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

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.


Hugo Trejo

Buenos días, subí una imagen etiquetada como de "Hugo Trejo". Tras colocarla, un usuario me informa que no pertenece al personaje, sino a "Jesús María Castro León" y es de 1958. Ya ha sido borrada del artículo. Por favor, ¿podrían revisar la imagen?. Un saludo. Gracias Mdelt 13:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hugo Trejo.jpg. Es el enlace a la imagen, la subió el mismo usuario que editó el artículo y en la descripción cambia el nombre al de Jesús María Castro León, lo que da lugar al equívoco--Mdelt 13:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdelt: Buenas. Por favor, usas {{Rename}} o nuestro RenameLink gadget.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make room for the move

Hi there. If we were to apply the same pattern that has been used with other categories, we would have to move Category:Roundabout art in Aragón to Category:Roundabout art in Aragon, but I would need someone to make room for that move. I do not know if this is the place to ask for such a thing, so I apologize if it turns out it is not. And thanks in advance. Alavense (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alavense: Normally you can just request the move with {{Rename}} and someone with sufficient privileges will eventually get to it. But I'll do it right now. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please delete this as a deliberate hoax. Komarof (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done If the user who uploaded this appeared to be active, I would block, but I think that is unneeded. I wouldn't object to a block, though. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection for timed text

On the English Wikipedia, we lock down main page content as it's a favourite target for vandals. For example, the media items from Commons get protected while for as long as they are displayed. Some of this is done by bots, and for other media files, we have the page en:Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection, which User:KrinkleBot then processes. We currently have a sound file linked from the main page (for not much longer as it only has 75 minutes to run; hence this query is of generic nature). When that sound file was already on the main page, an editor uploaded timed text (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/TimedText:3-14_The_Vatican_Rag.mp3.en.srt) to go with this. User:Tamzin enquired with a Commons admin and was told that "TimedTexts are usually not protected". That's somewhat of a hole in our system. Hence, can we please have a discussion whether timed texts could and should be protected? And if the answer is yes, would that work via the Commons media protection page linked above? If that doesn't work, could the functionality of that page (or rather, the capability of KrinkleBot) be upgraded? Schwede66 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Krinkle as the Operator of KrinkleBot.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I do somewhat see the case for not protecting, in that most of the worst things a vandal could stick on the MP can't be done via plaintext. (Beyond that, BEANS.) As long as enwiki doesn't have a rule of creating TimedText files pre-mainpaging, I'm not sure that the benefits of protection would outweigh the harms. But we could fix that on our end on enwiki. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I implemented auto-protection via KrinkleBot of timed text of videos last year for this reason, just didn't think of audio files at the time. Should be trivial to add. Legoktm (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a fairly experienced Commons:License reviewer and I'd like to appeal the decision to add this Flickr account to the Commons:Questionable Flickr images list. It seems to have been the official account for Land Rover (the car company) for Middle East and North Africa. It started in 2010, and was active through 2018, and during that time uploaded something like 11,000 Creative Commons Attribution licensed images of official Land Rover Middle East and North Africa events, many with attending celebrities. So I think it's both legitimate, and valuable. Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images/Archive_5#Land_Rover_MENA indicates it was added to QFI by admin User:INeverCry by the request of User:Elisfkc; for some reason I thought it was the request of User:Christian Ferrer, but he corrected me). INeverCry is, sadly, banned now, so Christian Ferrer suggested I asked elsewhere, such as here. Christian writes he's not confident that images such as e.g. [1] or [2] have really free licenses given by Land Rover; which seems pretty straight forward to me, they are Land Rover diagrams so clearly images owned by Land Rover, who else would own them? Would you (admin(s), any or all of you) be able to reverse the decision, please? --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed - we already have over 5,000 images from landrovermena on Commons. Are we going to delete them all? --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify a bit my comment about the two images linked above, me too I'm sure the images are owned by Land Rover, and that is the problem, because of what I'm not confident is that Land Rover Middle East and North Africa, which is subordinate to Land Rover, has the right (i.e. do not have the legal competence) to gives free licenses for such media. That being said there is also potentially a lot of adequate content in the Flickr stream, and although I did not want to "white list" this Flickr account myself, I'm not strictly opposed if one, or more, of my fellow administrators make the opposite decision. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, there seemed to be way too many images that had a caption of All Rights Reserved and/or images that Land Rover did not mean to actually release. I am very interested in whether Land Rover Public Relations agrees that these images were supposed to be CC-BY (contacted not through Flickr and not the MENA group, but the head office). If Land Rover PR responds that none of the images were supposed to be released and someone in the Land Rover MENA office was accidentally releasing them under CC-BY without realizing it or that account is actually not affiliated with Land Rover, then all 5,000+ should be deleted. I have emailed them and will send proof of the answer either way to VRT. Barring a response from Land Rover Public Relations, I would say to keep the status quo as is. Elisfkc (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an official account by Land Rover. Why can't they release their own images under a free license? We already have had a similar discussion, and it was concluded (after a long discussion), that a free license given by an official account is valid. Yann (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]