Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Template:Skiptotoctalk

Shortcut: [[:]]

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
116, 115, 114, 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
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
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
Translate this page
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.
Deutsch: Dies ist eine Seite auf der Benutzer und Administratoren, oder Administratoren untereinander kommunizieren können. Du kannst hier Vandalismus, schwierige Benutzer oder andere Sachen, die den Eingriff eines Administrators benötigen, anzeigen.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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 dove gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o gli amministratori fra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore.
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.
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 relatr casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador.
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.
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.
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）：这里是用户与管理员或管理员彼此间的联络地方。您可以在此回报破坏、有问题的用户，或其他需要管理员介入处理的事情。
中文（繁體）：這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員彼此間的聯絡地方。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處理的事情。
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.

About the upload form translation

I don't know who designed the form from "Thank you, ..." to "==New translation by==", but it makes me uncomfortable when translating.

  • Firstly, I have to type the MediaWiki namespace message or copy/paste again and again (while copy/paste from preview above will create spaces before the line).
  • Secondly, if I want to add wikilink to the message I have to go above, hover my mouse over the original and then copy and edit in edit box. It takes me so much time to do it.

You should let us access to source code easily to translate (of course read-only, I just need to copy/paste). I have translated some messages, but in this form, it's too long to do manually like that, so I don't want to translate anymore. I think it would happen to anyone but me. I don't have any idea to improve it, but I post here in hope that you guys can have it. Vinhtantran 00:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please speak to User:Lupo regarding this - if you can suggest a better method for translating these messages, it may well be implemented. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you can suggest some better way, I'll try to implement it. The preview does give the links to the English messages, right-clicking these links, selecting "open in new tab/window", and then choosing "view" should give you access to the sources used. I know it's a bit awkward, but I have no idea how to make it even easier. But if it's just because of the wikilinks, you might also do something like "dashgfhdgfh dfaghfhjadfg[1] sdfgdfhag". I think I and anyone else is smart enough to turn that into a message reading "dashgfhdgfh dfaghfhjadfg sdfgdfhag"... Lupo 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Upload form: Problem with tiny "Source" section

The "Original source (Where does this file come from?)" section of the new upload form seems uncomfortably & inappropriately tiny and inflexible. For example, I might wish to upload an image published in the 19th or start of the 20th century (an old book, magazine, etc being the original source), which also has an intermediate source (eg, Library of Congress or another website, or my own scan). The form does not allow any hard returns to list multiple lines to give accurate full source information. -- Infrogmation 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw that now. You should have an arrow icon to the right of the source and author fields. Click it to turn the fields into multi-line inputs. The size of these fields can also be configured, see the documentation. Lupo 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, could we have a plain old "box" by any chance? For example, in case someone is just uploading a bunch of similarly named/licensed files? I might find myself uploading multiple images, for example, 5+ at a shot, that are all functionally the same for descriptions, that I copy/paste through... sort of advanced or power user option? rootology (T) 04:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a toggle for the basic form in my preferences (Gadgets tab). – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thank you... could there be a mention on the upload form alerting people to that? rootology (T) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was already. If not, I'll do that now. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload failure problem

Had to try six or seven times in two different browsers before I could upload successfully. Got a "line 100" failure. Best guess I have is that the new form accepts nonexistent categories (if you want to create a new one) and then chokes up. Durova 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Image:Lincoln and Johnson original.jpg? Hmmm... the form (and HotCat) do accept non-existing categories, and they don't do anything special with them. BTW, it appears you inadvertently put the description into the source. Or maybe that also is a result of this problem... And since Baker lived 1837 - 1914, I guess the cartoon would be even {{PD-Old}}. I tried my best to reproduce this using that page's texts as inputs on the full form, to no avail. I also checked line 100 in a number of JavaScript files without seeing any problems. What browsers were you using? I tried it on IE6 and FF2. If this ever happens again, please try to provide the exact input you used for the fields, and state which browser and skin you were using. Lupo 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it on my uploads today as well, and didn't see an error. Could you upload one of the pics that failed differently and tell us step by step what to put in each field, and on what browser? rootology (T) 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming account

Could you please move my account user:Baran Ivo to SUL user:Ivob? I'm preparing the single user login for my account at the slovak wikipedia. Thnx. --Baran Ivo 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think this Commons:Changing username is the page You are looking for, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, has since been done. giggy (:O) 10:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion of images

All hail Lord Byron Bryan! Bugzilla:8527 is fixed in rev:35793 (not yet live; we are at 35767 now live) - this will let us mass-delete a user's recent images using Special:Nuke (which makes it not useless :D ) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to work for images, only pages. Fail. ;( Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fix appears to not be a fix; false alarm. But at lease it is close to coming :) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just can't count, apparently. We are at r35849, this change is at r35793 but the Nuke extension is only at r34529. Apparently core software and extensions are synced separately. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I want this tool. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's something in my monobook that does something similar... you need DelReqHandler, but it's really good. (I think you have it too, Mike... Lupo made it if that makes things any clearer.) giggy (:O) 10:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be secretive: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 8#Special:Nuke up up and away!. (Use includeScript instead of includePage now.) Lupo 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not spotted that one - thanks Lupo, neat --Herby talk thyme 11:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a script, and that one is nice too. And one can use pywikipediabot. But this is in the software, which makes things much easier. But still we wait... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now this works :D – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ribi

Ribi has quite passionate at Category talk:Peter Klashorst in pleading his case for deletion of the images. Of course Ribi is entitled to this, but I think that this comment is way over the line and some intervention is required. Ribi has been previously warned about hostile behavior. Kelly 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to do so, but I have blocked Ribi for 48 hours. They've been warned previously several times about being civil, and have chosen to ignore them. I hope some cooling off will help. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was a lot worse. I consider it as a threat and a diffamation against me. This threat against Klashorst is not bad either. And what about that or that? I don't understand why he hasn't been blocked before. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because we were assuming bundles of good faith. That's also why they're only blocked for 48h. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the socking as User:Say-no-to-racism warrants an extension of the block. Kelly 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extended to two one weeks; sock account has since been blocked indefinitely. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:51, 05 June 2008 (GMT)

Image:VirtualDub 1.7.8.png

This image seems to be licensed under GPL as well as it is copyrighted (see the screenshot itself). Any suggestions what license takes priority in this case ? Regards, →Christian.И 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the image, we can always contact the developers of the software. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Steffi Graf.jpg

Could someone please take a look at this pic. Te flickr page says all rights reserved. The image is tagged as reviewed, but the page has never been edited by anyone except for the uploader. Cheers. BanRay 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And supposedly reviewed @ 11:13, 1 June 2008 - even though there are no edits at that time - and thats not when it was uploaded. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly has not been properly reviewed, and indeed fails. I have deleted it. --MichaelMaggs 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freystschl.jpg

Can someone look at this image? It is unclear why it has PD-Polishsymbol license. If there a better forum to ask this kind of questions? --Jarekt 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, nominated for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RudolfVrba1997.jpg

Could an OTRS volunteer check the ticket on the above image? The en Wikipedia uploader used the GFDL license, but the terms quoted in the description sound more like a public domain release to me. Kelly 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:RudolfVrbawithArnostRosin.jpg and Image:RudolfVrba1960-1.jpg. Kelly 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only thing that is stated to be in the public domain are the school photos of mr. Vrba. For the rest, no details on which free license should be used are given, just a "release under a free license" statement as the description says. Given the circumstance, SlimVirgin chose one of the free licenses, namely GFDL. Since GFDL is not a restricting license (I think "no restrictions" has more to do with "no restrictions on use" rather than "no conditions"), I think the images are OK with that - Badseed talk 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for checking. I just wanted to offer the least restriction as possible (knowing what a hassle GFDL is for print media). Thanks again. Kelly 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent SVG change?

I noticed a single one of my svg images no longer renders (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:EGG_Future_in_Past.svg). It comes out totally blank. I had worked with this image after uploading it before, and have built documents incorporating it so .. I'm quite sure the image rendered just fine in the past. So I'm suspecting it is a backend change?

Also, I rengenerated the image in SVG 1.1 basic (always form AI CS2) and, using that limited set of SVG, it still didn't render. I can't say why all my other images render, and not this one. :S If I knew, I could avoid this issue with future posts.

What advice can you give me? Thanks in advance. Robbiemuffin 01:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just rolled back all the way through basic 1.0 svg ... and still no luck so I've reverted it. I also tried uploading another image in its place. At this point I think there is an administrative issue — with the name of that image, not a simple rendering library issue. There are dozens of less complicated SVGs, including another I have up that is exactly like this one, just with a couple of extra objects.

Robbiemuffin 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image works fine for me now. It might have been a temporary glitch. Does it still not work for you? --rimshottalk 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus21 image uploads

The-Real-ZEUS was blocked in April from the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and on-going copyright violations (block notice; upload log). His admitted sockpuppet ZEUS-21 was also blocked, but the corresponding Commons account Zeus21 (talk · contribs) was not blocked and some of the account's images haven't been deleted.

This user has an extensive history of copyvio image uploads on the English Wikipedia. He also has a probable enwiki throwaway sock Panossantorini that tried to re-upload his deleted copyvio images by uploading them to Flickr with bogus free licenses.

Given his track record of dishonesty and copyright violations, I'm not sure we can assume good faith regarding any free license claims he has made, and I feel his remaining Commons image uploads should be deleted. I'm requesting input from admins to look into this issue. --Muchness 09:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

It is possible that an administrator can delete my userpage? Thanks. — PsY.cHo!, 13:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --my name 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Approval

Could someone please either approve or deny me for using AWB at Commons:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I put myself on the list 4 days ago and am still waiting. BlastOButter42 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you had to wait so long, you're now approved. giggy (:O) 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more, since you have less than 200 edits. Sorry, O (谈 • висчвын) 01:25, 09 June 2008 (GMT)
If you read what I'd written on the page, you'd see that I have more than 5000 edits on the English Wikipedia and am approved to use AWB there. That's not good enough? BlastOButter42 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that is not good enough. Wikimedia Commons is not an extension of the English Wikipedia. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:59, 09 June 2008 (GMT)
I suppose this isn't the place to discuss this, but the point of having an approval process is to determine whether a person will be able to use the tool wisely, not to show that they've passed some arbitrary edit-count mark, right? I mean, you could have 200 edits and not have any idea of the proper way to use the tool, or you could (like me) have the experience and knowledge to use the it correctly and responsibly but less than 200 edits. I think it's pretty clear that I would be able to do that.BlastOButter42 02:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I approved on the basis of the user's edits to the English Wikipedia using the tool, as well as the fairly straightforward and simple task requested. BlastOButter42, if you want me to run that using a bot, leave me a talk page note. giggy (:O) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can also do this task using pywikipedia, if needed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:24, 09 June 2008 (GMT)
Or, I could do it myself, by hand, as I just did. (Which, by the way, got me about 20 more edits...see how arbitrary having an edit requirement is? We never do that on en.wp.) BlastOButter42 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? We never have edit count requirements on en wiki? Besides the many informal edit counts (such as at requests for adminship), there are indeed formal edit requirements, such as for voting (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007). And of course, AutoWikiBrowser has an edit requirement on en wiki too. Superm401 - Talk 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he meant, "we never edit by hand anymore" on enwp? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyvio uploads by User:Reezy

Reezy has been repeatedly uploading copyvio images, and sourcing them to a Flickr profile (presumably own) that only has copyvio images. The user has a history of copyvio uploads on English Wikipedia. Based on user history, it doesn't seem that this user has any interest in uploading free images or respecting Wiki policies. --Ytoyoda 04:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week, all uploads deleted. giggy (:O) 04:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUL request

Could my username here be changed to Jcwf so that I can consolidate under that name for SUL NlJcwf 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard has been closed for renames for too long. Please place your order at COM:CHU. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:56, 10 June 2008 (GMT)

Derivative drawings copied from photographs (and the women who love them)

Simonfieldhouse (talk · contribs) uploaded a number of line drawings that were adapted from copyrighted photographs (copying the pose, expression, composition, etc., of the subject), and so as derivative works, cannot be freely licensed. I've explained that to the user here and on Wikipedia, where he has expressed understanding and has removed the images.[2] I've tagged them all on Commons for deletion as derivatives, with links to all the photographs that they copied. However, Proclius (talk · contribs) (curiously, with no previous edits), tried to swap out all the sourced deletion tags with generic notices. Proclius then responded to my explanations with trolling personal attacks. I'm not an admin on Commons, so if someone could please keep an eye on the situation and properly see it through... Postdlf 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload form: quick help

Could a Dutch speaker please translate the last bullet from MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp and add it to MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp/nl? It helps experienced users find the old form. Thank you! Lupo 07:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uğurcuk (talk · contribs)

Can somebody who knows Turkish please tell Uğurcuk (talk · contribs) that here on Commons we do not start pages that should be in the Commons namespace with "Wp/itr/". Check out this user's contributions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay. I left a note on his talk page (in english). I would auto translate it ... but google doesn't _do_ Turkish. If someone else speaks Turkish or knows software that does - shout. Additionally I deleted all of the "encyclopedic" pages (looks like he copied the Turkish version of Wikipedia:About. I moved the rest of the pages to his User namespace. I did leave the one template there alone. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White Cat speaks Turkish. Monobi (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gmaxwell has been restored to adminship

Based on a private request, and that Gmaxwell (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) gave up the bit voluntarily, and not "under controversial circumstances", I took the initiative to restore his bit. Gmaxwell has indicated he intends to resume helping with CU requests and I think it's pretty clear that a CU without the admin bit is somewhat hampered in effectiveness. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed, just try to be more active now Gmaxwell :) --Kanonkas(talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy

Please indef 67.159.0.0/18 it is an open proxy owned by FDC Servers.net, LLC. Thanks Mww113 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. In practice we rarely range block IPs here. Equally we tend to base blocks on the behaviour of the IP (or user) rather than on what might happen. Examining that range there is relatively little editing from it in the past year (though some of that is minor vandalism). While we are aware of the policy (I have blocked a few proxies myself) many people editing through open proxies (because they have little or no choice) edit very constructively. The information is appreciated & I certainly will watch. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viewdeleted on other projects

For almost as long as commons has been around we've had problems with images moved from other Wikis then deleted on their home Wikis. The commons image descriptions end up referring to information on pages which are now deleted. This also creates frustration for users trying to verify the validity of copyright claims for these images since part of the image history is hidden. We've dealt with this in a number of ways such as becoming Admins on other projects, nagging stewards for temporary adminship, or asking for help from friends on a case by case basis. All of these are unreasonably burdensome and discourage checkup work which we should be doing. With the global rights support that came with SUL this limitation doesn't have to exist before. We could simply create a commons-admin global right which grants viewdeleted on all projects.

Meta currently has a nearly final proposal for a 'globalsysop' right which confers all admin powers globally (though you aren't supposed to use them, except.. err.), it's been surprisingly uncontroversial. But that proposal has a number of additional requirements (50e/month to meta for example) and privileges (blocking users, for example) which aren't really applicable for our use, so I'm considering making a proposal on meta to simply grant viewdeleted on all public wikis to all commons admins. Would other people here be willing to support such a proposal? --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Basicaly what happens when there is an account on a wiki that either isn't me or the system thinks isn't me?Genisock2 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if your SUL hasn't been activated, it (ideally) won't work for you. giggy (:O) 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I love anything which makes me more powerful generally, but this would be very useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support But for images only, if that's possible. Otherwise, oppose, there's many reasons things are deleted which don't need lots of people potentially able to look. Commons admins should only need to see deleted images. Majorly talk 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS where is this being advertised, if anywhere? It's rather an important change, and will affect every single project, so it's a decision that should not be made lightly with lack of participation and knowledge of what's happening. Majorly talk 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, ideally for images only (per Majorly) if possible. It's being advertised on the admin noticeboard since it affects, well, admins. giggy (:O) 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's great for commons admins but what about the rest of the commons community, and the whole of the WMF which this will affect? Do they get any say in the matter? Will they be told? Majorly talk 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "so I'm considering making a proposal on meta to simply grant viewdeleted on all public wikis to all commons admins. Would other people here be willing to support such a proposal?" I just want to be able to say something like "Lots of commons admins want this" to make it clear to people who haven't experienced the difficulty first hand that there is a real need. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Kind of a no-brainer... commons admins arguably have more maintenance-type admin work to do across the other projects than meta admins in any case. I'd say being able to view deleted contribs would be useful for similar reasons though, since it's often helpful when trying to make a judgement about uploads that are in the "gray areas" if we can check for a history of deleted uploads, etc. --SB_Johnny | PA! 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - while images-only would be nice, that is something to do in the future; grant viewdeleted for everything now. When/if we can restrict it to images only, then let's do so. But don't hold back for this reason. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strongest possible support! We need this! (Images only would be preferred). Rocket000 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Although I agree that an "images only" restriction would be preferable. --jonny-mt en me! 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love this idea. (if it's restricted to images only... that probably requires a bugzilla) It's an innovative use of the new global rights stuff. I don't want to throw cold water on it but I do want to point out that there is considerable internal discussion among stewards about how the mechanics of creating new groups would work, where the decision process on who gets the rights, etc. would be held and so forth. The traditional role of stewards was to never decide anything, only implement consensus. Except where it has been necessary to act. So I guess what I am saying is that even if this idea gets overwhelmingly positive support, it may take a while to get done, because of the larger ramifications. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support images only I think. It would certainly be both valuable & sensible. However bear in mind that Commons does not get the best press on other projects quite often (another reason for images only) so not one I will hold my breath for. --Herby talk thyme 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Commons' sysops need it. P.S. Some admins often need also to edit protected pages (for example when need to remove or replace deleted image from article where it used).--Ahonc (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for images only. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support clearly a very useful idea. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Sure thing, just what I needed. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support showing text and images. It might be useful to see where an image might of been linked previously. Monobi (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — per all above, seems to make our work much easier. →Christian.И 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very useful --Szczepan talk 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Image only is a great step forward. Lycaon (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Would be great to save images from deletion. I will see if i can publish my source finding tool soon. Multichill (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support really important function and a good idea. -- Ra'ike T C 11:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hey! Someone had already created a draft for this on Meta. Anyone that is interested should help contribute to that policy draft. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a spelling mistake. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a few questions on the meta proposal talk page. Just an FYI in case people are not watching it. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough comments in favour of this now; it's pretty obvious that most people watching this page support this. To keep any future discussion productive, let's focus on concerns and counter-arguments or mitigating measures related to those, and let's keep that discussion on Meta. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LX here, it might be well to hang on a bit in formally promoting this on Meta though until the discussion on global sysop-rights is sorted out. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just published the first version of my source finding tool so you can actually find out where a picture came from. More at Commons:Village_pump#Got source?. Multichill (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Geonotice

The short version is that I'd like to have Geonotice's brought to common. Our very own Gmaxwell runs them for en.wp. With Commons being such a diverse group as it is, I think it would be nice to have the ability to have Notice's targeted to specific groups. For example you could get a more targeted discussion for template changes that effect a specific country, or translation efforts. And of course, we could have targeted announcements of Wikimedian meetups. Commons should have all the cools toys too. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent contributor

Hi. I'm being impersonated by User:JoshPonytailGordon; this is the banned interwik vandal User:REDYVA, and his contributions should be reversed. It would be worthwhile to block his IP as well; checkusers can read the discussion about him on the mailing list. --Jpgordon (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted - blocked, reverted, deleted, CU'd etc etc (also User:GuideAdministrator). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add license

I'm not sure what license to add to an image I uploaded: Image:Nuclear Brochure.svg. It's from the NY Times site. It's a brochure A.Q. Khan made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88957a (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 Jun 2008 (UTC)

If you're not sure, you probably shouldn't upload it. I don't know who "A.Q. Khan" is but from the sound of it, it doesn't sound very free coming from the NY Times site. See Commons:Licensing. Keep in mind there's no fair use allowed on Commons. If it's under a free license it will say so, otherwise permission will be needed. Rocket000 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very likely not free, I think. BTW, A.Q. Kahn is an infamous nuclear proliferator - very interesting story there if you care about such things. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images from book djvu files: tips

When using into wikisource djvu files containing drawings/pictures, the process needs to link both to images of single pages, and to "images of images" contained into the book. Usually they are uploaded into Commons individually.

I'm going to explore an alternative: uploading the extracted images as a single, boundled djvu file. Much simpler to upload, and saving commons memory space too I presume (less pages, less indexes). I'll work with recent Image:Equitation.djvu file.

If you allow that this could be a good idea: what's the best location/name for such a self-made, derived djvu file?

I'm going to test the first alternative.--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=12301575"