Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 23:30, 16 October 2021 by Dylsss (talk | contribs) (→‎MediaWiki messages to delete: new section)
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
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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst: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.


Deleted fantasy flags restored by Yann

The user-generated fantasy flags pulled from thin air deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yes0song have been restored by @Yann: as result of a undeletion request that, like the initial deletion request demonstrated unequivocally that there was no evidence for any of these images' existence before their upload to Commons and that they had no possible educational use. Nevertheless, Yann has restored the images because they appear to feel "These are not vanity images, or made out of tin air" even though this very claim was made (without evidence and with misleading links that did not support the assertions made) and thoroughly debunked by multiple users in the deletion request and in the undeletion request. @P199: rightly deleted the images, and Thuresson, Jameslwoodward and I all opposed their recreation, which was requested as a second bite of the cherry by the sole opponent of the initial deletion. Ankry said that they Support undeletion if there is no copyright doubts and the images are in use, but as far as I am aware, none of the files was in use. Naturally this is because, as vanity files invented de novo by their uploaders or otherwise anonymous non-notable people for whom no evidence exists, no purpose for them exists on Commons. I note that, at the request of the same fantasy flag proponent, Fry1989, Yann also restored File:AflagforIraq.svg using the same faulty reasoning. It is my view that all these vanity projects should be re-deleted, because, contrary to Yann's claim that: These are not vanity images, or made out of tin air. There are perfectly in scope, these images are all indeed vanity images, were all indeed made out of thin air, and therefore are wholly out of scope.

Should anyone have lingering doubts about whether self-created fantasy flags unattested outside Commons are within COM:SCOPE, see specifially COM:NOTUSED, where the following appears (lightly modified for clarity): Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose. An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on Xfantasy flags, merely because Xflags happens to be the subject of the photographSVG. For example, the fact that an unused blurred photographunused user-generated fantasy flag could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography"user-generated fantasy flags does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographsunused user-generated fantasy flags. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friendfantasy flag could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture"flags does not mean that we should keep all photographs ofuser-generated fantasy flags made by unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographicuser-generated fantasy flag image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornographyfantasy flags does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographicuser-generated fantasy flag images. See also COM:SPAM, where these words appear There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GPinkerton: Your insistance on deleting perfectly valid content is a problem. This is not the first time. Drop that now, you have nothing to gain here. Yann (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Why do you keep repeating that this is "perfectly valid content". It is not. They are unused vanity images, and there's been nary a shred of evidence to the contrary. GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my unDR, one image in particular fits (according to my definition) project scope because it was submitted to a "real world" contest. The others, I am prepared to admit fall under "crystal balling" as GPinkerton called it in the DR itself, but GPinkerton's lack of willingness to compromise and over-zealous interpretation of the threshold needing to be met to fit project scope I feel is counter-productive. That's really all I have to say here, other than that will not I communicate directly with GPinkerton since they decided to over-simplfy my arguments in DRs down to "I like/don't like it", which I have never once said in all my years. Fry1989 eh? 18:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did state that yes, but you were wrong, or at least, the webpage you linked to in support of your claims did not include the image you claimed it did. It is very boring to click through all the image on that webpage, but if one does one see that the flag you claimed is there is not. Even if it were, that would not necessarily make it in scope and in any case none of the other images presently restored has even been claimed to have been anything but a unused de novo self-indulgence. GPinkerton (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was submitted to a "real world contest", but it didn't make the first cut of 77 images. So, as I said at the UnDR, we have established a precedent that all a non-notable artist has to do to get his workoon Commons is to submit it to a contest -- no matter whether it makes it past the first stage.

We don't keep personal art work unless the work or the artist are notable in some way. Placing worse the 77th in a newspaper contest doesn't seem notable to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO none of these should've been restored - There's no actual purpose to hosting fake flags here none whatsoever and being in a contest imho isn't a valid reason either. –Davey2010Talk 20:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there isn't any evidence it ever was in any such a competition. The file description states at present "Made by me original maker"; and even Fry1989's original claim was "proposals such as File:St Patrick Northern Ireland Flag.png were submitted". Commons is not supposed to an infinite repository of "such as" material, as set out in the policy aforequoted. GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: If these flags were published in a newpaper, that's the basic notability requirement for including a subject in a Wikimedia project. We could have an article about this contest, so these flags are undoubtedly in scope. In any way, deleting them was the wrong decision. Why don't you spend your time helping the project instead? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: You appear to have misunderstood. Not one of these images has ever been published by a newspaper. That's simply untrue. Neither was there a competition. The "write-in your own fantasy flags" that happened once is wholly and entirely unrelated to any of these images. They have never appeared outside Commons, let alone in print. Please stop just saying they're in scope because they've been published somewhere; it's simply wrong. They aren't and they haven't. GPinkerton (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Can you explain why you overrode consensus? Which Commons policy were you enforcing when you made a decision that ran counter to the consensus at both discussions? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here. Two opinions for deletion and two for keeping, plus GPinkerton who is trolling around. Yann (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: that's a serious accusation, are you going to back it with kind of evidence of anything of that nature or are you just saying that because you disagree with my deletion requests and with the deleting admins? GPinkerton (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion had three opposes and two supports (one of which was conditional on the images being used, which most are not, so really a net three opposes to one support for most of them). I'll ask again: Which Commons policy were you enforcing when you made a decision that ran counter to the consensus at both discussions? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: Get down from your high horse. First you can count me as support for keeping them, so that makes 3 for deletion and 3 for keeping. But most importantly, there is no external law or rule which might dictate us to delete these files. Keeping them cause no harm to anyone. So when a significant portion of people (50% here) think that a file can be hosted on Commons, I don't see any valid reason to delete them. And again, since there is nothing at stake here, arguing for their deletion is just a useless discussion flattering ego and vanity. I have better things to do. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If "arguing for their deletion is just a useless discussion flattering ego and vanity" what does arguing for the undeletion of hoax images whose sole purpose is flattering ego and vanity consist of? Do we just get ignore policy merely because doing so and "Keeping them cause no harm to anyone"? Does this apply to all files or just vanity flags? GPinkerton (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Get down from your high horse. You first? Just because you're the oldest (by time with the bit) administrator here does not make you infallible or the font of all knowledge of Commons. Clearly (as I'll demonstrate shortly) you probably should not be an administrator and your behavior and replies here IMO suggest maybe it's time you either step down or are desysop'd. First you can count me as support for keeping them, so that makes 3 for deletion and 3 for keeping. No. 1) That would still leave it at three for deletion to two for keeping (you're ignoring that one of the "keeps" conditioned their vote on the images being used). 2) As the arbiter of closing a discussion you really should be impartial. If you wanted to vote, you should have done so and left the close to an uninvolved administrator. 3) More importantly, a discussion in deletion should not be able to override sitewide policies/guidelines, a local consensus does not overturn a decision made by the community at large (that way lies madness). These images violate COM:SCOPE and COM:NOTHOST (to name just a few), they hold no educational value and have no purpose here. But most importantly, there is no external law or rule which might dictate us to delete these files. You're correct, no external law or rule, just Commons rules. Keeping them cause no harm to anyone. That is not a compelling reason to override consensus or the rules on Commons. So when a significant portion of people (50% here) think that a file can be hosted on Commons, I don't see any valid reason to delete them. It's actually only 33%, as I explained previously, it was 4 keep to 2 delete. And again, since there is nothing at stake here, arguing for their deletion is just a useless discussion flattering ego and vanity. I have better things to do. Your dismissiveness is noted. You truly are the worst administrator I've ever seen here, and that's saying a lot. You don't deserve that title/role. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to express my general support of Yann's undeletion of the files. Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia, and the bar for inclusion is not "notability." In non-copyright cases, the burden is on those who want the files to be deleted to show that they are clearly out of scope based on policy. These flag designs are of a high quality, were potentially proposed in real life, are not damaging to the project, and have the potential to depict the burgeoning online subculture of amateur vexillologists, which has received recognition in the news media and is covered at Vexillology.  Mysterymanblue  16:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse of Commons referred to as "These flag designs are of a high quality, were potentially proposed in real life, are not damaging to the project, and have the potential to depict the burgeoning online subculture of amateur vexillologists" is exactly the abuse COM:NOTHOST exists to forbid. GPinkerton (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although we do host media and images on Wikimedia Commons, all content must be within our project's scope, which requires, among other things, that all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photouser-generated fantasy flag collection. GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to relitigate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fictional Goa flag.svg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Navy of Montenegro (fictional).svg whose (utter lack of) worth is identical to these flags which Yann has restored. GPinkerton (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion of the second, because it wasn't COM:INUSE, and thus COM:NOTWEBHOST applies. The first, I could quibble with, because it was transcluded on en:incubatorwiki:Wp/gub/Main Page. COM:INUSE covers all in-mainspace-use files--even files that we think aren't educational--because that's the other projects decision, not ours. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghammakhor

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ghammakhor

None of above files are user own work. this User uploads file from google image in Commons under own work title. please delete all of them. act of this users also make problem for other wikis too because this users change with own copyright violated files with original files of articles like this and so

Also if look at this talk page you can see a lof of file that have already deleted

act of this user is not helpful for Wikipedia please block this account

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a year and will delete his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Impfpass bitte- undelete

Hi!

May I ask why is that removed??? [1] [2]

we all have right to mock and ridicule every policy of every government.[3]

and this is just one of it: mocking the current german government policy.

This is just a pure censorship under the excuse of political correctness! Quahadi Añtó 20:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quahadi: Per Commons:Project scope, files hosted on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's not a free host for any and every image. After a discussion, the image in question was determined not to meet the scope criteria, which is why it was deleted. If you disagree with that decision, you can discuss it with the deleting admin or bring it up at COM:UDR. clpo13(talk) 21:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clpo13:

educational öpurpose is clear for everybody who has heard the latin phraseHistoria magistra vitae. Plus, I have noticed no "discussion". Just a deleteion request by Achim who found it "inaapropriate and distasteful". just his opinion. \\Quahadi Añtó 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quahadi: I have not seen the image, I assume it was your creation. Probably it was a caricature (using an image from the Nazi era!), but apart from that the chosen file name alone deserves deletion. It evokes the conception that the image is a work of the German government in the Bundesarchiv. That looks like malicious intent. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Suthorn: I retouched this picture [4] : i think it was quite clear that I was the author of retouching |Quahadi Añtó 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Quahadi: Four years ago, the community decided that my attempts at attribution for photos I had improved and fixed were insufficient at Commons:Deletion requests/User:Jeff G./Improved photo and Commons:Deletion requests/User:Jeff G./Fixed photo.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: This is not about attributions but about out of scope material. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the image, but Commons is not generally the place for mocking the current government policy, unless it's done by notable artists, and then notable as their work, not for their messaging.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quahadi: As already explained by clpo13, this adaptation was out of COM:SCOPE. Commons is not the place to upload your own op'ed expressions against legislation and rules related to the Covid-19 pandemic. We would keep such material only if the creator is notable and/or if that work found significant distribution in press publications etc. Commons is not the place to express your political views but a media archive where each media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Hence, the deletion was justified. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-message request for WLM-US 2021

Hello! I'm one of the organizers for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US. Could the following message be sent out to all of last year's contributors inviting them to this year's event?

Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:61417197c2766.image.jpg

I attempted to nominate this image for deletion as a copyright violation but was prevented from doing so due to it being protected. As has been established at multiple deletion requests in the past (example), images from the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) are not available under a license compatible with commons, much less the cc-by-sa-4.0 license stipulated. This upload is a copyright violation and needs to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the people who wrote the news article on Wikinews where the image is being used (and thus protected) [5]. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: Which image from Category:Kim Jong-un and children would be the best replacement for use on n:? A redlink there would look very bad.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Acagastya said that, he will replace the file with image not available template. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They replaced it with File:Inter-Korean Summit May 2018.jpg. Thanks everyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hi, Could an admin block Noauid and delete all of their uploads please? - I don't know if they're a minor but either way they're uploading dick pics and then nominating them for deletion, Leaving English warnings would be pointless and I don't speak whatever language they speak either, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mdaniels5757 your help is greatly appreciated, I had no idea we even had a porn warning message here and I certainly support warning over blocking so thanks for that! :), Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping flickr mass uploads without selection and categorization

Hello, would it be possible to stop flickr mass uploads

without selection and categorization, where a lot of pictures show the same motive, until this issue is solved? Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a day with a message. Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POTY titleblacklist change

Could someone comment out the line Commons:Picture of the Year\/2020\/R\d\/v\/.* <noedit|errmsg=Protectedpagetext/PageProtected> # protect voting in Mediawiki:titleblacklist so that I can create the handful of R2 vote pages? May as well leave it commented out and I’ll monitor them and reject any early votes - saves admin time. Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 22:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please don't worry about admin time. When done, just ping me and I'll de-comment it again until the beginning of the second round. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2 many thanks - done. If you (or another admin) could de-comment again at 1500 UTC that would be fantastic. Thanks for all your support! firefly ( t · c ) 07:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done De-commented at 15:20 UTC. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

A portion of the content that has not been addressed as of yet is ready to be addressed right now as we speak. In fact, it was when I was attempting to let the previous admin who was working with me know via e-mail of that fact when I found out that he had retired.

[...]

I previously had this request headered "Oversight" for consistency's sake with previous discussions, but apparently that led the discussion going off in a different direction than what was intended.

To reiterate, I previously requested some help removing some personal information from some things. Following my request, an admin had been helping me address it. That admin unfortunately retired from Wikimedia Commons before all of the content in question could be addressed. Because of a quirk in the way MediaWiki itself works, the quirk in question needed to be worked around before the content could be addressed. Thus, the removal of the personal information had to happen over a period of time. Over the period of time between the admin offering to help me, and the time that that admin retired, a portion of the content was successfully addressed. But before all of it could be addressed, the admin in question retired.

Right now, I am seeking to have the revision deletion step completed for the rest of the content. After that is finished, I will pursue oversight for all of the relevant content. All of the amount left of the content at this current moment that still first needs to have the quirk worked around before it can be addressed can be made to be ready to be addressed in a reasonable period of time (a week or two, perhaps). I can assure you of that, and commit to that being the case.

Hence why I now pursue the completion of the revision deletion step here. Tharthan (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce Protection

Hello, Hope you are doing well. Actually I have upload two logos to commons (File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ks-1.svg) and (File:Wiktionary-logo-ks.svg) which are used as a logo for ks wikipedia and ks wiktionary respectively, so the files are protected. The local community at ks wikipedia and wiktionary have raised issues about the text size as it is a bit small. Now, I have created new .svg logos and increased the size and want to upload it. Since the files are protected, I can't upload them. Can you reduce the protection so that updated files can be uploaded. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Delete (still) broken

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T293553

Hi, On October 9th, I reported that Instant Delete was broken. @Christian Ferrer: mentioned the same problem on October 10th. The tool is still broken. This needs a fix. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is mw:MediaWiki 1.37/Deprecation of legacy API token parameters, should be a fairly easy fix, I'll work on it. COM:VPT is probably a better place to report broken scripts in the future. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Should be fixed now, please let me know if there are any more problems. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it works! @AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki messages to delete

The messages below can be deleted, they were created to temporarily fix phab:T291678, but they are no longer needed.

Messages
*MediaWiki:Mediasearch-did-you-mean/zh-hant

Dylsss (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=599181316"