Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Shortcut: COM:AN
| Community portal introduction |
Help desk uploading |
Village pump copyright • proposals |
Administrators' noticeboard vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections |
|
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 here. |
| Archives | |||
|
|
|||
wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency| Commons discussion pages (index) |
|---|
|
Contents
File with mistaken info in EXIF[edit]
Hi. I took this picture in a street, but the metadata of the file says that its coordenades are from other point of the city. In maps like this, the file appears in a mistaken place. ¿Can anyone correct obvious mistake in the EXIF data of the picture?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- @TaronjaSatsuma: I uploaded a new version of the file with the incorrect GPS location removed. You can use {{location}} to add the correct location to the file page if you want. Reventtalk 09:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Protection of blocked user talk pages without specific cause[edit]
I'm asking for some alternative viewpoints from Commons administrators with regard to policy on sysop protection of user talk pages. Yesterday my edit to Dcoetzee's user talk page was reverted by Billinghurst and the page immediately restricted to sysop edits only.[1] This is problematic for a number of reasons and I believe is not an admin action supported by policy in these circumstances. Billinghurst's reply to my request to unprotect the talk page was that in their view edits to a banned user talk page are 'counter-productive', this is not supported by the history of this page, nor based on any current use of the page, nor on any possible action by Dcoetzee or myself. The page has never been misused by anyone, nor has it been used to discuss the WMF office lock in any inappropriate way. Here's a summary:
- Dcoetzee's account was WMF office locked by agreement almost two years ago with no public rationale. Since that date there has never been any misuse of the talk page.
- The talk page is primarily used to log notifications for deletion requests. Dcoetzee uploaded over 28,000 images on this account including many valued Google Art project images. These and others may have their copyright discussed, and the talk page is the best place for those of us interested in Dcoetzee's groundbreaking GLAM related uploads to keep an eye on what happens to the collections.
- Dcoetzee's account was central to the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, one of the most well known cases of "sweat of the brow" claims against public domain images on Commons. The talk page remains an obvious place for GLAMs and others to ask questions about these uploads that can then be picked up by other volunteers or the WMF who watch the page.
- I will be resurrecting Dcoetzee's Fair Use upload bot, which transfers files to be deleted from Commons to other projects, questions may be mistakenly raised on Dcoetzee's talk page and this is another reason I keep an eye on the talk page.
- The edit that was reverted was to trim a boilerplate notification, something I have a script to do and has been operating in a limited way to keep a few busy user talk pages readable and to preempt the maximum template transclusion problem sometimes seen on long user talk pages. This was the edit reverted yesterday, though in the 18 months I have been doing this there has never been an objection or revert of the changes, neither has Billinghurst claimed my edit was problematic or unhelpful.
I believe that all administrator actions should be made "positively", in that action should only ever be taken where there is good cause to take action and where the action itself is both justified under existing consensus based policy or guidelines and where the action is of long term benefit to the project. In this case the action damages the project as it has become harder to work out how to keep an eye on Dcoetzee's uploads apart from watching all 28,000 images, and impossible to discuss Dcoetzee's uploads in one place. For these reasons I ask that the indefinite protection of Dcoetzee's user talk page is removed.
It would be appropriate for an administrator to add a notification of this discussion on AN to Dcoetzee's talk page. This is currently impossible for non-admins to do and others that watch Dcoetzee's user talk page will find it helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I
Support unprotecting Dcoetzee's talkpage per Fæ's reasoning above. We don't want any questions or DR notices to be missed. I've left a notification of this discussion on Dcoetzee's talk. INeverCry 20:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC) - Support "User pages" are not the property of the person operating the account. User pages are something shared with the Wikimedia community under the same free license as all other submitted content. If there is a particular reason to protect a user page then protection might be applied. Otherwise, the default assumption should be that all kinds of users have an interest in the content posted on userpages. In the case of this user page, notices about any of their many thousands of uploads might appear by an automated process on their user page if it is not blocked. The Wikimedia community is harmed when those notices do not appear in that expected location, because people doing maintenance will not be able to find the logs in the usual place. I would not want that page locked without a reason. A sufficient reason might be "certain classes of users get locked pages", but if that is to be the case, then someone needs to put that rule on record before enforcing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support - in principle user talk pages should not be protected, unless it's really needed for some reason. I don't see any need to protect this specific talk page - Jcb (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not an admin but I support unblocking the talk page based on the rational given. Particularly since there has been no abuse of the talk page, there is no reason to lock it. Reguyla (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support I had already explained in the past, why we never should full protect talk pages of users who have uploaded anything. No need to repeat myself, please establish a different rule or unprotect asap. --A.Savin 23:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Done per consensus above - Jcb (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon @Jcb:. Are you a neutral party to be closing this discussion? Has this even had a day to be discussed? Please describe the urgency for you action? There is 24 hours in a day, and you take away the ability for the world to comment with unnecessarily early closure, and one that does not even let the person who placed the protection to be able to comment. Truly that is now the process here? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not make the case bigger than it is. You protected 1 (one) page that should not have been protected in the first place. This protection causes that some deletion nominations go unnoticed. This could be resolved by weird modifications to scripts, but such modifications will probably never be implemented. At least they are not available now. Before undoing such a single protection, it's good to ask for some opinions, but not more than that. All admins make mistakes. We should correct each other when necessary. We did so in this case. No need to spend more energy on this. Jcb (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jcb's decision to unblock. Taivo (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment[edit]
In short. I am not in disagreement with some of the points raised. I would not normally block a user talk page, this page is an exception. We don't have a rule or exception in the policy about banned user talk pages, and that is not a surprise, such a decision is by conversation as we are having here. Here is why I think that the protection should remain, and how we can do matters better than direct our users to the talk page of a banned user for the administrative matters that were raised.
- User talk pages are the page that we use to contact that party or for conversations with that party. These talk pages are not general conversation pages, nor are they monitoring pages. We cover this subject matter at Commons:Talk page guidelines.
- Re blocking of user talk pages. I challenge that we have a principle of not blocking such pages, it is our convention not to do so. Our principle is around blocking of pages as required, and only as required, and the policy implements that principle, our convention flows from there. Yes, it is quite unusual for us to block a user talk page, and I see this page as an exception to our convention.
- This is a banned user, and WMF only bans users for the most egregious abuse of user or privilege. The commentary about why is not relevant as the WMF has holistically explained their reasons for not releasing such detail.
- As a community we should not be encouraging the use of the talk page of a banned user. The banned user should not have a home to watch, they should not be encouraged or given side doors in which to participate.
- If you want the monitoring functions or discussion spaces for the matters that you wish to have then please create them, and we can put in redirects, soft or hard. That is not beyond our ability. We can put in place instructions that directs users elsewhere, we can write exceptions to our scripts so that deletion nominations are put elsewhere. Clearly all within capability, and one would say more suitable for the purpose which you describe. Instruction and information to manage those needs. We should be handling the bigger issues that you raise in a more intelligent and wise approach that we think that watching a user talk page is the best and only approach is simply daft. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would state that the requirements that Fae mentions can all be adequately addressed by the community while retaining the protection on the page. I would even say that with a small amount of diligent and thoughtful work that we can have a better result to inform users who are inadvertently using this talk page to better outcomes.
— billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not to draw this out any further but in correction to a statement you made above, it has become common practice to lock users talk pages when blocking them, It happens all the time on the WMF wiki's not just here. I don't agree with it, but it is a common tactic. Additionally, this user was banned months ago and the talk page was not locked until recently, why the decision to do it now? Is there some evidence to show this user is socking? Reguyla (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Re 1: Consider en:User talk:Jimbo Wales. What sort of talk page is that? Talk pages are public for a reason, and, until talk page stalking becomes an anti-pattern and discouraged, I do not see how "these talk pages are not general conversation pages, nor are they monitoring pages".
- Re 4: Banned means that their participation in the project in any way should not be allowed. That does not mean they should not be contacted with talk pages, so that other stalkers may respond to the messages. Banning does not mean the contributions prior to the ban are no longer valid, and the matters posted on the talk page is related to the contributions prior to the ban.
- Re 5: Yes, afaik hard redirects do redirect the notifications from our scripts, however watcher's watchlists do not get redirected. From a coder's perspective, "we can write exceptions to our scripts" on a case-by-case basis is a hack and should not be done. If you move the page and leave a hard redirect, yes it works, yet I do not find how the result of that is any different from the current unprotected user talk page.
- Re Reguyla: Afaik, here, full protection of a user talk page upon an indef block does not look common to me here on commons --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
-
Standard YouTube license and copyright[edit]
Dear Admins,
This youtube clip by CBC (Canada Broadcasting Corporation) has the word standard youtube license. What does this mean and can a single image from the clip be uploaded to Commons or is the youtube clip totally copyrighted? At 2:02, it has a brief image clip of en:Pandelela Rinong who won 2 Olympic medals now. Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, unfortunately Standard Youtube License is not a compatible license. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
delete first file version[edit]
Please delete the fist upload because it may contain geographic data of the place of origin within the EXIF data set (and would show where I live). --Mattes (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
