Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

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.

Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hello! I have a request from the organizing team of Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine. We'd like to send an invitations about our new campaign of illustrating to those who participated in previous-year editions of WLE in Ukraine.

Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at this. Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA): , I do not think I can send a mass message without a subject (with a blank subject). Is it ok if I take «Вікі любить Землю» 2025: долучайтесь до Місячника ілюстрування української природи та отримуйте призи! as a subject and remove it from the message page? Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Thank you! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it to the queue, I hope it will be processed reasonably soon. Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still has not been delivered to the pages. Apparently, smith went wrong, but I do. It see what, this is the first time I am having this issue while sending a mass message. Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is clear than the delivery failed. I asked for help there but have not received any. I still hope someone can help. Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it again now and it seems to have worked this time. Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking care of it, and solving the problem! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr image harvesting Part Deux

NOTE: Moving this back to where I originally started the first thread. I mistakenly re-opened it under the User board. My apologies Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an obscenely short inactivity timeout on this board resulting in a premature archiving of the discussion, along with absolutely zero administrative input, and thusly no final position or resolution being determined or stated - I am hereby re-raising the issue of users conducting indiscriminate, mass imports of everything under the sun (of free license) from Flickr, without any apparent rhyme or reason.
This is being done against entire Flickr collections and libraries at a time, frequently involving dozens if not hundreds of photos of the same person, place, object or event without any notable differences, lacking in encyclopedic value, not being used or otherwise attributed in wikispace, and in general seeming to be a waste of resources - both of the project as well as those who participate in it, as much of it then gets run through the deletion request process after the fact. For just one user this has resulted in over 4 million uploads - many of which have since been run through the deletion request process.
As another contributor said in the unconcluded discussion - pulling files into Commons just because they're available creates unnecessary busywork for Commons users who end up having to sort through it, attempt to categorize it, and tag it for deletion if it's not useful or inappropriate. I again must also raise question if this is within scope of the project. COM:SCOPE doesn't seem to reveal that it is, but at the same time also doesn't state that it isn't.
Some clarity here is desired as to if this is acceptable & normal, and some consideration of the best intended utilization of Commons. Somehow being a mirror of all things freely licensable at Flickr (and elsewhere) doesn't seem to be it. The fact that so many have been deleted afterwards seems to support that position. That is for just one user. I can only imagine what this will yield if I continue to follow it down the rabbit hole.
Please see the aforementioned, archived discussion for more detailed information & points from those who have participated thusfar, as they should be taken into consideration for furthering the discussion here. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, indiscriminate uploading of third-party material is not terribly useful. Even rather discriminate mass uploading is going to result in some deletions: Commons standards about copyrights are unusually, perhaps uniquely, rigorous, and if you are uploading, say, 8000 files at a time from almost any other source, some will not meet our standards. For example, U.S. federal government photos, almost all of them welcome on Commons, are going to include some unacceptable derivative works, such as a photo of a copyrighted sculpture in a National Park. I would say that unless the percentage of copyright violations is higher than the average for Commons in general, that's acceptable. Similar remarks apply to scope: an excellent collection of photos from a museum, mainly of public-domain artwork, might include a relatively small number of near-random photos of people visiting the museum. Similar remarks also apply to duplicates.

It's almost impossible to make a rule that determines in advance what mass uploading is acceptable and what isn't: ex post facto we can say, "were a lot of these deleted?" but there isn't much use to saying, "Don't make a mass upload a lot of which will just get deleted." People should assay a collection before uploading it, but I don't see how to legislate good judgement. I've seen users admonished and even blocked for repeated bad judgement in this respect, but I don't really see any way to improve this with any rules and policies that we don't already have. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily referring to copyright/deriv works... I understand how that goes. But moreso the intended purpose of Commons. If it is not to be a mirror, then yes - reviewing prior to scraping an entire library is a far more efficient use of people's time and Commons' resources vs. having to go clean it up after a bulk import. The one user in question (so far) has thousands of del req notifications in their talk page and archives which are now redlinked - many of which are parts of the same collections or libraries (such as 75 photos of the same person or thing- from slightly different angles).

This means that first someone had to review all those uploads, then make del reqs for them, and they all had to be run through the process by other editors also reviewing them, posting their position, a consensus being reached, then the files being deleted, all while scrolling the deletion and other related logs. Thousands upon thousands of times.

Wouldn't it had made more sense for the uploader to instead look at the collection and say "3-5 of these are probably enough - no need to dump 75+ of them"? Again - failing to do this on the front end makes for an awful lot of busywork on the backend.

Again - I have to ask for clarity on intent... because COM:SCOPE sure seems to lean more towards "grab everything useful" (as a previous commenter put it), vs. a "grab everything" initiative, and to me it looks like the latter is what is actually being followed for at least this issue. If that is indeed acceptable and considered "normal operating procedure", then I will leave it be. I am just hoping for some true clarity before moving forward. Thanks. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all about one user—not the dozens who do significant Flickr scraping—you would really do well to have a discussion with that user or (failing that) a discussion about that user, rather than argue general principles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general principle & scope issue, however. That is what I have been trying to get an administrative consensus on since I opened the prematurely archived inquiry above. I cannot seem to get a definitive answer, however. They for sure are not the only user doing indiscriminate flickr (and other) harvesting. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Picard's Facepalm: Again: it is my belief that it is almost impossible to define what is "indiscriminate" except by looking at individual cases. Do you have a definition to propose? - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not one explicitly - and surely it requires input from more minds than just my own. But a good starting point might be what I mentioned above - "75 photos of the same person, place, event, object or otherwise - from slightly different angles", perhaps? We can build upon that. Or perhaps better yet - rather than trying to define what it is, clearly state in SCOPE that it isn't intended to be a mirror of all free imagery already hosted elsewhere - especially commercially. I don't know - but those are the two starting points I can think of for the community to build upon.

But here is an example of what I am talking about - you can do this experiment yourself to firsthand experience the issue, if you like:

Doing a search for K.I. Sawyer I find a handful of random images from the former air force base (which is what I am looking for), several images of random people with Sawyer in their name from multiple sources (which is expected), and over 100, very slightly varied images of Diane Sawyer standing at a podium talking into a microphone at the 2010 Peabody Awards which are almost indiscernible from each other without squinting. The source of all those images? Yep - you guessed it - Flickr. All part of the same collection there, and none of them with "K." nor "I." in the name, description, tags or otherwise.

You know what I didn't find? None of the 55 K.I. Sawyer AFB photos publicly released by the DoD & Combined Military Services that are freely available from the US National Archives online catalog - each of which being completely different from each other, and showing different aspects, hardware, assets, resources, events and personnel from all across the various operational functions of the base, many of which could be useful in Wikiland for articles about the base itself, the USAF, different functions of assets within the military, examples of extreme weather in northern states, air traffic control operations, aviation equipment and mechanical maintenance, readiness exercise training for mass causality events, prominent politicians and senior military staff, firefighting, munitions and explosives management, computer operations, weather & meteorology, airfield operations, historical aircraft, fabrication and welding, electronics & their maintenance, radio & telecomm and even pharmacy operations.

Not. Even. One.

But hey - at least we've got a hundred plus images all from the same Flickr collection of Diane standing at a podium with her mouth open. That is clearly, endlessly useful.

Meh, scope & descriminancy. Right.

NOTE: I did not set this up. It was actually a completely ad-hoc search I did while writing this reply, and it ended up generating exactly the kind of results that led me to raise attention to this issue in the first place. I wish I could say that this were an atypical result - but it isn't. Time and again I get these huge swaths of results of nearly identical images from scraped collection(s). I might also add that it is not by the same user previously mentioned - but a different one with just shy of 400,000 uploads conducted in in exactly the same fashion as Tm, and with an equally significant number of now redlinked deletion req notifs in their talk pages & archives - mostly all in bulk collection harvests as well. There is clearly an issue here - and without a doubt quite a bit more will be uncovered if I keep going down the rabbit hole.

Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Picard's Facepalm: In short, you also seem to be saying "I know it when I see it." Yes, the particular you are describing sounds egregious. Do you consider it worth your time do something about it (start DRs for some large fraction of this, upload the material you think should be there more usefully), or are you just asking someone else to? - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picard's Facepalm (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No - I am asking for this type of conduct to be administratively reviewed overarchingly to start, policy and guidelines to be emplaced if need be, and then actions to be taken against users who violate them. Many users are already involved in trying to clean this kind of stuff up - and as I mentioned both above and in the previous thread - it is a major time-sink which may be wholly unnecessary. Preventing it in the first place would be a big step forward. Cleanup - whoever by - is inevitable. EDIT: by preventing it in the first place, the cleanup wouldn't have been made to be necessary. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jmabel that best practices are difficult to legislate, and preventing mass uploads from Flickr has tradeoffs. Yes, we prevent the scenarios you present, but we also risk valuable photographs being forever lost (Internet archive doesn't have backups of some Flickr files) and we may unnecessarily hinder users from doing valuable work. We admins cannot simply make policy based on "I know it when I see it." I do agree that culling the out of scope uploads from bulk Flickr uploads is a time-intensive task but that may be better than the alternative. Abzeronow (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but users are unnecessarily being hindered from doing valuable work by several of them needing to engage in the act of pruning out these files after the fact, by having them go through the bureaucratic process of deletion. Cumulatively, it results in a truckload of low value work that shouldn't even be necessary in the first place and could have easily been prevented by the 1 person looking at any given collection on Flickr and thinking, "Hey - maybe 5 pictures of Diane Sawyer standing at the same podium at the same event with her mouth open is enough to meet COM:SCOPE instead of over 100 such similar photos from the same collection".

All that time saved on the back end from pruning after the fact, combined with time saved on the front end behind importing 5 photos instead of 105 will result in more opportunity being given to those people to obtain the valuable photos of which you speak before being "forever lost". I might also note that nowhere in SCOPE does it read or otherwise indicate that the mission is to serve as an image archive to another site, on the premise that the image might be lost. No - The Internet Archive does not have backups of all Flickr files. But that is not their purpose - nor is it that of WC, per SCOPE.

I might add that both you and Jmabel seem to be indicating that I am approaching the basis of this as being from a "gut feeling" position. That is hardly the case - and seems to be a rather deflective interpretation of my position. I am simply looking at the criteria stated in SCOPE, and looking at both the content and (especially) the methodology being used, compounding it with the resulting busywork and significant deletia after the fact and coming to the conclusion that no, it does not align. If you all take the 5 minutes necessary to carefully read through SCOPE - it will be quite clear & apparent as to where I am coming from with this as far as applicability:

Aim:

Make educational content available to everyone
Serve as a common media repository for all the Wiki projects

File scope:

Must be useful for educational purposes
Non-educational files do not become educational because they were uploaded
Non-educational files, and files which are not being used elsewhere in Wiki are not in scope for Commons
The potential for a file to be used does not equate to it being useful by virtue (this is explicitly stated in SCOPE)

Examples that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:

Files which are not distinct to the existing images on the same subject

This seems like pretty clear definition to me - and not at all along "I know it when I see it". The examples I have referred to above and in the previous discussion check every one of those boxes to the negative.

So no - the admins do not have to make policy in this scenario. Seems the policy is there - but there are users which are not following it when this harvest everything approach is being used, and admins do not seem to be enforcing it or holding users accountable when they do.

To perhaps put more logic around this - let me use this example:

You want to build a house. You hire a dozen semis with trailers to head over to Menards to pick up every last piece of lumber, insulation, brick, interior wiring, lighting fixture, PVC pipe, toilet, sink, outlet, roll of carpet, square of tile, can of paint, roof shingle, piece of siding, etc. that they have. All of it, every color - soup to nuts. They load it all up and take it to the site, everyone gets everything unloaded and placed all around the site. The builders set to work and build this big, beautiful house which has everything perfectly matched and would land the home on the cover of Architectural Digest. Then everyone has to load all the remaining material - which of course is about 90% of what was dropped off, and take it all back to return.

Not at all the way you would do it, right? Not sure why that approach is being used here - it certainly doesn't seem to align with SCOPE. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Tm. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to treat mass imports from external sources like bot tasks with associated user right. First requester should demonstrate that they could reasonably filter problematic files (copyrights violations, derivative works, freedom of panorama, out of scope, historical photos with bogus licenses, etc.), before import a lot. May be on set basis.

I personally see a lot of bad quality imports in Category:Files needing categories by year. However, a lot of out of scope photos (selfies, not notable persons) are added to generic categories by appearance what complicate maintenance.

Also mass importers should be accountable for quality of imports. If quality drops, rights should be revoked. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all great points, but fall well outside of the issue I am bringing up here, and is likely to derail from the target I am trying to drive towards. This might be better served by opening a new topic. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Picard's Facepalm: There's already a policy for handling stuff like uploads as you described: COM:SPAM. Your example with Diane Sawyer can be dealt with using VisualFileChange, nominating for deletion (nearly) the whole batch for violating the scope clauses as described in COM:SPAM ("The nominees add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject"), and also writing why the examples that were chosen by you as not included in the DR may be kept. At the moment, I do not see a consensus or a better way to deal with such batches Ex tunc. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SPAM is part of SCOPE, and I included the part you mentioned in my reply toe Abzernow above, as grounds per policy. I am trying to think a bit more preventative than the reactive method you mentioned, however. Or at least not having to run all these files (and future) through the bureaucratic process of removal after the fact. Even with tooling - it has and will result in a significant level of effort for removal. One user has over 4 million uploads of this nature, while the other I mentioned is over 350,000. I am sure that is just the tip of the iceberg - and that methodology is never going to gain positive traction, especially if this ends up being the rabbit hole I am betting it is, spanning many users and likely millions of files, not to mention the hundreds if not thousands more being added daily.

To get a foothold at all for this - and to help dissuade that kind of uploading behaviour, I am thinking something more along the lines of administrative rollback on WP could be employed. Whereas a single editor makes a whole slew of non-constructive edits to dozens if not hundreds of articles on WP - once reported and confirmed by an admin all their edits in a given timeframe are reverted, and of course the offending account is sanctioned/blocked. Is there an administrative methodology for such a thing here? Because individual file deletion noms are gonna be really painful - and have already proven to be. Surely there's got to be a better way? Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to see if there is any further admin weigh-in here? I'd hate to see it get prematurely archived twice. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte um Anpassung

Da Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen geschützt ist, könnte bitte jemand den Link: Commons:OTRS/de anpassen und OTRS durch Support-Team ersetzen. OTRS gibt es nicht mehr. Vielen Dank und Grüße Itti (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krd 12:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Leyo 14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Editwar with A.Savin

Today I've ended up in an edit war with A.Savin over areas on the Danish island Bornholm, which I've been the primary maintainer of for a few years and which I'm quite familiar with. Can someone please stop him? Hjart (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the handling of the situation and the associated editing war is certainly not good, A.Savin is technically right here. Incidentally, I have not seen any effort from either A.Savin or you to discuss the topic. You also took part in the Editwar. I don't want to deny your local knowledge, but some of your conflicts with A.Savin are based on a general misunderstanding of the global category system. Lukas Beck (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what exactly should I be stopped? From some cleanup on Bornholm categories which I'm doing in preparation of uploading photos of this region? For fixes of over-categorization?

I also kindly request any interested reader to take notice, that Hjart is now continuing [1] [2] [3] exactly the same edit-war after this report has been filled. Without discussion, without waiting for a 3rd opinion, without nothing. --A.Savin 11:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin is right here. Of course Bornholm rundt is a road. I reverted 2 edits. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo Category:Bornholm rundt is a cycling route, not a physical road. Please consider a bus route. A bus route is not a road either. The fact that the category contains images of roads does not mean that it's a road. The images merely represents roads that the route uses. Hjart (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart I like the idea of discussing content first and then responding to it. I don't think it's fair to continue the editing war while the debate is ongoing. There clearly seem to be several people here who don't (yet) completely agree with you. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@L. Beck Similar individual cycling routes are not normally categorized as "roads". See for example Category:EuroVelo in Germany. Hjart (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@L. Beck None of the da:Danmarks nationale cykelruter are categorized as "roads" in dawiki, for good reason. Hjart (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart However, with your latest change I'm wondering if you understand the category system. You separate roads from streets and bikeways. However, and A.Savin clearly mentioned this to you, road is the upper class of streets and bikeways and so on. That's just a side note, the substantive debate should perhaps be held in a more appropriate place, not on the Administrator noticeboard. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@L. Beck I've got 200.000 items on my watch list and until now no one else has accused me of not understanding "the category system". I may however still fail to understand how other contributors use specific categories. The Category:Roads in Denmark is one that I've only very rarely worked directly in. Coming across i.e. Category:Roads on Bornholm where can I quickly get to read about how a "road" is defined in Commons terms? Please also note that yesterday I had to point out to A.Savin that Category:Hasle Havn is not a building. In my experience I am far from the only one who doesn't fully understand specific corners of "the category system". Hjart (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info Hjart is now continuing the same revert-war against several users including the admin Taivo. A block of Hjart is at latest now definitely in place. --A.Savin 01:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where this user has been appropriately warned per Commons:Blocking_policy. Unless I'm wrong, I would disagree, as cool-down blocks are not condoned. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess then this thread is to be closed as not done? Given that the topicstarter demanded my block for the very same reason, without having warned me first either? --A.Savin 16:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking any sides here, but I don’t think Hjart was demanding for your block there, they just mean they wanted you “to stop” editing that category. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably your English is not sufficient to see that, but "Can someone please stop him" is a clear request for a block in this context. --A.Savin 03:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker (and other issues not withstanding), no, it is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both edit warriors for one day with the following reason: extensive edit war in Category:Bornholm rundt and other places even clearly after discussion on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Editwar with A.Savin started
This discussion here is clearly sufficient to be considered a warning, but they continued their edit war. --Leyo 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think blocking users for ongoing edit-warring three days after the last edit is not justified. GPSLeo (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that an earlier block would have been better. It's a very extensive edit war with 10 reverts by A.Savin and 11 by Hjart in Category:Bornholm rundt alone. It is important to make it clear to them that this is way above what can be tolerated with no administrative action. --Leyo 14:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A warning is also an administrative action totally sufficient if there is no ongoing policy violation. GPSLeo (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about this. This is absolutely typical of A. Savin. There's a dispute with an editor, and they then personalise it into stalking their other edits. This is not behaviour fit for an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what this example should tell me. A.Savin gave a rational reason for his edit. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously and unarguably unclear as to the overlap between cycle routes and roads, and between moles and breakwaters. There is legitimate space for discussion as to which are or aren't, but obviously it is not a clear-cut question. So any argument over which has to be based on discussion, not simple editorial fiat.

A. Savin has stalked Hjart's edits and found things to disagree over. (It is not credible that they both just share an interest in Danish infrastructure.) Their reaction then was the problem: they did not discuss this, they merely reverted. If someone is already deep into pointless edit-warring with another editor, it is bad editing generally to seek out new pages on which to extend what has now become a personal dispute. For an admin to do this is very poor behaviour indeed.

This is typical and characteristic behaviour for A. Savin, now and in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, see User:A.Savin/Archive/2024#Edit_War where User:L. Beck complains about vandalism by Hjart. --Leyo 16:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that A. Savin sees all of this as 'vandalism' The fact that I am now getting an administrative kick in the ass as punishment for removing vandalism [4] [5] is a problem. Reasonable differences of opinion are not vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not only usual bullying and bashing from you, but also extremely unfair. I created Category:Moles in Denmark for some photos to be uploaded, which is fully unrelated to Hjart. Shortly after that, Hjart tried to add "Breakwaters" to this new category, which is however completely wrong. That means, it was not me stalking Hjart's contribution, but the other way around. --A.Savin 07:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A. Savin personalises every disagreement."

A. Savin: <attacks person posting> Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but with these comments you are making exactly the same what you complain on. GPSLeo (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

Today User:Leyo blocked User:A.Savin and User:Hjart for one day for edit warring. The last edit war edits were nearly tree days ago and there was no consensus that an immediate block is needed in the discussion above. I therefore would propose to lift the block and declare the blocks as unjustified. GPSLeo (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the non-optimal timing, this huge edit war clearly called for a block. --Leyo 15:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which should have been done at the time, not after days have past. Bidgee (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, yes. However, the effect, i.e. to prevent future extensive edit wars, will also be reached like this. --Leyo 16:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re trying to use a crystal ball into predicting the future. Both blocks should be undone immediately. Bidgee (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These blocks would have been appropriate three days ago when they were actively editwarring, to prevent further editwarring, but at this point the blocks feel punitive to me. So support unblocking. Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a general sense, blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere. → See diff provided by Andy Dingley above. --Leyo 21:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support an unblock for the same reason. This block isn't going to do anything, though I suppose a 1-day block is not long. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both unblocked, even though block was expiring shortly Bedivere (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valenzuela400 uploads

Regarding the uploads conducted by Judge w:en:Florentino Floro through his newest sock account, Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs), there has been a decision at enwiki to nuke out all of his remaining uploads there. Perhaps it is reasonable to nuke all of his uploads here on Commons too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a consensus either way for what happens with sock accounts' otherwise fine uploads once they're uncovered. I've seen it go both ways. We should probably have a discussion and put it into policy. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I would have them deleted (Floro is still socking and abusing Commons as a free webhost). FYI, Florentino Velasquez Floro and Ramon FVelasquez remain unblocked. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the vast majority of his uploads are not in use in other WMF projects. What about mass deleting those, while the few remaining ones are subject to an individual review? --Leyo 21:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with a mass deletion. Some of these photos (e.g. Category:Udders (ice cream)) aren't in use but are of subjects we don't have many images for. I would say quite a lot of these images pass COM:EDUSE as well. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 21:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too disagree with nuking the images. Bedivere (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: The vast majority of my uploads are not in use on other WMF projects. Do you view that as a problem, and if so why? - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same, and I don't have any expectation that a majority of my uploads will ever be used (but I'm always pleasantly surprised when someone else decides to use one of my uploads.) Abzeronow (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion went to an irrelevant reason to nuke Judge Florentino Floro sock's uploads. It's not that his images may need to be nuked because of not being in use, but because of being a long-term abusive user who has used sockpuppets to evade prior blocks. The discussion on enwiki is now at w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro. But yes, The Squirrel Conspiracy is right that COM:CSD does not contain a rule for eliminating contributions by banned/seriously-sanctioned users. Enwiki currently has that rule under w:en:WP:G5. Still, some files were successfully deleted using that enwiki rule, like the case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bertrand101 see also the note I just added at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robinsons Woodcity Under Construction.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crop of a featured picture

The left edge of this picture is longer as a result of perspective correction, which is evident when opening the picture at full size, but the picture cannot be cropped as it's an FP. Could an admin crop the picture to balance the length of the edges?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this fits what you're looking for but uploaded File:Поглед на селото Горно Косоврасти 3 (cropped).jpg and I've allowed overwriting so you can jigger the crop to whatever you want. Abzeronow (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I was aware about doing the same. I thought there's a way to overwrite the protected picture and thereby avoid the bureaucratic procedure of delisting and replacing the FP. It turns out that's the only way to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derek Spears

Despite being given a final warning on his talk page regarding uploading copyrighted content, he has continued to upload various copyrighted material. Seemingly, any English language Wikipedia article he comes across, he uploads the first result that he finds on Google onto Commons. He has been problematic on English Wikipedia too. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I actually blocked just moments before you posted this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]