Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• 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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
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 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	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	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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~85
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~9
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2023-12: ~146

Other:

• Duplicates: ~6
• Advertisements/spam: ~8
• Personal photos/selfies: ~28
• Other speedy deletions: ~30
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~49
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~4
• Template protection: ~25
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Spammers/CU issue

Thinking long and hard about this I guess I feel it is something that the community as a whole should maybe offer thoughts on. A while back I created a CU request as I had blocked a batch of spam accounts that were uploading promotional images for their bar code software. In my mind it was impossible for me to know whether I'd caught all possible accounts. In one of the project's CUs opinion it was not something they considered worth looking at and I deleted the request.

Two/three days ago - via the adverts for speedy deletion - I found another 4 accounts created over recent days all doing the same thing again. To me it is fairly obvious that there is a company behind this who have decided to continue to abuse Commons sadly. The only people who can prevent that from happening repeatedly easily and in the longer term are CUs. My first reaction was to approach the CU who had declined the request before. However to date there has been no response to this. It concerns me that Commons, not well patrolled by people looking for blatant spam, is currently vulnerable to ongoing abuse. However maybe that is just me - other views from the community are welcome. While I would be very happy to see comments from CUs it is important to remember that advanced rights are only available with the consent of the community. Thanks Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you are speaking of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Professionalbarcode, which you deleted 4 days after creation, because things went too slow in your opinion. Do you expect every CU request to be processed in less than 4 days? --Krd 14:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how long anything takes - that is another matter. The indication was that it was not a valid request. Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It is the "why" that is the issue for me here

Is there something about spamming via abusing multiple accounts that is not seen as serious?

Is it the fact that CUs see repeated similar behaviour as unlikely perhaps

Is it possible we should be looking for additional CUs?

The time taken to tag the files and deleted them plus blocking the users is considerably more than the time that would be taken preventing further abuse.

It seems appropriate to open the discussion at least and it would be helpful for all the community to understand this Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly has been said that it is an invalid request? It was said that the request doesn't have highest priority, as an answer to your question why it takes so long (i.e. 4 days). But you say it has nothing to do with how long anything takes, what is your point? Krd 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Herbythyme submitted a borderline fishing request, for which all known accounts were blocked. Herbythyme gave no evidence supporting a "sleeper check" (as only one example, this could have been time stamps indicating that accounts had a history of being created together in batches). Notwithstanding that RFCUs are seldom helpful for spammers (I can think of no spammer of this sort from the last 5 years, if not 10, not using a disposable proxy), COM:RFCU includes "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases" (again, all accounts were blocked--i.e., not difficult) and "Requests to run a check without evidence or with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays or the request not being investigated" (bold added). Herbythyme was impatient after several days, and ran off to AN with a complaint. As previously explained, the request was not prioritsed for the reasons noted. Herbythyme then contented himself with misrepresenting that response (as he's done again here) and ignored questions posed (as he's done again here). While one appreciates the consistency, this is thus utterly disingenuous piffle:

1. "[T]t was not something they considered worth looking at" - As pointed out by Krd, "not prioritsed" is entirely different than "not [...] worth looking at". This distinction was indeed explained; that Herbythyme continues the misrepresentative may suggest it is deliberate.
2. "My first reaction was to approach the CU who had declined the request before." - As pointed out by Krd, the request was not declined. Herbythyme withdrew it ("withdrawn") and deleted it.
3. "However to date there has been no response to this" - I gave Herbythyme's sarcastic and snarky comment "I fail to see any point in creating another CU req unless you are prepared to take the abuse seriously?" the response it deserved: none.
4. "It concerns me that Commons, not well patrolled by people looking for blatant spam" - As above, this is offered without a shred of evidence (that Herbythyme personally encounters spam does not mean anything), is contradicted by even the most cursory of glances at deletion and block logs (even from the CU "who doesn't take it seriously"), and is not a CU issue even if true. Эlcobbola _talk 19:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I can weigh in on this because I've nominated a number of this company's spam files for speedy deletion -- at one point dozens at once. (I probably was the person whose nominations Herbythyme saw tbh). I don't have timestamps ready, but from my recollection the files were weeks old when I nominated them.

I'm not convinced CU is the best solution anymore given that this company seems to have slowed their roll recently. But the thing is that manually searching for these files is a bit difficult because the company keeps changing the keywords they use, the image descriptions seem to be ChatGPT generated and thus not consistent enough to search on, and that searching keywords relating to software are fairly noise heavy to begin with. Without getting too specific, the company also seems to make stuff other than barcode software, which means you'd need other keywords to find it.

As far as Commons not being "well patrolled," I don't think Herbythyme is saying that people aren't patrolling for spam, but rather that spam is regularly getting through our checks and filters and often sticking around for years. This is a larger issue, however -- vandalism and spam regularly sticks around for over a decade -- and is not limited to Commons. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a pity no one other than CUs have offered an opinion however at leat now I understand the situation so thanks for that. Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support your CU nomination Trade (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The evil that men do... on Commons

The other day, I came across the contributions of Kukurydziarz (talk · contribs) (now banned) and discovered that he had transferred tens of thousands of files from Flickr without ever adding a category (I added a single, basic category for all the files from Warsaw, Kraków, and Prague). I also came across the contributions of 6D (talk · contribs), who may or may not be the same person, and who has also transferred gazillions of files from Flickr without ever adding a category. Of course, their instrument was the wretched Flickr2Commons, a tool that does more harm than good, because it does not invite to due diligence. I feel very discouraged by that state of things. To know that there are so many files floating around without anybody being able to find them by a category search, which is the most precise search. What's in store for nerds like us? More blows. Sad. Edelseider (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No one seems to have noticed this topic, because another one was posted at the same time... --Edelseider (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sadly this is not the only instance - there are thousands of uncategorized images on commons. Don't be discouraged - if we we keep working at it we will get there Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, a group of us are currently working on categorizing files that were marked uncategorized in 2017. Category:Media needing categories is where you can find things that don't have categories yet. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow up of a deletion request

Hi, since the admin that closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:World War II recruitment posters from France probably didn't see the message where I pinged him after his closure, I forward my request here. TL;DR : the author's works are to no avail under free licensing, it was a mistake that my institution made and that was echoed here by commons users in good faith. Red-tailed hawk agreed with this rationale, and proceeded with the deletion, problem is that there is some more which can be found here Category:Posters by Sogno, so please also delete the images listed in this category. Thanks in advance ! RenéLC (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I agree that you should open a DR for the rest of those files. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, there are actually individual DR [1], [2], [3], [4] [5] for those files open since September/October. Couldn't you just delete those files according to your conclusion on the closed DR given that it is exactly the same rationale ? --RenéLC (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done I added a category "Undelete in 2074". Yann (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

OOPS, it is 2049. Yann (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyvios / out of scope images by Alone boy paresh gohil (talk · contribs)

Hi -- this user appears to have uploaded a bunch of images, and spot-checking them suggests that the backgrounds were grabbed from the Web. They all seem out of scope on top of that, just quotations that seem self-promotional. Was told that rather than tagging everything manually (which it would be great not to do) ask an admin to nuke things, so doing that now... Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Nuked. Thanks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Move request

Please move Category:Quality images of rolling stock in the United States to Category:Quality images of rail vehicles in the United States for unification. Thanks, MIGORMCZ (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@MIGORMCZ: Why do you want to revert this move of yours, and preface it by having the target cat removed to make room? We have COM:CSD#G6 for that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: When I made this move last year, I had no idea about the consensus in replacing "rolling stock" with "rail vehicles". At the same time, I don't know all the local rules of Wikimedia Commons in detail, on my home wiki such moves are requested on the Administrators' noticeboard. MIGORMCZ (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Request

GTA V's logo at this image's file history should be deleted, as it is above the threshold of originality. There are lots of deletion requests related to that image. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the one with the V. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User removed the deletion nomination

The user (Syazwi Irfan) removed the deletion nomination for the file he uploaded called "File:Castille War.png" while the discussion is still ongoing. Furthermore, he also admitted of obtaining the image from a blog site without any license or permission thus violating the copyright laws of Brunei Darussalam. For the info, all the relevant discussion can be found at: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Castille war.png. JellyLotus (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, I suspected that he also uploaded others' work obtained from the internet based on his contributions list. I suggest an investigation should be done on this user. Link to contributions Special:Contributions/Syazwi Irfan JellyLotus (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Reverted and user warned Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! JellyLotus (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Undeletion requests waiting

Hi, Some undeletion requests are waiting. I guess the requests about the videos are pending partly due to the number of files to be undeleted. There is no opposition, so I can take care of that part Monday if there is no objection. Yann (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)