Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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

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 via their user talk page(s). {{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.


Abusive ban

I have been the victim of really abusive administrative action, and I am not sure what to do. I have been a contributor to Wiki Commons (ProFReader) for many years, and I have really focused on architecture. Most importantly, I live in Charleston, SC which has (at least as of a few years ago when I last knew it to be true) the largest designated historic district of any city in the United States. There are literally thousands of historic and contributing buildings that receive protection according to city ordinances. Many years ago, I started adding photos of those buildings. I used existing categories or added new ones based on existing categories and was very consistent across more than 10,000 images. Each one was added to categories based on its location in town, the number of stories, the roof form, the piazza (our local term for side porches) form, and the building materials. And for buildings with confirmed construction dates, I used existing categories for those.

The reason I say all that is to explain that never, in more than a decade, has anyone ever raised any objetion to the categories I used. And, they are used by researchers. I know that because I have taught at the Clemson University Architeture Program here in Charleston and have explained to researchers how to create lists of, say, 3-story houses with gable roofs that were built of brick.

So far, so good.

A few weeks ago, someone posted a question on my page and asked me why I was using numneral-based categories (e.g., 3-story buildings), and I gave a brief reply. The poster never added a follow-up and never offered any reason for any other category usages either in his initial message or thereafter.

Then, a few days ago, without any further discussion or without any basis, he used a gadget to change all the categories. He not only added "Three-story buildings in the United States" or some variation on that, he REMOVED all of the categories I have very consistently used withut objection for a decade (e.g., 3-story buildings). I reverted those changes. Then, without any warning or any discussion whatsoever, some random admin scolded me for reverting the categories that what they had been for years. He added that such changes are expected to be discussed. (Ironically, that criticism was added directly under my explanation for my choice of categories and made no mention whatsoever of the first user who had initiated the wholesale changes.) Not only did he baselessly criticize my choices, he banned me from Wiki Commons.

I am a pretty serious contributor who steadfastly avoids any of the admin stuff. Until this encounter, I have never had any real issues with anyone and certainly not with any admin.

I realize this entire post is probably too long, but I wanted to vent about what is a pretty clear example of abusive and baseless administrative actions. It bears repeating that I used EXISTING CATEGORIES. If someone really objected to my choice to use "3-story buildings" instead of "three-story buildings in the United States," that is not really on me.

If my actions were really so horrible, then that's fine. I am happy to just wash my hands of the entire thing and walk away. But this is really an example of why regular users get fed up and quit taking part. ProfReader (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually numbers are used in categories. Look, for example, category:People by quantity and even category:People in beds by quantity. So in my opinion category:3-story buildings and category:Buildings by stories are correct and every subcategory in category:Three-story buildings by country should be renamed. A very lot of work. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just 3-story buildings. It's everything in {{Buildings by stories}}. This is probably going to need some sort of bot work. However, I would advise getting consensus first at COM:VP as the "just do it, don't bother with consensus" attitude probably led to this inconsistency in the first place. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfReader: You were not banned. Please stay logged in. @Andrei Romanenko: FYI.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Андрей Романенко: Please comply with COM:SIGN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: If you mean this remark on the discussion page of the topic starter, it is not mine. I only asked them a question once, and my question is signed. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Андрей Романенко: No, sorry, I meant this edit, which I only just read in diff form, and to your edit above. Your signature does not specifically identify you as Андрей Романенко.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: My original username uses Cyrillic alphabet, thus according to Commons:Signatures#Signatures_supporting_multilingualism I use it in my signature in English transcription. This signature linked to my userpage identifies me as Andrei Romanenko and Андрей Романенко in the best possible way, and I am going to use it exactly in this form. Thank you. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he banned me from Wiki Commons" And yet here you are, posting on Wiki[media] Commons. You have a clean block log. There is no mention of a ban, or block, on User talk:ProfReader#Removed category, which appears to be the discussion to which you refer (and where you appear to have posted while logged out; the IP also has a clean block log). The other users involved are User:Ivanbranco and User:Андрей Романенко. Did you notify them of this discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got notified only now by your Ping. I didn't report any user for a ban. I just moved files from a category (3-story buildings) to a more specific one (Three-story buildings in the United States). I removed files from the more broad category in order to avoid over-categorization as I read here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories
To be honest I thought this was basic consensus on Commons and I didn't thought it was a problem at all. I acted in good faith, I always try to move files to generic categories to more specific one when I can. After my edits (hours of work since I don't know how to batch move files, I did it manually with Cat-a-log) got reverted I stopped moving United States files to avoid edit warring and moved on to categorize other countries. Again, I never reported this user for a ban. Ivanbranco (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short:

  • No ban occurred.
  • Files were (correctly) moved to more specific categories.
  • Those more specific categories probably should use digits rather than writing numbers out in English.
  • Nothing here is an administrative issue.

Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "false accusation" in my remark? The user was moving files from the categories sorting images by country to the root category. It is not an accusation, it is a pure fact. I disagreed with this approach, and other users in this discussion disagree with it too. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, based on the comments from Jmabel, Andrei Romanenko and RZuo (on the ProfReader talk page), I believe it's okay for me to re-move the pictures from '3-story buildings' to 'Three-story buildings in the United States.'? Ivanbranco (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanbranco: absolutely. The question of whether the subcats should be better named is separate. - Jmabel ! talk 22:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed users

Special:Listusers/confirmed shows five users who are obviously autoconfirmed. I recommend revoking the confirmed right from these users as they are now redundant to them. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done for all but the admin. The log reason indicates they were debugging something, but it's been 2 years. You might want to ask them yourself, as I don't think it would be appropriate for me to remove it directly. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WFN 2008 logo.svg

Please review. An IP keeps reverting the copyvio template. --Geohakkeri (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done File deleted and Special:Contributions/43.252.167.0/24 blocked. Yann (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change content model for a sub page

Could one of the interface admins, please, change the content model for Commons:Mobile app/Feedback/styles.css into sanitized-css? — Speravir – 02:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Speravir: It says "Invalid selector list at line 5 character 1". -- CptViraj (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CptViraj: Perhaps now? --Geohakkeri (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ✓ done. -- CptViraj (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, Geohakkeri and CptViraj. Ah, what a pity that these modern selectors are not supported yet. — Speravir – 22:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (Main Page/motd)

Please review the request on Main Page/motd. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geohakkeri: where on that page? This was not a valid fragment identifier. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page isn’t very long and there’s only one open {{Edit request}}. See Talk:Main_Page/motd#Thumbtime_doesn't_work_on_Main_page. --Geohakkeri (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Geohakkeri (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Deletion request for files

I uploaded these files, I'm requesting to delete them. Thank you. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MAL MALDIVE: Why? The latter file is in use on six pages on Wikipedia in two languages. Also, why the difference in spelling of the middle name, and why ask here (see COM:DP)? In addition, which criteria of {{PD-Maldives}} do they meet?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file is already discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohamed Amin Didi presidential portrait (cropped).jpg. I have uploaded an uncolourised version as File:Mohamed Amin Didi.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No admin issue here, the DR should be handled like any other DR. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Jmabel  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate way to handle a nomination image deletion

I'm deeply concerned about the way a deletion nomination was handled. Regardless of the correctness of the image license, I believe there was improper conduct by the administrator Bedivere. Initially, he deleted the image without closing the discussion, claiming that we could still discuss it. Then, he closed the discussion prematurely, before the mandatory 7-day period, even though it wasn't an obvious copyright violation. I appreciate anyone willing to look into this matter. Wilfredor (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you dislike the outcome of the deletion request, but you can always request undeletion instead of coming here and attacking me by accusing me of "improper conduct". Firstly, there is no "mandatory" 7-day period, read again the policy. Secondly, the case is clear, as stated in the deletion request. Have you got evidence the photographs included in the bullet are in the public domain? I am waiting for it and I am open to restore it if you can provide evidence they are definitely in the public domain in Venezuela. In the meantime, the file is deleted as a copyright violation (COM:PCP). I deleted the file and left the discussion open so that you could provide evidence; you didn't; the file is deleted. Bedivere (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, he participated in the discussion and took sides, which makes it ethically wrong for him to be the one to close it. I appreciate anyone willing to look into this matter. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be "ethically wrong" to comment (not even voting) in the deletion request? I made an appropriate request that you didn't comply with.
Furthermore, now you are uploading actas without descriptive names. I have already notified on your discussion that you should upload them with appropriate names and not only you've deliberately ignored my message but continued to upload them as you did before. I urge you to comply with that request. It will not be me but any other admin may take action. Bedivere (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the files locally and stoped the uploading process to accommodate you, but I didn't see any obligation in the policy. Your behavior is starting to feel like wikihounding regarding the election topic. Wilfredor (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please avoid making personal attacks? I don't really mind about the election files. I did not even ask you to stop uploading them. I just asked you to give them descriptive names. You've already uploaded hundreds which will need renaming! That is disrupting and I am only advising you not to continue doing it because action could be taken, given that you've already been warned. Bedivere (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Process may not have been great, but I don't see any potential admin action here to correct it. @Wilfredor: do you have something in mind? - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Further: copyright status looks seriously confusing, and based on the precautionary principle it is hard to see how we could keep this: too many parties (so to speak) with a potential copyright claim on portions of the document. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, After writing this entry here, a few minutes later, the administrator threatened to block me. [2] Looking for any excuse like "I don't like the file names"--Wilfredor (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a threat but a warning. Yet you still refuse to get the point! Even after warning you you continued to do the same thing! Bedivere (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that I have to do this or else I'll be blocked? Wilfredor (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reopening the deletion nomination until an impartial administrator can resolve the situation and restore the file. Additionally, I recommend taking administrative action against the current admin, as I feel targeted. It is not a coincidence that after raising this issue, he threatens to block me over file naming conventions. I believe he is not acting in good faith and is misusing his administrative powers. Wilfredor (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will not be reopened. You are free to request undeletion if you provide evidence the file is in the public domain. Bedivere (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find your behavior harassment, and if it continues, I will have to report it to the administration. Wilfredor (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you did not like that the file was deleted. Fair enough.
But my actions are far from being harassment.
And... you have reported my actions here, in the administrators' noticeboard. Bedivere (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: I am a presumably impartial administrator. As I wrote above, "based on the precautionary principle it is hard to see how we could keep this." If you have a case to make to the contrary, start an undeletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: can you explain how the filenames Wilfredor is using are poor enough to potentially merit a block? Admittedly, I've seen better filenames, but I've also seen a lot worse. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jmabel, the filenames correspond to the actual voting places, and are named accordingly: Biblioteca, Centro Cultural, etc.. However the files are not of the actual voting place but of the acta. A more descriptive name would be, for example, Acta de votación 2024 - Biblioteca, etc.. I told them it was disruptive to continue uploading files with such undescriptive names. Bedivere (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: I totally understand asking for better file names. I don't know whether you provided examples of how you would have preferred these to be named. Still, with all due respect, warning or threatening that this could be grounds for a block seems excessive to me. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I considered that it was widespread, because they are way too many files that need correcting. That adds to the fact that they ignored my first message which was friendlier I think. At the same time, Wilfredor is a long-term user, they should know better though... --Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for the naming policy that I am supposed to add that you want, the files were well categorized and with an adequate description each one of them. Wilfredor (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FN. perhaps? Not to mention I already suggested new names: Acta elección presidencial Venezuela 2024 - Biblioteca, and so on. Bedivere (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: Right, COM:FN guideline.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesn't say exactly how it should be. The name is descriptive. Can it be improved? It can be improved, but it's not something that warrants a block. I think it's excessive. Wilfredor (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to see your error and that is not something for me to do. Bedivere (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't see Bedivere participating in the DR beyond requesting people to provide evidence for their claims, or stating their pending actions as a determining admin. Ideally waiting seven days is the norm, though CV can be speedied. Not certain I agree with the thoughts about blocking, though I can understand the frustration on admin guidance being patently and repeatedly ignored, especially where it is going to make work. Com:UDR is the place for the conversation to repatriate the file. So I closely align with Jmabel's comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that after all these years, they decided to guide me right after a controversial deletion nomination. They directed me based on a nonexistent policy and then threatened to block me if I didn't follow their "friendly" guidance. Wilfredor (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg

This one has been a long ride. I think we are finally reaching the point of having [almost] everyone's positions clearly stated. I'd suggest giving it another 24 hours for those who may not yet have responded to my ping a few hours ago, but after that I'd greatly appreciate if some uninvolved admin would come close it one way or another, rather than weight for it revert yet again to a battleground. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we've now got a summary from everyone likely to give one and I urge that some uninvolved admin decide what to do here before people resume sniping. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: as an involved party, I should not be the one to decide this. Will someone please take this on?. - Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this obsolete file

I would like File:Rutherford scattering geometry 3.svg. It is an obsolete, unused variant of File:Rutherford scattering geometry.svg. It's not a big file but it nonetheless wastes space on the servers. Kurzon (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurzon: No, writing about it wastes space, but you still have time for {{G7}}. Deleted files are just made invisible to non-Admins.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If Wikimedia becomes overloaded, that's your problem to solve. Kurzon (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would say the file is still useful - having variants still provides flexibility. Also deleting files doesn't save storage space, it just hides the file from public view (admins can still view the file). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 03:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=907040235"