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
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
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
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 (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.


https://www.flickr.com/people/landrovermena/ on COM:QFI list

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]
@Yann: Where may we find a reference to this account from the head office of Land Rover?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, and I didn't look. Are you claiming that this is not a genuine account? Yann (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann: I don't know; I thought you did at 20:44 above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to https://landrovermena.com/. Notice the Flickr icon at the top linking to https://www.flickr.com/landrovermena. --13:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) GRuban (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2013/05/jaguar-land-rover-enhances-engineering-facilities-middle-east Notice the list of official sites, including, at the bottom, www.flickr.com/LandRoverMENA. If this is a fake site, they've certainly gone to great lengths to make it look real! If this is an official site, our due diligence stops there, we can not be expected to write to every company asking "that image you released on your official site - are you really sure you officially released it"? When would that end? Why would someone's word by email to a Wikimedia editor be somehow more official than someone's post on an official web site that everyone in the world could see? --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G., Christian Ferrer, Elisfkc, and Yann: If, purely hypothetically, someone from Land Rover were to write back and say "no we don't release these images", how would that be different from revoking the Creative Commons Attribution license - which, we agree, I hope, is irrevocable? Remember, these 11,000 images have been published on an official site (as I hope I've shown above), for the last 5 to 13 years. If we allow a company official to say "whoops, we were wrong" how is that different than revoking the license? I'm all for letting an individual say "I clicked the wrong button", I did so myself in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with I am an artist.jpg. This is a large company. The chance is excellent that the person writing any email will be a completely different person than the person who put the images up 13 years ago, their boss will be a different person, they may work for a different office entirely (Land Rover is a global company, and changed owners multiple times), they will have no context on the original decision. We will not be asking them "was this a mistake", we will be asking them whether they want to withdraw the license. We don't do that. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GRuban: Yes, thank you for this information. @Yann: I meant above that you wrote "This is an official account by Land Rover."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks GRuban for this information. So there is no doubt that this is an official account of BMW. It is not like a local BMW dealer publishing pictures on their website. If the license were changed within a few days after publication, we could recognize that it was a mistake. If files are published for years with a free license, there is no way the license could be considered invalid. So I am removing "landrovermena" from the list of bad accounts. Yann (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are we certain that the person that released the image had the authority to release it? How are we certain that Land Rover MENA even had the right to publish these images? Elisfkc (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not take the marketing or media person of a big company for a newbie. These people aren't free to do what they want. So I reverse the question, how do you think possible that they publish thousands of pictures under a free license by mistake? Yann (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty easy, someone thinks Flickr is like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc, thought it was an easy way to share and host their media images, and pushed the default button for CC-BY 2.0 on the account setup, not realizing what it meant. Then, everyone else thought it was good to go and kept the default. They seem to clearly upload images just sent to them without actually going through and renaming the files to have them make sense (as seen here). They are also images that appear to belong to others (as seen here with the image also listed on Getty) taken at events sponsored by Land Rover. Elisfkc (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elisfkc: So you think people in BMW MENA are dumb? This is a bad idea. Never underestimated others. On the opposite, I think that publishing marketing material under a free license is a good strategy. It helps spreading the mark and the products. Yann (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, Elis, by that logic we would have to stop accepting all free licences everywhere, because "what if they made a mistake"? Sure, there are rare cases when people do make mistakes, but in general when someone does something it's because they wanted to. If we start with "but what if it was a mistake?" as a base assumption, we'd have to delete not just these 5000 images, but maybe half the content of the Commons. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is a difference between what the accounts look like for Delta Air Lines and this one, especially considering this Land Rover account has uploaded copyrighted images that we have proof are not their images (as I mentioned previously with the images on Getty). I am specifically looking at the way they have named the images and captions. Delta seems to have actually understood what Flickr is, while the Land Rover account seems to just be using it as a image hosting site like photobucket. Elisfkc (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elisfkc: It should be noted that the image you linked above has a mention "for Jaguar Land Rover" (JLR). So the photographer WAS associated with JLR. Again you are wild-guessing things which you don't know and never will, i.e. the details of the contract between this photographer and JLR. This is not reasonable. Yann (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I never said that it was a fake site, and the photographs e.g. of events are fine for me, however I find curious that marketing photos such as [3], or such as the two images previously linked, have free licenses [4]. On an other side if Land Rover don't control what is doing Land Rover MENA with the copyright of the material owned by the mark, maybe one can think it is not our buisness and that we should accept their free licenses. Personaly I think I will stay neutral on that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparent authority. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File moving required

I just uploaded the coat of arms of the 1st Anti-Air Artillery Regiment of the Italian Army: File:CoA mil ITA rgt artiglieria c a 001 copy.png and forgot to edit the "copy" out of the filename when I uploaded it. I wanted request to move the file to File:CoA mil ITA rgt artiglieria c a 001.png, but it turns out I can't as there was a redirect there to the 2nd Anti-Air Artillery Regiment. Please could an administrator move the file? Thank you, Noclador (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Noclador: I'll do this, but in the future, please don't go blanking pages! If you want a speedy deletion, use {{SD}} with one of the rationales from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. (A few of these have special templates of their own.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category Merge

Please merge Category:Panchchuli into Category:Panchachuli. Both categories exist for the same Mountain. Panchachuli is the correct Spelling. ArmouredCyborg (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created the category redirect and updated the Wikidata item Panchachuli (Q7130311). Used this Indian government website as a source: [5]. William Graham (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Data:NumberOf/hourly.tab, Data:NumberOf/daily.tab

Please, delete these pages, because a module they was created for, now using GreenC's Wikipedia Statistics pages. MBH 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image replacement

There are two copyvio files[1][2] need to be deleted. Before that, please perform the global replacement at User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Other_requests. 0x0a (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what is going on, though. Several items removed from the User:CommonsDelinker/commands queue over 6 hours ago appear not to have executed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, bot is not always reliable and I will replace these files manually. But thank you anyway. 0x0a (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Native Spanish-speaking admin?

Could a native Spanish-speaking admin have a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/08/Category:Directors by ethnic or national descent? I think it should be closed as "no action" and possibly deleted as inappropriate, but I hesitate to do so on my non-native understanding of a presumably slang term. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove copyvio version of image

Please remove the copyvio version of File:Gabriel Bortoleto, entrevista 09 DEZ 2020.jpg from the file history. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spammers/CU issue

Thinking long and hard about this I guess I feel it is something that the community as a whole should maybe offer thoughts on. A while back I created a CU request as I had blocked a batch of spam accounts that were uploading promotional images for their bar code software. In my mind it was impossible for me to know whether I'd caught all possible accounts. In one of the project's CUs opinion it was not something they considered worth looking at and I deleted the request.

Two/three days ago - via the adverts for speedy deletion - I found another 4 accounts created over recent days all doing the same thing again. To me it is fairly obvious that there is a company behind this who have decided to continue to abuse Commons sadly. The only people who can prevent that from happening repeatedly easily and in the longer term are CUs. My first reaction was to approach the CU who had declined the request before. However to date there has been no response to this. It concerns me that Commons, not well patrolled by people looking for blatant spam, is currently vulnerable to ongoing abuse. However maybe that is just me - other views from the community are welcome. While I would be very happy to see comments from CUs it is important to remember that advanced rights are only available with the consent of the community. Thanks Herby talk thyme 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are speaking of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Professionalbarcode, which you deleted 4 days after creation, because things went too slow in your opinion. Do you expect every CU request to be processed in less than 4 days? --Krd 14:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has nothing to do with how long anything takes - that is another matter. The indication was that it was not a valid request. Herby talk thyme 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the "why" that is the issue for me here
Is there something about spamming via abusing multiple accounts that is not seen as serious?
Is it the fact that CUs see repeated similar behaviour as unlikely perhaps
Is it possible we should be looking for additional CUs?
The time taken to tag the files and deleted them plus blocking the users is considerably more than the time that would be taken preventing further abuse.
It seems appropriate to open the discussion at least and it would be helpful for all the community to understand this Herby talk thyme 16:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where exactly has been said that it is an invalid request? It was said that the request doesn't have highest priority, as an answer to your question why it takes so long (i.e. 4 days). But you say it has nothing to do with how long anything takes, what is your point? Krd 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Herbythyme submitted a borderline fishing request, for which all known accounts were blocked. Herbythyme gave no evidence supporting a "sleeper check" (as only one example, this could have been time stamps indicating that accounts had a history of being created together in batches). Notwithstanding that RFCUs are seldom helpful for spammers (I can think of no spammer of this sort from the last 5 years, if not 10, not using a disposable proxy), COM:RFCU includes "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases" (again, all accounts were blocked--i.e., not difficult) and "Requests to run a check without evidence or with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays or the request not being investigated" (bold added). Herbythyme was impatient after several days, and ran off to AN with a complaint. As previously explained, the request was not prioritsed for the reasons noted. Herbythyme then contented himself with misrepresenting that response (as he's done again here) and ignored questions posed (as he's done again here). While one appreciates the consistency, this is thus utterly disingenuous piffle:
  1. "[T]t was not something they considered worth looking at" - As pointed out by Krd, "not prioritsed" is entirely different than "not [...] worth looking at". This distinction was indeed explained; that Herbythyme continues the misrepresentative may suggest it is deliberate.
  2. "My first reaction was to approach the CU who had declined the request before." - As pointed out by Krd, the request was not declined. Herbythyme withdrew it ("withdrawn") and deleted it.
  3. "However to date there has been no response to this" - I gave Herbythyme's sarcastic and snarky comment "I fail to see any point in creating another CU req unless you are prepared to take the abuse seriously?" the response it deserved: none.
  4. "It concerns me that Commons, not well patrolled by people looking for blatant spam" - As above, this is offered without a shred of evidence (that Herbythyme personally encounters spam does not mean anything), is contradicted by even the most cursory of glances at deletion and block logs (even from the CU "who doesn't take it seriously"), and is not a CU issue even if true. Эlcobbola talk 19:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a pity no one other than CUs have offered an opinion however at leat now I understand the situation so thanks for that. Herby talk thyme 08:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interwikilinking categories about (living) persons with their respective userpage(s) through Wikidata

Strange, I just connected Category:Claudia Garád with de:Benutzerin:Claudia.Garad through the "Add links" function on the bottom left of the interface.

When I tried the same with Category:Raimund Liebert and de:Benutzer:Raimund_Liebert_(WMAT) I received the error message: 

Warning: Per Wikidata notability policy adding links to userpages or userspace is not allowed. Therefore this edit cannot be completed. If you think you are correct, contact an administrator.

The links in this message are not helpful as the first one redirects to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and the second one to the non-existing https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/AN.

Why did the first interwiki-link work and the second one not? Maybe the female prefix "Benutzerin:" was not recognised as a user page?

Does it make sense to suppress this kind of interwikilink? And if so, why reference the "notability policy" as a reason?

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KaiKemmann: Hi,
de:Benutzer:Raimund Liebert doesn't exist. And a page in User: namespace is not sufficient to have a Wikidata item. Yann (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: a page in User namespace is not sufficient to have a Wikidata item, but a category here on Commons with 100 or so photos (the situation here) probably is. The Wikidata threshold for notability is pretty low. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I had cited the wrong userpage on the German Wikipedia above. I have corrected it now.
Thanks for your comments.
Who would be able to adjust or remove the error message, any administrator?
KaiKemmann (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting deletion

Dear Admins, I previously have uploaded this image which seems to be a privacy concern, for me. I have uploaded a different verion of the file now. As such, I am requesting to delete the previous version of the file. Thankyou 511KeV (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide permission for the embedded thumbnail photos. Krd 08:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The permission has been sent via VRT. 511KeV (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@511KeV: ✓ Done thanks to Krd.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:فرحان رانا راجپوت

This is part of a larger cross-wiki spam involving sockpuppeting as well. I had CSDed the category but an IP reverted the tag. I really don't feel the category is worth discussion. Can some admin delete it? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=827007165"