Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
KyLauren (talk | contribs)
Line 93: Line 93:
:::Many thanks for this website very helpfull ♥ [[User:KyLauren|KyLauren]] ([[User talk:KyLauren|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Many thanks for this website very helpfull ♥ [[User:KyLauren|KyLauren]] ([[User talk:KyLauren|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
:{{d}} I added a message in French on Quentin42170's talk page. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
:{{d}} I added a message in French on Quentin42170's talk page. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
:"En tant que concédant, vous pouvez arrêter de distribuer sous la licence CC à tout moment, mais toute personne qui a accès à une copie de la matière peut continuer à le redistribuer sous les termes de la licence CC. Bien que vous ne pouviez pas révoquer la licence, les licences CC fournissent un mécanisme permettant aux concédants de demander à ce que les autres suppriment les informations d’attribution en utilisant leur matériel. "
:[https://creativecommons.org/faq/ See] "As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms. While you cannot revoke the license, CC licenses do provide a mechanism for licensors to ask that others using their material remove the attribution information." [[User:KyLauren|KyLauren]] ([[User talk:KyLauren|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


== [[Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2024]] ==
== [[Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2024]] ==

Revision as of 16:27, 15 February 2024

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.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
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
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
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

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.


The majority of PD-algorithm uploads by new users aren't AI. What should we do about it?

I've been working through the results of abuse filter 298 and the overwhelming majority of uploads are not AI art. Working through the last 500 or so (from January 12 through today), my back of the envelope estimate is:

  • 85% are non-AI images where the uploader is not the creator. These have been or will shortly be deleted as copyvios/no source/no permission.
  • 5% are non-AI images where the uploader is the creator. These often have both PD-algo and another license until either they or a patroller fix the file page.
  • 5% are non-AI images where the uploader is not the creator, but the file can be kept because of PD-textlogo, PD-old, etcetera.
  • 5% are actually AI images.

Making matters worse, a lot of the AI images that are uploaded by new users aren't within scope. There is lots of debate about AI images and scope in DRs, but there's broad agreement that files with rendering issues so bad that the files can't be used on sister projects are generally out of scope, and a lot of the uploads are things like this clock with two Xs or this illustration of Shakespeare where none of the anatomy, architecture, or text makes sense.

On the one hand, Filter 298 is working exactly as intended, as patrollers are able to use it to neutralize a large amount of copyvios. On the other hand, I suspect that most of the time, people are just clicking the checkbox in the upload wizard because it's there and lets uploaders bypass having to answer other questions about the file's authorship. It being a prominent default option may be doing more harm than good.

Should we remove the AI checkbox from the upload wizard or delay where/change how AI can be selected as an option there? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's as clear-cut a case as there could possibly be. 95% incorrect, and much of that 5% useless. The AI checkbox should be removed from Upload Wizard entirely, or at least heavily restricted (30/500 would be my vote). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Did your "PD-aglo" mean "PD-algorithm" or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant PD-algorithm. I use PD-algo as a shorthand because I can't always remember how to spell "algorithm". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
even as a shorthand, "PD-algo" would have been a lot clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought I was typing. As I said, I cannot seem to spell that word correctly. Fixed! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): in case you are not following this page, probably a thread you will want to follow. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: still, if it is (as seems to be indicated above) an 85% accurate predictor of copyvios, it might be worth having. Sort of like the discovery of penicillin. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's functioning like a trap question in a survey. When we get an obviously false response to an easy question, that's a strong signal that the user may also be wrong about the other things they've said. Belbury (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've noticed this as well from patrolling Special:NewFiles with no consideration of edit filters--erroneous PD-algorithm claims have become very common. In case it's related, there has also been a noticeable increase in bogus {{PD-USGov}} claims--not the typical federal v. state conflation, but use with images that have no relationship to any government entity (e.g., movie posters, random Internet images, etc.) Whatever change was made to the UploadWizard should be reconsidered. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an issue, but more general than only miss-tagging files. How do we prevent people from uploading copyright violations and out-of-scope images? It is much better that copyvios are uploaded without any license, than with a wrong license. Yann (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still can't change the fact that people can't read, ignore multiple texts, and deliberately lie by checking the checkmark where they confirm they filled in the form correctly and aren't uploading copyrighted material. Previously the file would be uploaded as CC-BY-SA and would also end up in a big backlog. I think the UploadWizard is clear enough. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, just to let you know that I followed very closely the discussion. We'll investigate and see if the formulation needs improving, or if people are deliberately choosing the wrong license for reasons that are not linked to wording. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork uploaded to Commons now used as fact

Apollo-11 stone slab

The modern artwork shown is a misinterpretation by the modern artist of an antelope as a predator. The correct images can be seen in this screendump from a recent study. The file is unfortunately used all over the place now as an example of prehistoric art, which amounts to disinformation. I have removed the link to the file from some articles, but really, this image should be removed as misleading. It may even be a subtle trolling of the wikipedia system. Ratel (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is up to local projects to solve factual disputes. I've changed the thumbnail description on en.wiki to "Modern artist's impression of a zoomorphic pictogram like those that would be in Apollo 11 Cave, Namibia", but the file is within COM:SCOPE so we're not going to remove it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I am planning to visit the Museum that stores the original in April this year, and when I return I will upload my accurate photo/s of the item, and replace this fantasy item wherever I can on the various projects. Ratel (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a {{Factual accuracy}} template to the misleading modern drawing.
There's an actual photograph of the original at File:Poobah Ostrich Cave Drawing Photo.jpg but it doesn't appear to have any evidence of being freely licenced, so I've put that up for deletion. Belbury (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request made in error

I requested deletion of a file in error. The file is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windermere_on_the_Mount_-_London,_ON_6-07-17_2-56-47_PM.jpg. I thought it was not in the public domain, but I see that the user who uploaded it was the creator. Please accept my apologies and do not delete this file. Thank you. Marygk86 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one was also in error, maybe more. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done The DR that Marygk86 mentioned has been closed. Abzeronow (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one too. I didn't upload it, but most of the photos on Flickr by the Sisters of St. Joseph were public domain (some have since been removed). I'm not sure Marygk86 is completely aware of the deletion policy. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: , I've commented on both DRs you linked to. There's no urgent need to close them. Abzeronow (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: That editor opened their account three days ago and has been busy nominating for deletion valid files uploaded from the Sisters of St. Joseph Flicker account. I believe most or all these deletion nominations were in error. Should some remediation be applied, lest these wonderful photos be deleted in error? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: She's the archivist there; they inadvertently had put a bunch of "orphaned" files on Flickr, not understanding that if you don't know who took the photo, that doesn't mean you can publish it. Other people uploaded them to Commons based on this accidental Flickrwashing. Please take up any discusssion of this at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Congregation of Sisters of St. Joseph in Canada, where I've consolidated these requests. - Jmabel ! talk 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Congregation of Sisters of St. Joseph in Canada to bring all of these discussions together, and on Commons:Deletion requests/2024/02/10 and Commons:Deletion requests/2024/02/11 I've grouped the 100+ separate requests into collapsible areas. If someone else could close those 100+ separate requests as superseded by the centralized discussion, that would be good. Or if you think there is a better way to do it (redirection maybe?) that's fine, too I've now worked on this for several hours, it is Saturday evening, and I have plans in the material world.

I have not had time to place individual notices on each file page. Sorry. As I say, I've done hours of cleanup, but I'm out the door. - Jmabel ! talk 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed this editor's two contributions on the English-language Wikipedia are consistent with a sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013, but in this case, their substitution of images relating to the Funivia di San Marino were not unreasonable. Apologies if this isn't notifiable. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. already indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo and Эlcobbola: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the edit history of SpooksBGone which started off with them posting to editor's talk pages attacks on User:EugeneZelenko. I blocked them at en.wiki as their second edit was to create an attack page aimed at another editor. That finally led me to Commons. Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need a French speaker to assist a user

Hello! Can someone that speaks French please explain to Quentin42170 that their free license is irrevocable, and that their uploads are within scope, so we're not going to delete them five years after upload? Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Conspiracy: Perhaps this specific FAQ on the Creative Commons website would be appropriate. See https://creativecommons.org/faq/fr/#quadvient-il-si-lauteur-d%C3%A9cide-de-r%C3%A9voquer-la-licence-cc-qui-sapplique-sur-du-mat%C3%A9riel-que-jutilise Good luck Ww2censor (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a similar issue with User:KyLauren/User:Laurene264. Also a French speaker, also requesting deletions of years-old in-scope uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour et merci pour votre aide précieuse.
Il est possible de retirer une photo, c'est simplement la licence CC qui n'est pas révocable.
Cf " Qu’advient-il si l’auteur décide de révoquer la licence CC qui s’applique sur du matériel que j’utilise ? Les licences CC sont irrévocables. Cela signifie qu’une fois vous recevez du matériel sous une licence CC, vous aurez toujours le droit de l’utiliser sous les conditions de la licence, même si le concédant de licence change son avis et cesse de distribuer sous les termes de la licence CC. Bien sûr, vous pouvez choisir de respecter les souhaits du concédant de licence et de cesser d’utiliser l’œuvre. "
--Traduction--
Hello and thank you for your precious help. It is possible to delete a photo, it's just CC license witch is not.
See What happens if the author decides to revoke the CC license to material I am using? The CC licenses are irrevocable. This means that once you receive material under a CC license, you will always have the right to use it under those license terms, even if the licensor changes his or her mind and stops distributing under the CC license terms. Of course, you may choose to respect the licensor’s wishes and stop using the work.
Many thanks for this website very helpfull ♥ KyLauren (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I added a message in French on Quentin42170's talk page. Yann (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"En tant que concédant, vous pouvez arrêter de distribuer sous la licence CC à tout moment, mais toute personne qui a accès à une copie de la matière peut continuer à le redistribuer sous les termes de la licence CC. Bien que vous ne pouviez pas révoquer la licence, les licences CC fournissent un mécanisme permettant aux concédants de demander à ce que les autres suppriment les informations d’attribution en utilisant leur matériel. "
See "As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms. While you cannot revoke the license, CC licenses do provide a mechanism for licensors to ask that others using their material remove the attribution information." KyLauren (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. -- CptViraj (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MDanielsBot is inactive so COM:RFR is not being automatically archived

The task is: Commons:Bots/Requests/MDanielsBot 7. The bot hasn't edited since Jan. 16. I'm going to do some manual archiving, but I figured I'd let the rest of the team know. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every remaining DR at Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/15 is one I'm involved with and can't/won't close. Can someone else step in and finish off that day? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed all but two (one I'm giving the uploader a week to fix the source issue, and the other I'm too uncertain about to close). Abzeronow (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]