Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
|
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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
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 | |||
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 |
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.
How often do admins send things to OS?
Paradise Chronicle's suggestion that Kadı make 100 successful OS requests before applying to be an Oversighter seemed absurd to me; I have nearly 20,000 deletions and have only ever gone to the OS team four times - twice for people uploading sensitive personal documents (NOTWEBHOST stuff) and twice for personal attacks beyond the pale. Out of curiosity I was wondering if other admins had similar numbers or not. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, 100 successful OS requests doesn't realist. I don't think we lack Oversighters, so it doesn't matter much to me. There is much more need for Checkusers. Yann (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like I have made 10 requests, mostly CSAM pending action by Legal/T&S. 100 is unreasonably high IMO.
- I haven't commented at Kadi's OS request yet, but I think that more oversighters in a more diverse set of timezones are needed; the current team has had 6+-hour response times just due to being asleep, causing me to flag down a steward instead sometimes. On one hand, an active admin who also already has the
viewsuppressedright would probably be preferable (AntiCompositeNumber comes to mind :)). On the other hand, nothing says we can't appoint more than one new oversighter! —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)- @Mdaniels5757: They have to stand for election. Of course, ACN would be a shoe-in, but so would Martin Urbanec (for Admin first). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm at 18 requests, for the record, plus one emergency that someone else contacted me for but I passed off to another steward to handle. I count 7 emergency steward OS actions in the last year. (The query says 8, but one was no-actioned as local OSers got to it first). That's higher than most wikis with local oversighters, and is probably a result of timezone overlap as @Mdaniels5757 noted. As for me, it's unlikely I'd run particularly soon, but I might in the future if there's still a need. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I have never made an OS request and I do not feel any need for OS right. Regular deletion and version hiding are enough for me. Taivo (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Chiming in here as an enwiki oversighter, I feel that the Commons could use additional oversighters. While I have not kept a count of the number of OS requests I've made here, one of the most common types is when a minor reveals too much information about themselves, to the point of uploading a picture of themselves to the Commons. It is important for the safety of these users that these kinds of oversight requests be expedited, and I feel that the Commons OS team's response time could be improved with additional oversighters, particularly one in a region that overlaps with US time zones. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- "I've made here, one of the most common types is when a minor reveals too much information about themselves, to the point of uploading a picture of themselves to the Commons." I tried to do that once hut were told that it didn't justified a revision deletion Trade (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't reflect my experience. Typically it occurs after a minor discloses their age on an enwiki page and includes a photo of themselves. In that case, we would suppress the age on enwiki, and then ask that the photo be suppressed here on commons. So far, all of the requests I've made along those lines have been approved. (The specific age of the minor plays a role in the decision to suppress—if the age is 14 years old or younger, we will almost always suppress on enwiki, whereas if it's a 16-year-old editor, we may allow it.) Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- "I've made here, one of the most common types is when a minor reveals too much information about themselves, to the point of uploading a picture of themselves to the Commons." I tried to do that once hut were told that it didn't justified a revision deletion Trade (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Could an administrator cancel this deletion request and 
Speedy delete this file, please? It is a blatant copyright violation from the telenovela trailer at TV Globo's official channel on YouTube. Francisco (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Yann. A perfect illustration of why not to speedy-delete something like this based on one person's opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
No clear permissions have been received on this. VRT has not received any response concerning this file since 29 April 2023. Can some admin just speedy-delete it? I just thought asking here was better than CSD'ing it. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Please move the files back to their original names
@Billinghurst: has unnecessarily renamed all the illustrations in Category:The Gentle Grafter (1908) in violation of COM:MOVE. The files were clearly named with the title of the book in which they appear, the date of publication, and the number of the page on which they occurred. The moves are a violation of established official community guidelines for the renaming of files. I post here because (a) the move is the action of an administrator, and (b) moving the files back requires admin privileges. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have to say: given that the old names are still there as redirects, the new names look to me to be tremendously more useful to any reuser other than possibly Wikitext or something else putting together a replica of the whole work. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm curious which principle of COM:MOVE you are applying here? The previous names were harmonize[d across] the names of a set of images across multiple volumes. The changes mean that the set is no longer harmonized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Harmonised hasn't traditionally been used in that scenario, and has been more for where the works are used in templates, eg. "Flags of ...", soccer uniforms parts, train network components, consecutive pages of a book where they are constructed to build a whole. They have been done to a constructed purpose to a constructed outcome. In this specific case, I can also say that the first part of the filename is replicating the name of the work, and the latter part of each filename identifies the source, so a harmonisation exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Except that it isn't. The first part of the filename did replicate the name of the work, but after the renaming, it no longer did. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Harmonised hasn't traditionally been used in that scenario, and has been more for where the works are used in templates, eg. "Flags of ...", soccer uniforms parts, train network components, consecutive pages of a book where they are constructed to build a whole. They have been done to a constructed purpose to a constructed outcome. In this specific case, I can also say that the first part of the filename is replicating the name of the work, and the latter part of each filename identifies the source, so a harmonisation exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm curious which principle of COM:MOVE you are applying here? The previous names were harmonize[d across] the names of a set of images across multiple volumes. The changes mean that the set is no longer harmonized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment As mentioned, the files were moved to a descriptive name that reflects what is in the image and the speech quotes that pertained to the work, not the source of the work, which is usually part of the source of any work. The files are still named with the title of the book, and the edition; the page number was not retained in the title though remains within the description of the work. The category of the works has a named representation of the redirects available for those who see them. The files as they were named and uploaded do not allow for broader identification and further categorisation, and when further categorised are less meaningful and relatively ambiguous. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm curious how "Of course, it’s brown paper" and "Instead of the Lieut. and the Duke" are more descriptive file names? And which principle of COM:MOVE are you applying here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Umm, how about you go and look at the images and their source pages, it should be self-evident how the descriptions were derived. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- You've responded to my question, but did not answer the question that I asked. "Of course, it’s brown paper" is a caption accompanying an image, and so belongs in the caption field. How does the caption describe what is in the image any better than the page number on which the image appeared? What does "Of course, it’s brown paper" tell anyone about what is depicted in the image? The image is in black and white, with no brown at all. "Of course, it's..." adds no information at all, so we are left with the word "paper" as the rationale for renaming the file. Why not instead just put the caption into the caption field of the template? You have continued to evade my question: Which principle of COM:MOVE are you applying here? The naming policy clearly indicates that "Files can be renamed after they have been created, but only under some circumstances", and directs to COM:MOVE, which lists six situations for renaming files. Which criterion of those six was applied in this situation? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Umm, how about you go and look at the images and their source pages, it should be self-evident how the descriptions were derived. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm curious how "Of course, it’s brown paper" and "Instead of the Lieut. and the Duke" are more descriptive file names? And which principle of COM:MOVE are you applying here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, while I appreciate the improvements made to the file description pages and category page (adding captions, {{Wikidata Infobox}}, and the Wikidata work), I agree that the file renames was a bad call. The existing file names were logical, descriptive, internally consistent (and consistent with relevant other files on Commons), and conformant with a larger naming schema for the short-story collections of O. Henry. And while no naming schema is perfect, it is also definitely the case that the new one is not obviously better or more correct than the already established one, so a unilateral mass move without discussion was inappropriate.As for the specifics of the naming schemas, the new schema makes very little sense. These are illustrations from a specific book, and make sense only in the context of that book (unless actually remixed and recontextualized). The caption for the illustrations is a phrase from the text of the book that the image is trying to illustrate, but it is not any kind of a title for it and does not really describe the image in any meaningful way. Nobody is going to search for these using a phrase like "Of course, it’s brown paper" (or in any case would preferably get the search hit from the file description page). The title of the book and the page number on which it appeared on the other hand, is descriptive: it is the illustration from that book and on that page. It is also a very practical schema for where the images were intended to be used: a transcription of that particular book on English Wikisource, where the image will be used and appear in the context of that page. To prefer the new schema is fine, of course (see "no schema is perfect" above), but to unilaterally move the files to it is inappropriate. Xover (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Closure request of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 109#Proposal: Clarify topic ban
Would an uninvolved administrator be willing to close that discussion? It involves the scope of an editor's topic ban, so it might well be useful to have formal closure. I'm involved as proposer, so I can't close it myself. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)