Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 07:52, 5 October 2017 by ArchiverBot (talk | contribs) (Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 3 days) to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 65.)
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
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
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

Inactivity run for August-September 2017 is now finished

Hi everyone! This is just to let you know that the admin inactivity run for August-September 2017 has now been closed (admittedly, with quite some delay). Five users: @Alison, @Beria, @M0tty, @Sandstein and @Siebrand have had their admin privileges removed on Meta today as a result of their inactivity. Please join me here in thanking all of them for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over so many years. Thank you, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]

Alison, Beria, M0tty, Sandstein, Siebrand: this humble user can only repeat what odder expressed: thank you all for your excellent service over so many years. Thank you. Lotje (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your service. @Odder: I think you meant to sign that "22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)‎".   — Jeff G. ツ 03:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff: I did! Thanks :-) odder (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Guanaco (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Find a solution regarding INeverCry

I think the Commons community must find a permanent solution for the increasing Sockpuppets of INeverCry. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think if a {{Checkuserblock}} on an IP range were an effective option, it would have been done by now. My understanding is that INC has been using a number of proxies, so we can't stop him from editing. Since the Daphne affair, he's been constantly back and forth between productive editing, disruptive vandalism using VFC, Cat-a-lot, etc, and sometimes vicious harassment. It's clear that he's not going away, and he's not going to beg our forgiveness. As I see it, here are our choices:
  1. Maintain the status quo.
  2. Declare him our first community-banned user, and start rolling back every edit he makes without regard for its content.
  3. Unblock the INeverCry account and see what happens. Continue blocking socks; bad behavior would be rewarded with temp blocks on the main account.
  4. Allow him a fresh start under a new username. Those of us familiar with his editing patterns would recognize him, but we'd take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. Of course, if he ever requests adminship as he did with Daphne, it would be called out.
None of these seem particularly appealing to me. But unless someone has a better idea, I think we as a community need to decide on one. Guanaco (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this user simply wants to inform the community on different things without stepping in the foreground? Is there a history of emailing with this particular user? Lotje (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the disruption he causes with the bad edits he makes one day, it outweighs the good edits he might be making another day. I would actually (didn't think I would say this ever) be in favour of a community ban of this user. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be a temporary ban that resets if he evades it. He takes three to six months away, and if he wants to return at that point he can. Or he can be just another LTA — his choice. Guanaco (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My 2c's is that he has been given (a lot) of such deals in the past (see block history). They may work for a while, but the user always defaults back to being an LTA. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No action needed, certainly this case is not a good reason to start inventing ban policies on a project where none exists. Like anyone else who uses socks for disruption, the most effective long term solution is to quietly correct and ignore. INC is free to have an anonymous clean start any time they are ready to do so, similarly they are free to log on to IRC and talk about their issues in private channels with other Commons contributors if they want to. The latter may be a good step to try, especially INC for whom this all looks more sadly self destructive than anything else. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Fæ.Wikicology (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Yann (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: Some of the socks were "anonymous clean start" accounts, doing nothing but good edits. I let them carry on in the past, except where there was vandalism/harassment. I decided to try this again, with User:Linda Evans. Each time, they are tagged {{sock|INeverCry}}, often by Sro23 (whose input would be helpful here). Once tagged, INC either abandons the account or switches to vandal mode.
According to the blocking policy all accounts used to evade the initial blocks on INC/Daphne are subject to block for "Block evasion/Abusing multiple accounts", and the sock tags are considered standard under that policy. So for "no action needed", we would need to agree to call off the hounds and stop tagging except in cases of misbehavior. I'm fine with this option, and I'd be willing to speedily delete "{{sock|INeverCry}}" if it's applied to a constructive account. But that's not something I can do without community support, or an unblock on the primary blocked account. @Jcb: , do you mind if I unblock the Daphne account and give this a try? Guanaco (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would  Oppose such an unblock. As long as they do not stop the abuse, unblock is not an option. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This humble bee would  Support an unblock. Lotje (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, I don't think unblocking the Daphne account without a comment from INC is the best way to go. AFAIK, INC has never requested to be unblocked since they were blocked. Of course, I would be glad to welcome them back to the community but the request to return/unblocked should come from them. Wikicology (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Guanaco that we have no good solution at hand. I agree also with Fæ that we could live with a “clean start”, letting one of these accounts work as long as the edits are ok. But much like Jcb I would oppose the unblocking of any such account when they started to move on in vandal mode or resume harassing because they have been called out. Bans are a nightmare. Who wants to undo legitimate edits or valid deletion requests? And there is always a risk that this might hit someone who is not INC. But I have one proposal to make: We could re-open talk page access for INeverCry, leaving INC a channel where INC can talk to us without using socks. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've enabled talk page access for INeverCry, in case he wants to talk to us. But I recall him saying via one of his socks that he's not interested in begging forgiveness, and that he doesn't want to be treated as a third-class editor due to his past reputation. I know some of us want an open dialogue with him, but it doesn't seem likely or even really productive. He knows well enough what is acceptable behavior - what is there to talk about? Guanaco (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying this. INC may continue to misbehave, but being nice is never a mistake. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a comment above: "INC is free to have an anonymous clean start any time they are ready to do so". This is absolutely false. Commons has no policy that permits a clean start. Some are not keen to invent a community ban policy, perhaps they should bear in mind we have no clean start policy either. Whoever the person is behind INC, they are not welcome to edit here as far as I'm concerned. As noted above, INC has at times engaged in vicious harassment of users here, myself included, and I have reasons to suspect previous vicious harassment of myself and others, long before the recent ban, was also INC. Those welcoming INC back provided they do good edits are IMO condoning this harassment and appeasing a cyber bully in order to find a over-simplistic solution to a complex problem.
The closest the Wikimedia community has to a policy on clean start is on en:Wikipedia:Clean start. The vital sentence there is "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account.". It is not a method by which those who are blocked may short-circuit community approval of their return. In addition, the Wikipedia concept is very much around finding somewhere else on Wikipedia to edit so you don't get into the same trouble. The problem with Commons is that unless INC wants to become a photographer, he's limited to the maintenance of images which is exactly what he did before. And we know INC is not happy being a normal editor but seeks to power that comes with adminship. Hence the many restorations of his admin bit. And we know INC promises to only engage in non-contentious admin actions but sooner or later he's blocking and unblocking against community consensus and it all turns pear shaped. There is absolutely no way INC is ever going to be an admin again, so he will continue to be frustrated that he's stuck doing limited edits.
The only solution, AFAICS, is for those who know INC to continue to persuade him of the need to find a new hobby. INC the person is banned, whether we make it formal with policy/vote, or not. The sooner he deals with that the better. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose. I'm not a great contributor to Commons, so please weight my comments in that light, but I'm truly astonished that anyone here is considering allowing this person back into this project after such a disgraceful (and ongoing) exhibition of wanton destruction. In my view, INeverCry's actions are what the "Exit" door was made for - and it should be firmly closed afterwards. This person deserves a global lock, not an unblock! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose. Bans and blocks apply to the person irrespective of what accounts are used. INC has clearly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to edit any Wikimedia projects. If they create more socks we just have to keep blocking them as soon as they are recognised as his work. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. A global block and ban may also be necessary. Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We both know that pseudo voting about this is slightly irrelevant. INC has plenty of experience blocking accounts as an admin and understands how checkuser tools work. INC can choose to behave and have an anonymous clean start regardless of what any of us have to say about blocks or bans. --Fæ (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What most people find so repellent (and thus encouraging oppose votes) is the apparent invitation by some above for INC to have an "anonymous clean start" freely whenever he likes, or to consider unblocking him to see if he behaves this time. He isn't "free" to do that, because the community do not grant him that freedom. He blocked. He may attempt to do it, by socking, with some limited success, but only in the same way that a thief may shoplift without detection for a while: being able to do something isn't the same as being free to do it. Whenever INC edits with a sock account, whether good edits or bad, he is breaking policy by evading his block, and he is acting against overwhelming community wishes that he leave. He is not having an "anonymous clean start" when he does that, so let's not use that phrase or encourage that behaviour. I hope that is crystal clear to INC and anyone in contact with him. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. It's clear that there is no consensus to allow INeverCry to return at this time, nor for any extraordinary measures such as a hard ban. Sockpuppets may be reported at COM:AN/B, or you can request CheckUser investigation at COM:RFCU. Guanaco (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

PD-UKGov

Hi, per Template_talk:PD-UKGov#Proposed_amendments_to_template_text I made a request for amendment at this protected template, per discussions with User:Nikkimaria at Wikipedia’s Featured Article Candidates, but have heard nothing for two months. It is a simple amendment to reflect UK Crown Copyright more broadly than the current template does. Grateful if any admins could come and take a look. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I upload an image (own work) that I have amended, the new image displayed is the same as the previous one.

I have uploaded a new version of a map I created (CC0) and previously successfully uploaded: File:Map_of_Eyre_Peninsula_railway_lines_in_2017.jpg

The problem is that the new image is not displayed -- only the previous one again, along with the new note I wrote.

After clicking on the button worded "Replace this image" or words to that effect, I was taken to the Upload page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Map_of_Eyre_Peninsula_railway_lines_in_2017.jpg&wpForReUpload=1) » Source file » Selected file, then confirmed file name (same as before). I wrote a note about the file changes then clicked the "Upload file" button.

I have triple-checked (and got a family member to independently verify) that I am not re-uploading the previous image.

I've read Commons:Overwriting existing files.

I am using macOS 10.12.5 and Mozilla Firefox v55.0.3.

I'd appreciate the repeated image being deleted but more importantly some clues as to what might be going wrong with the upload. Sincerely,SCHolar44 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: Try pressing CTRL-F5 or CTRL-ALT-R to refresh the page and bypass your cache. Guanaco (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Guanaco. Oldest trick in the book, of course, but I completely forgot about it. Fixed! And I resolve not to upload late at night! If you (or another administrator) could remove the wrongly duplicated image Map_of_Eyre_Peninsula_railway_lines_in_2017.jpg time-stamped "21:18, 2 October 2017" that would be advantageous. SCHolar44 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Duplicate old revisions deleted. Guanaco (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist limited to 250 entries

Hello, not sure if its been noticed, but watch lists are now limited to 250 entries. This can be an issue if someone does a mass edit of many files at once. Could this be addressed? Previously (a month or so ago, I think), the watchlist solely showed edits within a time range, with no limit on amount. Famartin (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting it, I certainly had not noticed. It's been poorly implemented as there is no indication that the watchlist returned is truncated and there's no "continue" type option to see the rest. I'd call that a bug but I'm not going to pursue it on Phabricator myself as I've got volunteer fatigue on this issue. The relevant devs know it's a problem and my 2p worth would be unlikely to get it more prioritized.
By the way, using a bit of API code the Pywikibot iterator for the watchlist does work, though with false starts/restarts due to time-outs (internal_api_error_DBQueryTimeoutError). Using that, I can manipulate many thousands of items on my watchlist, but it's not a sharable solution for anyone else. --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The watchlist limit is specified in your preferences. The maximum has been 1000 entries for as long as I can remember, and that hasn't changed as far as I can see. If I specify a sufficiently long period of time to display and inclusive filtering rules, I get 1000 entries. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was convinced the watchlist used to consistently let you view the next page of matches, rather than truncating without showing any options. Maybe the state machine for the watchlist is more complex than I thought. --Fæ (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

Would an Admin or reviewer be willing to re-review Raeky's image uploads from 2009 to June 2010 as I mentioned in the DR above. The problem with his image uploads is that he reviewed his uploads himself which is not not acceptable. I am marking his uploaded images from June 2010 but he just has too many images from flickr and MushroomObserver that he often marked himsekf. Now he has left Commons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: Can you link an example of an image he uploaded and license-reviewed? Guanaco (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: I've removed his reviewer bit and undone all license reviews on files he uploaded, matching the regex "/\{\{LicenseReview\|[^\n\|]*\|Raeky\|[^\n\|]*\}\}/g". Can you also link one of his self-flickr reviews? Guanaco (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that some were tagged {{Flickrreview}} when they were posted to a non-flickr site. Those, I will review myself. Guanaco (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: I hope this DR can be closed soon as the image was not deleted from this author's flickr account unlike most of her other images uploaded by Raeky...but the license was changed to ARR. So, I launched a formal DR...for an image which is in use. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done. All these DRs have been withdrawn and closed. The files have been given new reviews where possible, and the old reviews have been restored where the file was removed from Flickr or the license changed to a non-free option. I jumped the gun here, but everything's cleaned up. Guanaco (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Guanaco (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Hi, any Dutch speaking admin hanging around who might be willing to look into these?. Also please take a look at Wikipedia:Taalcafé. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje,
Ik wil daar morgen best wel even naar kijken. Misschien dat Jcb ook wil helpen. Dat speltje is zeer tenenkrommend en helaas zijn er veel afbeeldingen met deze typo in de titel. Je ziet de namen het liefst weergegeven als: "speldje van "'(eventueel de ertussen) naam fabrikant'"? Wat betreft de schrijfwijze van Peijnenburger koek. Dat kan me weinig brommen.
@Other admins: I just stated that I will look into this and asked if Jcb might be willing to help because a lot of files need a rename because off a typo. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=261708480"