Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Original discussion: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 96#Rollback additions of thousands of uncategorized images to Category:History

Can someone do the mass revert, or can I be granted the rollbacker role to do it myself? Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cryptic-waveform: we need to revert ~25K edits (as confirmed by the before-after from the Web Archive and now). I was considering using w:User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js but the contribs page will timeout with anything above 4K edits so I'd need to do 7 rollbacks, and there could be a lot of errors. If you know of any scripts to help do the mass revert please link it so I can do so, or I can just give rollback to you and let you figure it out from there if you want. Either way let me know. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have a bot with bot flag and AWB permission, I can do that. MBH 01:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cryptic-waveform @Mitte27 MBH 11:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any chance that Batch Task --> custom replace would be useful here? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I want to get a confirmation from any admin that I could start this mass reversal. @Matrix? MBH 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead Bedivere (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No objections here, go ahead. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have found a better solution: a JopkeB's proposal on Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:History to move all suitable files to Category:Media from Library of Congress to categorize. I have started a bot run. MBH 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• 리그마스터 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

kowiki LTA Xinema, and this LTA is uploading non-self images for kowiki vandalism. These are not all free images so should be deleted. LR0725 [ Talk | Contribs ] 07:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did mass DR (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 리그마스터). Account globally locked. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

A raiz de cambiar las preferecias y despues de subir un archivo y publicarlo, en el menú de la página no me aparece subidas como me aparecía antes para ver las subidas que tengo. No se que tengo que hacer para que vuelva a estar presente en la página. Leoncio52 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Leoncio52: No estoy seguro que quiere decir con "en el menú de la página no me aparece subidas". ¿Puede Vd. amplificar que, exactamente, ha cambiado? Special:ListFiles/Leoncio52 parece normal. Quizás haya seleccionado otro "skin", con el enlace a las subidas en un lugar diferente.

En cualquier caso, parece un problema técnico, no administrativo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please delete the edition made by the IP. Includes personal information https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:FiveThirtyEight_Logo.svg&diff=prev&oldid=899388665 --Mazbel (Talk) 03:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

File:Ph seal masbate.png looks to have been overwritten back in July 2018. No changes were made to the file's license or description; so, there's no way to no whether the originally added license still applies. The newer version was also uploaded by the same person as a flag (File:PH-MAS Flag.png) but that's incorrectly licensed. I tried to check the official website for en:Masbate, and found the new logo being used in November 2016, but can't find anything more recent. Anayway, it seems that the logos are different enough for the file to be split, assuming the licesning is OK for each. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted to the original file per COM:OW. If the same licensing applies, the replacement should be uploaded separately. Bedivere (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

(This could be a user problem as well, but I think it's a better fit here).

Yesterday, I closed two deletion requests concerning Studio Harcourt photos as Delete with the rationale per nomination. Harcourt photos were declared to be collective works by a French court, which means they are in the public domain in France 70 years after first publication. This photo is less than 70 years old, and it will be protected in the US until the end of 2052. (see [1] and [2]) and deleted the files.

Several hours later, Yann undeleted the files, completely reverted (effectively removed) my changes to the deletion requests and replaced them with his own closures, with the rationale Kept: The French state bought the photo archives of Studio Harcourt in 1991 and released them under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. He also came to my user talk page (after he had already reverted my closures) and told me that As per the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tisourcier, Harcourt photographs taken between 1934 and 1991 are not under copyright per ticket:2020112910005534. Which is notably a different claim and not the same he used to close the DRs after reverting my closures.

Now I'm perfectly willing to discuss both these claims and the general copyright status of the Harcourt photos, and have in fact right now started a discussion at COM:VPC#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt.

BUT just reverting another admin's DR closure which you don't like and replacing it with your own is not OK. That is wheel-warring and should not be engaged in. It simply cannot be the way we interact with each other here, and it is a profoundly disturbing way to treat a colleague. The proper way to handle something like this is to ask the admin in question to reconsider, and if that doesn't change things, take it to another venue like (in this case) a undeletion request or another appropriate forum. All things Yann should know. I've already asked him (on my user talk page) to do that, but he did not. So I'll ask him here again to undo what he did in this matter and follow a proper course of action. I realize Yann is a very prolific admin and valuable for Wikimedia Commons, but that does not mean he should get away with blatant actions like this. --Rosenzweig τ 09:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you @Rosenzweig here completely. Reversion here is not a good step to begin with, simply because one disagrees with the closing statement of the admin. A simple way forward was to ask and I'm sure Yann knows it more than me. It is really not okay. I'd really appreciate him revert both of their edits and continue with the discussion and let uninvoled admins handle it. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rosenzweig, too, and I also respect Yann's many very valuable contributions to Commons a lot. But Yann has also a tradition of quite forcefully trying to push through things according to his opinion, sometimes making proposals and then deciding himself that they're accepted and implementing them. One example is here on my discussion page, another one I had not the energy to bring up yet is his introduction of his unclear proposed "orphaned old works" policy into COM:L#Old orphan works which makes things more muddled than helping in any way, but I digress... - Yann, I would recommend a bit more restraint in your actions when you disagree with your colleagues, because, as Rosenzweig says, we just can't work together like this. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I find it problematic that Rosenzweig voted in the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bergman Harcourt 1957.jpg and, despite the situation being controversial, closed it herself. That it's being reclosed by an admin that wasn't involved in it, seems normal. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And if I had simply been asked to, I just might have changed that myself. I was not asked though. --Rosenzweig τ 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a fair point, Enhancing999; I myself have made it my personal policy to never close deletion requests where I participated substantially in the discussion (with an opinion / vote on the matter) , but I know that other admins (including Yann and, apparently, Rosenzweig too) don't see that as an issue - in Rosenzweig's place, I wouldn't have closed that deletion request after voting in it, but this doesn't make Yann's overruling of Rosenzweig any better (I see both things as bad style). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, These deletions were just wrong. It is very sad that Rosenzweig doesn't recognized that, and instead posts here. Yann (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

On this, Yann, I believe we are discussing a different thing and not if the deletion closures were right, but if the reversion without interaction with the closing admin, was fine or not. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 14:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see that you also posted to VPC. I am fine discussing the copyright status of these files. But what's the point to duplicate the issue here? Yann (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: The VPC thread is about the copyright questions. This thread here is a complaint about your behavior in this matter and also asking you to undo it. --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will undo my closure and delete the files, if the discussion on VPC shows that they can't be accepted on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: I think it is very likely you are right on the substance of this, but also absolutely clear that you went about this wrong. Step one should have been to contact the closing admin (Rosenzweig), discuss with them and try to get them to revert themselves. Failing that, you probably should have started an undelete request. What you did comes off as "I'm more admin than you." - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can understand your point of view, but I feel it is very bureaucratic. Now you ask me to delete again this file, and to request undeletion, even when you recognize that it will finally be undeleted? Yann (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Considering that there is an extensive and ongoing discussion at the VPC section, I would suggest restoring the original closure message, leaving a pointer to the VPC section in the DR, with a note somewhere saying something along the lines of "the outcome of this deletion request is challenged and being discussed at __". I think the file can stay during the discussion temporarily, and permanently if the outcome is "keep". (If anything, having the file visible helps the discussion.) whym (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Конкурс «Вики любит Землю — 2024» в Казахстане

Я забыла указать координаты местности, где были сделаны фотографии.

Подскажите, пожалуйста, как можно внести эти данные? TatynaVK (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Просто редактируйте страницу файла, заполнив или добавив шаблон {{Location}}. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо!

Правда я уже успела добавить координаты, нажав кнопку "Добавить примечание". Я неправильно сделала?

Если честно, то после добавления примечаний, координаты отражаются в Лицензировании. Но я не знаю правильно ли это?

Я впервые на Вики. И не совсем поняла где этот шаблон найти? Чтобы уже правильно сделать.

Подскажите, в какой из этих категорий нужно внести правку по координатам? На странице файла я нашла редактирование:

1. Краткой подписи
2. Краткого описания
3. Лицензирования

TatynaVK (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Я кликнула на {{Location}} Попала в шаблон. А дальше "темный лес"....

Понятно, что ничего НЕ понятно...

Вы не могли бы как то по простому объяснить, что где нажать.

Пошагово так сказать. TatynaVK (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TatynaVK вот так: {Location|59.9125|29.75}. Широта - долгота. MBH 16:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Сорри! Где это надо поставить? Я понимаю, что Вы профи и Вам все ясно. Но все таки для особо "талантливых" где именно это надо поставить? TatynaVK (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Через Google Translate: шаблон {{Location}}, который в идеале должен обозначать местоположение камеры, может располагаться в любом месте страницы файла. Наиболее распространенными местами являются либо раздел «description» {{Information}}, либо сразу после {{Information}}.

I'm requesting the deletion of this revision of the File:Avv.Prof. Francesco Del Bene.jpg since there were some personal info (phone number and mail address). --Mannivu · ✉ 15:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As noted here, there's an issue with DelReqHandler on Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04 - the usual keep/delete links only start to appear somewhere in the middle of the April 18 requests, all requests earlier in the month are missing them, any idea what the cause may be and how to fix? Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The file lists the living adress of Mr. Crooks parents. Could someone please censor it or delete the file?--Trade (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to revision delete it if someone wants to overwrite that with a redaction. Abzeronow (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've uploaded a version with the address suppressed, and I've made the earlier version invisible, but there still seems to be a caching problem. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason to leave their zip code, state and city uncensored? Trade (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason not to? The press has widely reported roughly where the shooter was from. A ZIP code narrows this down only to an area where about 30,000 people live. Presumably, it remains our default not to censor without a specific reason. That said, if there was a broad consensus to censor further in this case, I wouldn't bother opposing it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Jmabel here, no reason to censor just a zip code (if the additional four numbers were there, those should be censored.) Pittsburgh is a big city, no reason to censor that. Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think at least the edit summary should be suppressed here. Tehonk (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

*poof* DMacks (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was closed as delete however it seems the file never was deleted if any admin can fix that. Jonteemil (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done File deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

See Template talk:Allow overwriting. I am a bit concerned that the template redirect might not work as intended. Should the abuse filters be edited? --Geohakkeri (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Geohakkeri: I share your concern.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we need a guideline for the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. In the past there were many reports on cases they would not require any admin action and could have been solved on other discussion pages. And there are many cases where there was a reason for the report and the discussion on the page ran totally out of bound sometimes leading to a block of both sides. Therefore I think we should add these two rules:

• Talk before: Before reporting an user on the page you have to talk to them on the problem on another discussion page first. This is not needed for cases of harassment, insults or similar.
• Do not respond: The user on whom the report is must not reply to the report until an admin asks them to share their view on the complaint.

What do you think on this? GPSLeo (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Support. The first requirement is already present in the 1st line of the Notes on COM:ANU. However, the bolded "command" "Talk before" might be helpful to really get through to the posters. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Support per Túrelio. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 15:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Oppose - As noted above, the first is already present as the very first bullet: "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)" If bolding or other emphasis is desired to make if more prominent, just make the change. If users already ignore the existing instructions (of course, they do) adding even more instructions resolves nothing. The second, that users accused of disruption rising to the level of requiring admin intervention, the very premise of ANU, require admin permission even to respond to the public concern is absolutely absurd, fundamentally unfair, and seeks to make admins "super users". You may not speak in your defense unless another user says so? This is a grossly ill-considered suggestion. Эlcobbola _talk 15:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
•   Oppose strong oppose to point 2. Although I'm an admin so I guess I'd be exempt from the effect of this unless it was reworded as "uninvolved admin", this is a recipe for allowing people to make a misleading attack on someone and giving them no chance to defend themselves. Imagine not being able to say, for example "If you look through the history you will see that this person has altered the exchange in a misleading way" or "for those who are relying on Google Translate, where it says he called me a 'butterfly' he was actually using a homophobic slur. That is what I was responding to."

Also, if people can't respond directly, we are going to see a lot more tit-for-tat AN/U threads.

On the other hand, I think it is reasonable for an admin to tell the subject of an AN/U (or the complainant) that they are going on at excessive length and should confine their further comments there to when they are directly asked for a response. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe a short explanation on this point: My idea was to handle this a bit more like it would be done in real world equivalents to this process. There is always a moderator hearing what one side says and then asks the other side for a general statement or a statement on a specific question. And for us it is also good to slow down the process as there are often reports and then long discussions of the involved users before any other person read this report. If the problem can be solved without a third party moderation we are back to the "talk before" rule. GPSLeo (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Oppose it is kinda unnecessary. system is working already. people still gonna got banned or still making topics without asking first to other party. nothing will be changed. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 22:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi--can someone block this child? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i wanted to apply correct license to this file File:LOGO MIRABAUD BLUE RGB.jpg. However,my edit is blocked bu abuse filter (protect addition of file overwrite permission). Can you please replace the {{self|cc-zero}} license with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}. Alternately, explain why my edit was blocked and explain the correct method to do it myself. Thank you in advance. Nicolas22g (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nicolas22g:   Done Replacing one license with another appears to have been restricted only to users with the patroller right in order to prevent vandalism. I've made the change you requested and also gave you the patroller right so you won't run into this issue in the future. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, that is not normal. GPSLeo made a grave error while editing the filter. Please revert the filter change immediately. --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seriously this is an emergency! The file namespace is pretty much all blocked now. --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I leave the issue expressed by Geohakkeri in your capable hands. Nicolas22g (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I forgot to change a copy pasted line while editing the filter. This is now fixed. GPSLeo (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it isn’t! All file page edits by non-patrols are currently blocked if the page contained {{Allow overwriting}} (or {{Allow Overwriting}} and so on). Which is a whole lot better than a while ago but still quite awful. If you don’t get it right right away, please simply rollback to the old version. --Geohakkeri (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was another problem now solved. But this problem got no hits during this time. GPSLeo (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please nuke all pages created by User:Artur Naus (-> Special:Nuke/Artur Naus) except for:

• Translations:Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2024/Rules/2/pl
• Translations:Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2024/Rules/4/pl
• and of course the main page Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2024/Rules/pl

All the other „translations“ they created are just untranslated duplicates of the English versions. Nuking those untranslated pages will mark the sections for translation again. Johannnes89 (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kindly

• move this protected file from Category:Art at pixel scale to Category:Pixel art icons (or remove it from Category:Art at pixel scale)
• remove it from Category:PDF icons (since it's also in Category:PDF icons under Public Domain

Thanks! Sinigh (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply