Shortcut: COM:AN
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.
(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]
- Or: Will Yann and Rosenzweig offer to retract their closures and post votes/comments there instead? If both answers are yes, then it seems appropriate to do so, reopen the DR, and have a third admin to close (after waiting to see if additional comments are coming there). whym (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I would. Basically this question will need to be decided for all Harcourt photos at the VPC discussion anyway. --Rosenzweig τ 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I reverted my closure. Please note that similar DRs were closed as kept by other admins, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:MarinaVlady-1952-Harcourt.png. Yann (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, here's another case, I believed that Yann (talk · contribs) wrongly closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚）.jpg, although the user has pointed out on Yann's talk pageUser_talk:Yann#c-Lemonaka-20240710090000-Dronebogus-20240708233700, they showed an w:WP:IDHT attitude. Lemonaka (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no previous DR for this photo, if you searched DR Archive, and this closure is truly not good. Lemonaka (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case (of a file kept currently), can you just request deletion again asking for a closure by another admin? Obviously we don't want to encourage asking for third, forth admins etc redundantly, but asking for a second opinion seems reasonable if the previous discussion was not substantial. Note also that this section is about "wheel-warring". whym (talk) 12:22, 23 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 agree with Jmabel and Abzeronow. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:46, 21 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]
- @GPSLeo: Please check once again. Special:AbuseLog/10790866 doesn’t look good. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn’t enough to check whether the new wikitext includes the template (or one of its various spellings) but the filter must also check that the template wasn’t there already. One way to do that is indeed to read
added_lines (as the filter used to do previously). --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please nuke all pages created by User:Artur Naus (-> Special:Nuke/Artur Naus) except for:
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]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --
Johannnes89 (
talk) 15:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Kindly
Thanks! Sinigh (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Edit request has been fulfilled. Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have a quick request from the organizing team of Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine. We'd like to send an invitation-reminder about the last days of the contest to those who participated in previous-year editions but haven't taken part in this one.
Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello @OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA). Done I have taken care of this. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.
Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Please make User:Orchi stop incorrectly editing categories of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ophrys_holosericea_gracilis_(B%C3%BCel_%26_al._1973).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ophrys_holoserica must be corrected into: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ophrys_holosericea
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ophrys_holoserica_-_inflorescences must be corrected into: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ophrys_holosericea_-_inflorescences
https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ophrys_holoserica must be corrected into https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ophrys_holosericea
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Regina (talk • contribs)
- I replied at User talk:Jeff G./IP and wrote to the user. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the first admin who is willing email me and then post that you've responded on this thread? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm enriching information about the archaeological site of Dura-Europos, and working thorugh the process of creating geoshapes for individual buildings within the site for map visualization; I have successfully created these shapes previously in the Data namespace on Commons and connected them to their WD items and Pleiades records. However, upon trying to run through my usual workflow yesterday, suddenly I'm running into an unexpected message when I try to select a new name in the Data namespace: upon selecting a namespace that I expect to be free (as per my usual process), I get a message that I don't have the "permission to create this page". (See screenshot). This is new, and not a prompt I have experienced before, and I'm especially surprised since I just uploaded a geoshape using the same workflow only a few hours prior! Can someone help me figure out what's going on? Ahc84 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahc84 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you forgot to add
.tab to the end of the filename. --Geohakkeri (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
