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
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
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
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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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.



Précision de localisation Category:Immeuble, rue d'Auvergne, Nevers[edit]

La base Mérimée et ceux qui la copient (Monumentum, museedupatrimoine.fr) indiquent cette adresse à tort La tourelle est située à l'angle de la rue de la Cathédrale (n°18) et de la rue Albert Morlon (n°2) et en face de la rue de la Parcheminerie. La rue d'Auvergne a été renommée en remerciement à Louis-Albert Morlon qui a légué une partie de sa bibliothèque à la bibliothèque de Nevers. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.43.103.187 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war on the File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg and user blockings[edit]

Hi. I saw the edit war on the talk page and the 1 week of block you made to the @Gaeilge181, @Argut and @Eoiuaa. These 3 users are very active on the map. Not only did they edit the controversial situations of the front line and settlements, but also they provided many helpful changes, like those names of settlements, geographic locations and other icon fixes. So I think the duration of 1 week might be too long for them, which would potentially damage the enthusiasm and motivation of them. I think these users did not breach the three-revert rule policy and they did follow the rules of Dispute resolution and discussed the issue on the talk page.

But there is another user @Iconicos consistently uses aggressive words on the talk page, suggesting the above users were "web brigades", "trolls" and "cyberwarriors", which I think could be detrimental to the discussion on the topic. I am not sure whether the wording of @Iconicos might be more of a hindrance than a help, but this behaviour is against personal attacks and would also be blocked as per Blocking policy#Protection. Besides @Iconicos is one of only two users did the three-revert rule within 24 hours. The other one is the creator of the map @Viewsridge. Wo.luren (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is copied from my talk page. I would like other opinions about how to deal with this case. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems no one pay attention to this case. Wo.luren (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. All three users were correctly blocked. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please give the guidance which rule of the blocking policy supports the block of these users? We are in a community full of conflict of interest. This community encourages full discussions, and the these users did participated in the discussion. So I think we could at least assume good faith of them. But I did not see any preliminary education and warnings before the block been made. Furthermore, can anyone please explain why @Iconicos is not blocked considering his words breaching the No personal attacks policy and his three-revert within 24 hours even before the discussion reached a consensus? I did not see this user showing any respect or civility to other editor of opposing viewpoint, but only showing his arrogance from his words. I do not think this would be helpful for the discussion, but could instead insult other users or even provoke anger. The community are trying to maintain a neutral point of view but not to bias towards certain side. Based on this, I am not sure whether the treatment of these 4 users were followed the same standard and were consistent with the admin's policy of Dealing with disputes. I am not saying @Iconicos should be blocked. This user indeed offers helpful information (though with bias), but it is not desirable to see the user behaves as an ultimate admin, winning the battle over every opposite voice. What I am thinking is those 4 users should be treated under the same standard. For example, just let them continue the discussion cycle on the talk page so long as the page is protected. After all, we are not talking about a specific editing or any details they made to the map/page, but maintaining the principle and standard in which the community have been persisted. Wo.luren (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wo.luren: English Wikipedia policies do not apply here. Commons has its own set of policies, which may be similar to English WP, or may not. Yann (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Commons:Blocking policy which is a short version of English WP. And the policy of Commons:Talk page guidelines#Disputes is referred to its English counterpart. May I know if there was anything inaccurate in my statement, or anything inconsistent with the Commons policy? Wo.luren (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The week-long block is almost finished, but there is no admin can explain the reason behind the blocking. It is not that difficult to explain it if the blocks were correct. But everyone was reluctant to do it. Maybe busy or be afraid. But someone might owe the users apologies if the blocks were incorrect.Wo.luren (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user:GibbonConnection[edit]

GibbonConnection (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

There is a newly created account that looks suspiciously and acts strangely.

First, it's definitely not a new user. (Brand new users seldom start with Commons instead of Wikipedia, and it's almost impossible that a genuine new user starts with forums and "patrolling" instead of uploads.)

Second, he already has done a lot of mess with my old edits and uploads. One page has been recently protected because of this (thanks to Achim55). My other concerns are detailed on his user talk page, but he doesn't seem to hear, he does something else instead.

Let me guess that a sockmaster is SwissArmyGuy who is currently blocked in enwiki by IP range of 49.150.96.0/19 for harassment of users including me. What makes me think so is an upload history of File:Moskvorecky bridge.JPG where he was too quick to reinstate the edit of the LTA, while theoretically his brand new account wouldn't have this page in a watchlist. Note also the similarity between the upload summaries of this one and e.g. that: "keep it original", etc. And a key feature of SwissArmyGuy: poor understanding of plain English, both policies and talk pages. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this user has intended to harass me while editing on Commons. Previously, this user is blocked twice on Russian Wikipedia for trolling users and disclosure of personal data, and on Wikidata for intimidation and harassment. GibbonConnection (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Novikoff: ✓ Done, blocked for 3 days thanks to Yann!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And while we are at it, I'd also ask to delete some files recently created by the blocked user: [1], [2], [3], [4] – they are now duplicates of the files they were copied from (I believe it's CSD F8). — Mike Novikoff 22:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. -- CptViraj (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CptViraj: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of the openrefine-3.7 tag[edit]

Dear admins, could you please create an "openrefine-3.7" tag, just like the current "openrefine-3.6" tag? It will be applied manually when making edits (and is therefore unrelated to OAuth or abuse filters). Thank you very much! − Pintoch (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing interface pages[edit]

Nearly a month ago, I posted this message about CheckUsers. The community seems to not to care about it. It failed to gain the community's attention. So, I am taking it here. Now, will you please create the pages mentioned at the VPP message including MediaWiki:Checkuser with CheckUser as it's content. Thanks, Hulged (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing DRs with new rationales[edit]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Couverture_midrash_laic_avril_2021.jpg was a discussion about the copyright status of a work, that was closed for being out of scope. Stuff like this is always problematic; was the work in scope? I don't know, and this is an example, not a UDR, but the uploader or other users never got a chance to defend the work. Images are frequently in scope that might not be at first glance. I'm asking that if an admin has a reason to delete a file that's not speedy worthy and not discussed in the DR, that they add it to the discussion and let another admin close it, or at least it stay open for a couple days for responses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty to rename a file[edit]

Hello. The file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leaning_(Alkamenes)_Aphrodite_(Daphni_type;_unveiled_version)_-_Mus%C3%A9e_du_Louvre_Ma_414.jpg was renamed but it's a mistake. I tried to revert to the previous name "Leaning Aphrodite Louvre Ma420.jpg" but a notification claims that there is an issue. Could someone help for the renaming? Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing VRT request[edit]

Hello! Could you please close this deletion request? In ticket:2022012810003606, a person is kindly following up on the matter. I would be thankful if you can close it, so I can do the same with the ticket. Thanks, Bencemac (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]