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
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
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
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 (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.


Has there even been a serious discussion as to how to organize the contributions of flickr users?

Has there even been a serious discussion as to how to organize the contributions of flickr users?

I can't remember when I started following the examples of other contributiors, and putting images from prolific flickr users into categories like: Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream. It seemed like these could be useful categories, as those flickr people kept making new images available under free licences. So, I started creating new categories, of the form Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream.

Then I noticed that some people had started to move categories of the form Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream to Category:Photographs from jqpublic. They were doing so:

  1. Without citing a policy, guideline, or discussion.
  2. Without using {{Category redirect}} to make the old category point to the new one.

In my opinion, this was never a good idea, for several reasons.

Some prolific photographers, including myself, have directly uploaded some of our images directly from our homes, have had some of our images uploaded from flickr, and have ho other images uploaded from other sites, like Panoramia. I'm an example. In my own case I think the best organization would have been to have had Category:Files from booledozer flickrstream and Category:Files from old York guy Panoramia stream be subcategories of Category:Photographs from Geo Swan. Category:Photographs from Geo Swan should not contain images that are in its subcatories.

I think I have seen other categories structures, for flickr users, in parallel, or in competition with the Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream hierarchy.

Influential Unix Guru Henry Spencer had a button he wore to Unix conferences that said, "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many different ones to choose among.". Truer words were never spoken. We should have one standard for how ot categorize photos from flickr users.

My apologies if this has already been discussed, and settled, and I just couldn't find that guideline.

and now, what to do about it?

Ted Nelson said that the purpose of computers is human freedom. Sorting photos from flickr, or at least those that were properly uploaded to use standard information templates, should have an author field that contains a link to the original flickr person's original flickr-ID. And we could set a robot to work that could work quietly, in the background, and take care of making sure every image from flickr was in the category we agreed upon. Is there some reason we haven't done this? Geo Swan (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least one reason would be that I, for one, don't want a category that somehow singles out which of my images came from Flickr, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. (If there are no significant number of others who feel that way, I guess I'll yield, but I've always tried to avoid having what seem to me to be "vanity categories" for my photos. The only one at all that I have is a user category for my few videos, just because I wanted to have easy access to them myself.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I too didn't, initially, start a category for my flickr images, out of modesty. I think that is what you are saying here, right?
But, a Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream should transclude {{Flickr user}}, and so supply links to jqpublic's flickr photostream, and to their albums. That link to their albums is extremely useful. Many flickr contributors have some albums of private events, like birthday parties, that include few, or zero, in scope images, while other albums to exotic locations, are packed full of in-scope images. It's possible your flickr albums, similarly, are a mix of highly in-scope images, and less useful images, or images of no use whatsoever.
If modesty is your concern, could you allow the rest of us to take advantage of the album sorting you already engaged in, so we can pick from your most useful photos?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything on my Flickr stream that I consider likely to belong on Commons (about 10,000 images) is on Commons. Some of the rest I have not licensed in a way compatible with Commons (either because it is more personal, would not meet Commons' strict scrutiny on derivative work, or because when similar materials made their way to Commons I disliked the objectifying categories added to the images); the remainder because either they are artistic rather than documentary images, or if I took (say) 70 pictures at a concert by a band, there might be a couple that I thought were worth having on Commons, but I put the whole batch on Flickr. I know there are people who are so inclusionist they'd want every damn shot I took to be here on Commons, but I don't see any reason to encourage them.
For work I've put on both sites, it's close to random which they go on first. For work I first uploaded there I usually (though not always) do any copy with Flickr2Commons and then use VFC to batch-edit them to say something like "author=Joe Mabel, on Flickr as Joe Mabel from Seattle, US"; if I do a completely separate upload here but I did an earlier upload to Flickr then I'll credit along the lines of "Joe Mabel; first uploaded to Flickr on account Joe Mabel" so no one can mistake it for a copyvio. So I'm not hiding my Flickr account at all. I just don't see any reason to have a giant category (or several) for my work. - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification.
Do you agree that anyone who moves a category like Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream to Category:Photographs from jqpublic really should leave a redirect? Should a category like Category:Photographs from jqpublic transclude {{Flickr user}}?
Once there is a consensus over how flickr images from prolific flickr users should be categorized, do you agree we should set a robot to make sure all of those flickr images get put in that specific category? It is currently well below 50 percent, maybe below 20%. Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really have very little opinion on setting up categories for non-notable photographers. I'm not opposed to it, but I'd never put any effort into it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Geo Swan: There was a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08/Category:Files transferred from Flickr user rodrigoparedes. Now, it looks like I transferred all 1129 photos in Category:Photographs by Rodrigo Paredes; I only transferred 931 of them, and I am not happy about the difference (files transferred by Sturm). Category:Photographs by Flickr photographer is organized with differentiation by photographer fullname. Category:Files transferred by User:Jeff G. from Flickr is currently haphazard, sorry (my Category:Files transferred from Flickr user governadoreduardocampos was renamed to Category:Files from governadoreduardocampos Flickr stream as the result of Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08/Category:Files transferred from Flickr user governadoreduardocampos based on names in Category:Flickr streams after I had created that cat and Category:Files transferred from Flickr user rodrigoparedes). Category:Flickr streams has 12 subcats (including Category:Photographs by Flickr photographer) and is also organized with differentiation by Flickr shortname.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Summary, so far...
  1. Okay, so, I think no one has defended the practice of moving a category full of images to a new name, without leaving a redirect.
  2. I don't think anyone has defended the claim that there was a policy, guideline, or meaningful consensus to move categories like Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream to new names, like Category:Photographs from jqpublic.
  3. I said the {{Flickr user}} template is extremely useful, if you are a fan of a flickr user's photos, if you think additional albums of theirs might contain more in scope images. However, I asserted the {{Flickr user}} template didn't belong on categories like Category:Photographs from jqpublic, that could contain images from jqpublic from other sites, or that they uploaded themselves, directly from their camera or memory stick. No one else has weighed in on this issue.
  4. I am going to repeat what Unix Guru Henry Spencer said, "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many different ones to choose among.". I am going to repeat we should not have two different ways for naming these categories.
    1. I think categories like Category:Files from jqpublic Flickr stream were here first.
    2. I think there are more categories full of flickr images of this form than there are of categories like Category:Photographs from jqpublic.
    3. It seems no one ever made a specific attempt to explain why the "photographs from" category names should replace the more specific category names...

The majority of PD-algorithm uploads by new users aren't AI. What should we do about it?

I've been working through the results of abuse filter 298 and the overwhelming majority of uploads are not AI art. Working through the last 500 or so (from January 12 through today), my back of the envelope estimate is:

  • 85% are non-AI images where the uploader is not the creator. These have been or will shortly be deleted as copyvios/no source/no permission.
  • 5% are non-AI images where the uploader is the creator. These often have both PD-algo and another license until either they or a patroller fix the file page.
  • 5% are non-AI images where the uploader is not the creator, but the file can be kept because of PD-textlogo, PD-old, etcetera.
  • 5% are actually AI images.

Making matters worse, a lot of the AI images that are uploaded by new users aren't within scope. There is lots of debate about AI images and scope in DRs, but there's broad agreement that files with rendering issues so bad that the files can't be used on sister projects are generally out of scope, and a lot of the uploads are things like this clock with two Xs or this illustration of Shakespeare where none of the anatomy, architecture, or text makes sense.

On the one hand, Filter 298 is working exactly as intended, as patrollers are able to use it to neutralize a large amount of copyvios. On the other hand, I suspect that most of the time, people are just clicking the checkbox in the upload wizard because it's there and lets uploaders bypass having to answer other questions about the file's authorship. It being a prominent default option may be doing more harm than good.

Should we remove the AI checkbox from the upload wizard or delay where/change how AI can be selected as an option there? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's as clear-cut a case as there could possibly be. 95% incorrect, and much of that 5% useless. The AI checkbox should be removed from Upload Wizard entirely, or at least heavily restricted (30/500 would be my vote). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Did your "PD-aglo" mean "PD-algorithm" or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I meant PD-algorithm. I use PD-algo as a shorthand because I can't always remember how to spell "algorithm". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
even as a shorthand, "PD-algo" would have been a lot clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I thought I was typing. As I said, I cannot seem to spell that word correctly. Fixed! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): in case you are not following this page, probably a thread you will want to follow. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: still, if it is (as seems to be indicated above) an 85% accurate predictor of copyvios, it might be worth having. Sort of like the discovery of penicillin. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I've noticed this as well from patrolling Special:NewFiles with no consideration of edit filters--erroneous PD-algorithm claims have become very common. In case it's related, there has also been a noticeable increase in bogus {{PD-USGov}} claims--not the typical federal v. state conflation, but use with images that have no relationship to any government entity (e.g., movie posters, random Internet images, etc.) Whatever change was made to the UploadWizard should be reconsidered. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bumping. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is an issue, but more general than only miss-tagging files. How do we prevent people from uploading copyright violations and out-of-scope images? It is much better that copyvios are uploaded without any license, than with a wrong license. Yann (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We still can't change the fact that people can't read, ignore multiple texts, and deliberately lie by checking the checkmark where they confirm they filled in the form correctly and aren't uploading copyrighted material. Previously the file would be uploaded as CC-BY-SA and would also end up in a big backlog. I think the UploadWizard is clear enough. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate caption

(Copied from COM:Village pump)

Last week, IP user User:196.188.120.153 edited the English caption for File:Ethiopia Plate of portable altar.jpg to say "ITS OFFENSIVE AND WILL BE PUNISHED". This is clearly not acceptable, but I'm not sure what should be done. There are religious sensibilities involved here. For some context, see this discussion on the English Wikipedia help desk, and recent edit summaries in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabot&action=history .--ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted the text. I would suggest protecting the page and asking the IP editor to maybe discuss this reasonably first, or else simply blocking any suitable IP space. We might question how important it is to test someone's religious sensibilities like this, but "WILL BE PUNISHED" is a clear threat and I'm tired of those. We work by debate here (as badly as we are at that), not religious dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd been wondering about that image, as well as File:Äthiopien_Tabot_Linden-Museum_90290.jpg, for reasons I've explained at the English Wikipedia help desk (linked above). I will note that this artifact no longer appears in the MNW's collection, or at least not via its website (link). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added semiprotection for File:Ethiopia Plate of portable altar.jpg, added the other to my watchlist so if it needs to be protected, I can do so quickly. Abzeronow (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we want to generate a template for this (e.g. Template:Religious sensitivities), this might be an appropriate image for the left side of the template. It is legible at the relevant size:

Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We might want a warning along the lines of the ones we have for Communist and Nazi symbols. Yes, I realize the case is not exactly parallel. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I can see a warning about religious sensitivities being useful. Abzeronow (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To go one more step: a warning template like this would probably be a good thing, but there is really no admin issue here. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting further afield from the original captioning issue, I'd suggest there could/should be a licensing issue for images of objects with dubious provenance. As of yet I'm unable to find any relevant policy, guideline, or consensus. I know this isn't the place for discussing that, but where is it? COM:VP? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gyrofrog: I'm not sure what you are driving at. Commons doesn't normally refuse in-scope images for non-copyright reasons. There are a lot of objects of questionable provenance in a lot of museums. That may be an issue for ownership of the object, but not for an image. - 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: What I'm getting at is that if an object is (for example) war loot, and the museum where it's located puts it on display, then without clearer/better provenance, taking a picture of it and asserting "public domain" (or some Creative Commons license etc.) becomes problematic. Perhaps not legally problematic (or perhaps it is?), but ethically. I'm imagining a scenario where someone borrows an exotic sports car, then finds out the person who loaned out the car smuggled it in & that the car may have been stolen in the first place. But then the driver keeps borrowing the car (and then loans it out for a photo shoot). In some places, that's legal; I'd argue that it's wrong, anywhere. Again, this probably isn't the place for it... I guess I'll take this to COM:VP. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problematic, but not a copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you wish to discuss changing the terms of "licensing [...] for images of objects with dubious provenance", then the appropriate place is with your elected representative, not on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victorian Turkish baths

Is there by some chance an admin (or other experienced user) with either knowledge of or interest in Victorian Turkish baths who might take over at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/02/Category:Victorian Turkish baths? We seem to have a user who is a legitimate subject matter expert, but with very little knowledge of Commons. We need someone who can either guide him through properly setting up this category (and possibly subcategories) or just take over and do it themself (or somewhere between the two). I'm the one who noticed the problematic category, but I don't think I bring more to this than a random knowledgeable Commons user. Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having had no response here, I'll take this to the VP. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sohan514

User page should be deleted for promotion. -- Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 10:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done by Gbawden. Yann (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:BayShoreBabe

I just blocked this user on en-wiki; their images are vandalism as well. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. I do not think so. You can nominate uploads for regular deletion one by one, if you consider them vandalistic. Taivo (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block AntiCompositeBot

@AntiCompositeBot is malfunctioning. It's trying to find files those foes not contain copright info, but it looks at only templates and this results to wrong alarms for example look at the history of File:Letters SVG?2Esvg.png (please don't say something like "that's a bad filename", i explained the reason in the file page). I didn't put a copyright template to that page because i can't found a suitable template (the template that's added by the wizard is unsuitable). Until that bug is solved by the operator of the bot, please Special:Block/AntiCompositeBot. RuzDD (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done The MediaWiki software (and bots) can only detect the presence of a license when it's a defined license template. For this reason, plaintext is not suitable for licensing. If you have not made substantial changes to a file, then you should simply copy the license from the original image.
I have deleted this particular file as an unneeded and unused duplicate. Unless there are on-wiki rendering issues with an SVG, we don't need a (almost unusably tiny) PNG copy generated from the SVG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion process is for which speedy deletion criteria or discussion @Pi.1415926535? RuzDD (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is not duplicete: one of PNG while the other is SVG. RuzDD (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
F8. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably there's an edit conflict happened and you could not see my second message @Pi.1415926535. RuzDD (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless there is a specific on-wiki use case (such as the known text rendering bugs), there is rarely a need to create a PNG copy of an existing SVG file. The MediaWiki software generates PNG versions of all SVG files (which any external reuser can use). Your file had no valid on-wiki use, especially at such a small size that pixelation was obvious. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can read the text says "SVG" easily. MW engine cannot generate thumbnails smaller than 2kb in most cases. Most of icons are in much smaller resolutions. This file is not very important for me but i think that's weird.
Anyway, i think plain text licenses can be determined by robots. For example, if there's a phrase like "public domain" i think bots can consider the file as publicdomain. RuzDD (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. @RuzDD: A bot cannot readily tell the difference between "this file is in the public domain" and (for example) "this file derives from several sources, some of which are in the public domain" etc. There is no way it can be programmed to always pick up context.
  2. You've repeatedly complained about how mediawiki renders PNG from SVG, and repeatedly been told there is a consensus to the contrary, and that if you want to change this you are going to have to change the consensus, not make ad hoc files on your own. I believe last time this came up you were told to take your case to Commons:Village pump/Technical. - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1: You're right. 2: I understood now, thanks. RuzDD (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=849935091"