. As for old protections like User:Essjay~commonswiki, those could be removed without any problems. I've looked at quite a few of the unblocked acct talk protections, and they're "user requested" or "retired" protections from years ago. I would think the indef-blocked talk protections are mostly based on temporary socking/trolling, so most of those are long past being useful. INeverCry 02:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I forgot to note that a number of these protections are of redirected talkpages. INeverCry 02:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's an update on blocked users with full-protected talkpages: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/11966. Down to 159 from 281. I removed protections from most sock talkpages that were done from 2005 to 2010. INeverCry 23:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

delete first file version[edit]

Katze frisst Gras.jpg

Please delete the fist upload because it may contain geographic data of the place of origin within the EXIF data set (and would show where I live). --Mattes (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you! --Mattes (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP deletion required[edit]

An admin should probably review the image at {redacted} to see if it needs deleting under Commons:BLP. (I don't want to create a deletion nomination, as that would leave the title searchable.) Basically someone has uploaded a recent-looking portrait of someone, and the title gives their full name and location and claims that they are a "prostitute" and a "slut". If the person is really a famous prostitute then maybe the image can be kept, but more likely this is just an attack image. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 19:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-free revision in File:Panama Canal Time lapse.webm[edit]

Based on this archived VP discussion, the video File:Panama Canal Time lapse.webm has a previous non-free revision that should probably be hidden (though not deleted altogether.) Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Nick (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandal IP[edit]

Hello.Please make this IP stops responding to requests and responded to the the request.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Advitamaeternam19[edit]

Not sure if this is some kind of exempt account or a habitual copy violator. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)