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
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
113, 112, 111, 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
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
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
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.


File:Spanische Fussballnationalmannschaft Logo 2010 1star.svg

Would administrator mind taking a look at this File:Spanische Fussballnationalmannschaft Logo 2010 1star.svg? There are two potential issues with the file: (1) the most recent version might be a problem per COM:OVERWRITE and (2) the current and former version might not be {{PD-logo}} per both the COM:TOO US and COM:TOO Spain. I'm asking about this because en:File:Spain National Football Team badge.png uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content has been tagged for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free use. If the Commons svg version is OK as licensed, then the local non-free file would no longer be needed; on the other hand, if the Commons file isn't OK as licensed, then the non-free would need to be restored to where it was previously being used so as to avoid it being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It could be the derivative work of a public domain coat of arms. Anyway, I've reverted to the original version. It could be nominated for deletion Bedivere (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. Place Clichy 07:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Dardania.svg

User AceDouble (talk · contribs) is going on with a pointless edit-war about File:Flag of Dardania.svg. Time ago, I formatted the page and replaced the text [[Category:SVG proposed flags|Kosovo]] [[Category:SVG proposed flags of Kosovo]] with the template {{Proposed flag|SVG|proposed|Kosovo}}, which already replaces and includes those categories, yet the aforementioned user keeps reverting the page since February. I don't see any reason to edit-war about that. Daniele Fisichella 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021 You're the one whose making trouble for no reason. The flag is not fictitious while it's in use by the President's office since April 2021. Stop editing the file without the author's consent. [[1]] AceDouble (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I issued a short three day block, as they were warring just yesterday Bedivere (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: I don't need your consent at all. We specifically have that template for both fictitious and proposed flags, that's why it's literally set on {{Proposed flag|SVG|proposed|Kosovo}} and it hence transcludes Category:SVG proposed flags of Kosovo. In addition, the presidential use you refer to is totally unrecognized by Kosovo law, nor its unofficial use would constitute any recognition as state flag. Daniele Fisichella 18:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Est. 2021 See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_request_for_User:Bedivere. Bedivere (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD Georgia

Please re-close Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Georgia. This has been opened a long time and to merely copy a discussion about how to implement it, we don't need to re-open the thread.

In any case, we already have series of broken subcategories in Category:Non-empty category redirects and need to fix them in one or the other direction. Currently, it has just become a prolonged mess. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Jeanhousen

I blocked earlier today User:Jeanhousen. They run into some issues (not with me), and several users tried to resolve them at their talk page. (Note that one more topic was arxived earlier today). They ignored this and kept editing. After giving them two warnings, I blocked them in order to attract their attention to their talk page. The response was that they are not interested in discussing the issues. I am not going to unblock them for the time being, but if any other administrator knows how to resolve the issues please feel free to unblock. Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any diffs of editing justifying this block? User_talk:Jeanhousen#Cimetières et patrimoine classé hardly justifies it. This is a prolific contributor and personally I didn't have any problems discussing with them. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, discuss with them, no problem for me. I did not intend this block to be indefinite. Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. So it's not the user per se.
You blocked the user indefinitely, so it's for you to provide diffs justifying this.
Also, what is your take on users telling other users not to discuss with them. Is this acceptable conduct? Enhancing999 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are their talk page. Concerning your last point, I do not understand the relation to the block. Did I tell other users or advised other users not to discuss anything? Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmh2o, Carolus, and Hjart: Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the diffs. Please copy them here.
You didn't, but somebody else did, making - what I consider - a provocation. Then you blocked the user over not responding to it. It seems to me that your action escalated the issue. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thank you for your opinion. Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you either unblock the user or block all involved users equally? Enhancing999 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will unblock the user if they engage in the discussion of THEIR actions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect a user to respond by 16:00 to a comment made the day before at 21:23. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonsoir, je préfère répondre en français. Je constate que @Jeanhousen: fait un travail appréciable de catégorisation. Après avoir lui signalé ce que je considère comme une erreur, il n'a plus reproduit celle-ci. Ne pas répondre à des remarques, même si c'est peu collaboratif, n'est pas obligatoire et ne méritée pas un blocage illimité. Une agressivité dans les réponses non plus. La sanction ne devrait pas dépasser un avertissement, à l'extrême limite, vu ce qui lui est actuellement reproché, un blocage limité dans le temps. Cordialement. --JmH2O(talk) 20:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment After this comment by them not only clear  Support the block, but also would support a Global ban proposal. Regards --A.Savin 20:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was after he was pressured by an admin to respond to a user who didn't even expect him to respond (read JmH2O above).
I don't think Carolus and Ymblanter's actions in this case are a sample to follow. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you please explain why you mention me, i don't understand your point, thank you. Carolus (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at User_talk:Carolus#Comment_on_userpage. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at User_talk:Carolus#Comment_on_userpage. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means no, I don't see anything on their talk page to justify such offensive remarks, and "another Falk2" is surely among the last we need here. --A.Savin 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were blocked over not responding to offensive remarks in relation to two issues that were resolved. [2]. I reported Carolus at COM:AN/U. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you have chosen to lie here, but this is not what they were blocked for. Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to provide diffs? But then, I guess you don't want any as you don't provide them either. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have very clearly written at the beginning of this topic why I blocked them. I now checked again, I did not write "I blocked them because they were not responding to offensive remarks". Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's me who qualified the thread you were pressuring Jeanhousen to respond to as having an offensive comment. From my comments above and my report at AN/U, this should be clear to you.
The old thread was resolved, at least if I read JmH2O above. The same issue seems to apply to the Denmark description.
Is there a particular reason why you chose to intervene in this issue and pressure the user? I don't think this was report here or on AN/U before and even your comment at 21:33 seems unprofessional. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but what seems unprofessional to you does not seem to be unprofessional to me and to other users in this thread. The user consistently got talk page comments that some of their issues were substandard. Not one, not two, but many over a long period. They did not react to these comments and continued editing. When you say "resolved" you mean other users reverted their edits and they did not edit-war. Good for them, but in order for these things not to happen again, they need to be addressed. I warned them once, I warned them again two weeks later. Nothing happened. The only reason to attract their attention to the talk page would be to block them, for which I have chosen an infinite duration having in mind that as soon as they acknowledge the problems at the talk page, I can safely unblock. Instead of acknowledging the problems, they preferred to you-know-what. As a result, they are now blocked indef with talk page access revoked. This is unfortunate, but this seems to be a logical consequence of their behavior. I came here - which was my good will, I had no obligation to do so - with the message that any administrator may unblock if they see it appropriate. So far no one did. Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They edited the description for Denmark afterwards.
You haven't answered the question about what lead you to pressure this user to respond to a thread Jmh20 considered resolved.
Also, do you think the user should have answered Carolus' question about their nationality and native language and engaged in a discussion about that? Enhancing999 (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He could have kindly refused towards me. And, that would be fine for me. But he should have reacted anyway: he lost an opportunity to show his good will towards the community. That's our point, you do not seem to accept. Carolus (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you keep asking loaded questions and making false statements and do not seem to pay attention to my answers. I am afraid I am not going to respond to you in this thread anymore. Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please confirm what you consider "making false statements". We are in process of reviewing your admin actions. If you don't want them to be reviewed, so be it, but then we might want to seek further community input. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about a resolved issue, he has to reply if someone asks a question. He refuses to reply, this is basic etiquette that applies to ensure that a project functions optimally. His last comment proves that he looks down on other users, I am not responsible for that. Carolus (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support block per A. Savin. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support block per A. Savin. Carolus (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I've revoked the user's ability to edit their talk page per their last comment there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As a general comment, I don't know why we don't look to start with a partial block as we could look to block a person's editing by namespace if the problematic editing is namespace specific (Category:, File:) and allow them to address something like this thread. We do seem to throw down the gauntlet for a fight by a block, and that is often quite inflammatory.

In this case, it was clearly inflammatory, judging by the response, and the person does need a complete block. Does it need to be infinite? I wouldn't have thought so initially if we entered into an AGF conversation focusing on resolution. Now? I think this is where we are. I don't like losing people who were good editors due to intransigence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with going for a partial block for files and categories, but I do not think this is my call anymore. Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user got some kind of non technical partial block in the form of a warning on their talk page. GPSLeo (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to? He was indefinitely blocked by Ymblanter after they pressured him when they didn't respond to Carolus inappropriate comments. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to this warning issued one week before the block [3] GPSLeo (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Seeing the last comment, blocking was appropriate. However I unblocked the talk page, and started an offer to solve the situation, by requesting Jeanhousen an apology (in French). I made it clear that further insults would lead to a global lock. Yann (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully they will accept the offer and help us to resolve the situation. Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is inappropriate, but it came after Ymblanter went to pressure him and blocked them.
Apparently, the user was already subject to admin action I consider inappropriate by A. Savin before. A. Savin issued an admin warning after he didn't immediately receive a response to an editorial question and then went ahead anyways with their edit. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can contest something without making insults. Yann (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely. Somehow blocked users tend to not take their block lightly and without emotional involvement. The question remains about the two other involved admins and Carolus. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you place the responsibility with our actions. Well, that's your absolute right, and we all understand your point: you make yourself very clear. But this is where it ends: i don't agree with you, as far as I'm concerned. I will not answer any of your other questions in order to end this discussion. Have a nice day, and thank you. Carolus (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need, there is now a thread at COM:VP/U concerning your involvement. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How thoughtful of you! Very good, then we can conclude this discussion here, perfect suggestion. Thank you very much. Carolus (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is an indefinite block appropriate?

SNOW close as proposer. Thanks for your comments everyone. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One comment and some incivility is not a clear reason to give an indefinite block. That feels like overkill. We usually give 1 week - 1 month blocks for incivility. What made this case so exceptional that it required more duration? Usually we only give indefs for repeated incivility, not a one-off occurence. There's a reason the metaphorical rope guideline exists. Proposing reducing block length to one week. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support as proposer. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - COM:BP is the governing policy; it does not prescribe specific durations, but instead says "use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour". An indefinite block is not "overkill," as indefinite is not infinite, and the block can be lifted at any time once the user has indicated the issue is understood and has credible commitment that it will not continue. Where is any evidence a user who believes this is acceptable will magically have a change of heart in a week, or that they have any interest in familiarising themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour? Changing this block to a week makes it punitive rather than preventative. Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose any unblock or shortening -- of course is the permanent refusal to discuss and answer legitimate requests nothing else than repeated incivility. We don't need toxic users here even regardless of otherwise productive work. --A.Savin 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with my fellow colleagues, the block is not meant to be infinite, but it was well warranted instead of a short term one. I do understand the point of Matrix though. Bedivere (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indefinite block is too much for some incidences of removal of text. RZuo (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue now is not removal of text, but insults. May be the initial block was harsh, but given the last comment, an indefinite block is now appropriate. Yann (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is how some other Wikis treat blocks. But I think that leads much more hostile environments than we have on Commons. Our current way we do this with infinite block and fast unblock if the user convinces us that such things will never happen again is much better. GPSLeo (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeanhousen&diff=prev&oldid=885121565 was way out of line. If the user will not acknowledge that, then they should be blocked for at least several months, if not indefinitely. If I had written the equivalent, I'd expect to be de-admin'd and blocked for a long time, despite whatever contributions I've made to the project. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sukkula, Pori.JPG

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_96#Four_files_deleted_in_2014. Could someone please check the file which got skipped last time? --Geohakkeri (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File was {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} by Mchiriku. Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Geohakkeri (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move category and merge history

Hi!
Please, move the Category:Tammy Snyder Murphy to Category:Tammy Murphy. I tried to do it, however I couldn't because of the history. Minerva97 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amonjus Impsoster and Category:Countries

I think the category of Countries should be removed from the User:Amonjus_Impsoster. Dwxn (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion?

Hello, I have sent 3 emails to oversight since February that never received a response, and opened a deletion request on June 8, what does it take to get anything done around here? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have a backlog of DRs going back to March. And your request is complicated by the fact that the file in use. Abzeronow (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=886907412"