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
20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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}

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.

Mass renaming request

Hi! In accordance with the file renaming rationale #3 “To correct obvious errors”, Nationalmuseum Sweden requests the following changes to file names on Wikimedia Commons.

The information in the file names that we request to be changed currently indicates that the depicted artworks belong to the collections of Nationalmuseum Sweden, which is incorrect and misleading. The images of the artworks are likewise not created by Nationalmuseum. The files were temporarily used by Nationalmuseum in connection with a temporary exhibition, which is the source of this error.

The images have earlier been requested for deletion. Following the decision to keep the files, we kindly ask for the file names to be changed to correct this regrettable misunderstanding and misinformation.

Elinmeriksson (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elinmeriksson: Hi,

The right way to do this is to use the {{Rename}} template. Yann (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Elinmeriksson , I do not see a need to include the Göteborgs konstmuseum in the file name. A painting can be sold, and then the name should be changed again? Who will check that. In the description of the file it is shown where the painting is. The paintings can be simply renamed into painter - title - code - year.jpg, at least my 2 cents. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started to rename some of the files, but I also agree with Ellywa's point. (EDIT: For example, should I rename the file File:John Singer Sargent - A Crashed Aeroplane - Inlån JSS 401-02 - Imperial War Museum London.jpg as File:John Singer Sargent - A Crashed Aeroplane - IWM ART 1610 - 1918.jpg?) Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thank you for your help and thoughts in this matter. You make great points! The suggested format for the changes are correcting the file names to reflect the creator of the digital file.

If the file name should not reflect the owner, like Ellywa's point, then the code should not be displayed either. The code is an institution specific number used by GLAM institutions to identify artworks. As such, "IWM ART 1610" is still connecting the file to the Imperial War Museum London and would change if the artwork would change owner. Elinmeriksson (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again @Abzeronow and @Ellywa!

I would recommend to keep the institution that is/was the owner (and creator) of the digital image in the file name. This is because the image reflects how the artwork looked under that particular institution's ownership. Artworks change over time due to e.g. conservation treatment or damage. A change in ownership usually results in new images, which could illustrate the change over time when compared to the old images. This could of course be very interesting for a lot of people! Elinmeriksson (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a continuation of Commons:Deletion requests/Nationalmuseum artworks on loan from other institutions

I object to the renaming like File:John Singer Sargent - Shoeing the Ox - Inlån JSS 400-01 - Nationalmuseum.jpg. This file was loan "JSS 400-01" in the Nationalmuseum. That's not an error, let alone an obvious error. Multichill (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The digital files were not created by or for Nationalmuseum, that is why mentioning Nationalmuseum, and the id (e.g. "JSS 400-01", which is not the id for the file) is both an obvious error and misleading since it attributes the file to us Elinmeriksson (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Nationalmuseum is the source of the files. Multichill (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dug up the source and it's still online at https://api.nationalmuseum.se/api/objects?page=25&limit=100 :

{
        "id": 218270,
        "inventory_number": "Inlån JSS 400:01",
        "pinCode": null,
        "iiif": "http://nationalmuseumse.iiifhosting.com/iiif/294429d7c2b133d552b83a08cadd47f3e4dba82333338f9af0219815f1bb56ab/",
        "iiif_license": {
          "copyright": null,
          "license": null,
          "creditline": null
        },
        "title": {
          "sv": "Oxen skos",
          "en": "Shoeing the Ox",
          "de": null
        },
        "technique_material": {
          "sv": "Olja på duk",
          "en": "Oil on canvas",
          "de": null
        },
        "acquisition": {
          "sv": "Aberdeen Art Gallery, ABDAG003875",
          "en": "Aberdeen Art Gallery, ABDAG003875",
          "de": null
        },
        "acquisition_year": null,
        "descriptions": {
          "sv": "Motivet är hämtat från Siena i Italien. I en mörk byggnad har en man och tre ynglingar bundit fast en oxe vid en träställning för att kunna spika fast järnskor på oxens fötter. Huvudet är fixerat med rep och en slinga håller den väldiga kroppen uppe. Gester och ansiktsuttryck visar hur männen anstränger sig och den underkuvade oxens resignation syns tydligt. Med en rad ljusreflexer leder Sargent blicken runt kompositionen.",
          "en": "Sargent observed this farming ritual in Siena. In a dark work building a man and three youths have harnessed an ox to a massive timber frame in order to nail iron shoes to its feet. Ropes secure the animal’s head and a sling supports its immense body. The gestures and expressions of all involved convey the efforts they make, and the resignation of the subjugated ox is evident. The artist relied on an array of deftly rendered highlights to lead the eye around the composition."
        },
        "material_tags": [
          "Duk",
          "Oljefärg"
        ],
        "technique_tags": [],
        "category": {
          "sv": "Målningar (Måleri)",
          "en": "Målningar (Måleri)"
        },
        "object_type": {
          "sv": null,
          "en": null
        },
        "style": {
          "sv": null,
          "en": null
        },
        "geografical_reference": null,
        "signature": null,
        "inscription": null,
        "motive_category": null,
        "loan": true,
        "texts": [],
        "dimensions": [
          {
            "id": 204206,
            "item_id": 218270,
            "dimension": "55,9 x 71,1 cm",
            "type": "h x b",
            "value_1": 55.9,
            "value_2": 71.1,
            "value_3": 0,
            "unit": "cm",
            "description": null
          }
        ],
        "dating": [
          {
            "id": 318475,
            "item_id": 218270,
            "ref_type": 2163,
            "date_type": "Utförd",
            "date": {
              "sv": "Utf. 1910",
              "en": "Made 1910",
              "de": null
            },
            "date_earliest": 1910,
            "date_latest": 1910,
            "acquisition_year": 0
          }
        ],
        "actors": [
          {
            "id": 22281,
            "actor_full_name": "John Singer Sargent",
            "actor_title": null,
            "actor_given_name": "John Singer",
            "actor_surname": "Sargent",
            "actor_prefix": null,
            "actor_suffix": null,
            "actor_profession": "målare, skulptör, grafiker",
            "actor_nationality": "amerikansk",
            "actor_gender": null,
            "actor_biography": "Död i Chelsea, London 1925-04-15/ 1925-04-25. Alt. dödsår 1924. [Källa: Allgemeines künstlerlexikon]",
            "actor_item_id": 444802,
            "item_id": 218270,
            "relation_type": "Tillkomst",
            "actor_role": "Konstnär",
            "actor_qualifier": null,
            "actor_extent": null,
            "dates": [
              {
                "id": 304160,
                "item_id": 22281,
                "ref_type": 3063,
                "date_type": "Födelseår",
                "date": {
                  "sv": "född 1856-01-12",
                  "en": "born 1856-01-12",
                  "de": null
                },
                "date_earliest": 1856,
                "date_latest": 1856
              },
              {
                "id": 304161,
                "item_id": 22281,
                "ref_type": 3063,
                "date_type": "Dödsår",
                "date": {
                  "sv": "död 1925-04",
                  "en": "dead 1925-04",
                  "de": null
                },
                "date_earliest": 1925,
                "date_latest": 1925
              }
            ],
            "links": [
              {
                "link_type": "Wikidata",
                "link": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q155626"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "exhibitions": [
          {
            "id": 3633,
            "item_id": 218270,
            "title": "John Singer Sargent",
            "start": "2018-10-13T00:00:00Z",
            "end": "2019-01-13T00:00:00Z",
            "year": "2018",
            "room": "1647 Kabinett södra sviten",
            "theme": null,
            "descision": null,
            "detail": null
          }
        ],
        "assets": [],
        "last_updated": 1698109856,
        "_links": {
          "self": "https://api.nationalmuseum.se/api/objects/218270"
        }
      }

Multichill (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is irrelevant to this discussion. This is the source of where you got the information for the Wikidata items for the physical artworks. The source of the files are already clearly stated in the comment on the description page, and this is not what this change request concerns.

This request only concerns correcting the information in the file names which makes people believe that the files were created by Nationalmuseum and that the physical artwork belong to the collections of Nationalmuseum. Elinmeriksson (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's very relevant to the discussion. See Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed? for valid reasons to rename a file. "makes people believe that the files were created by Nationalmuseum and that the physical artwork belong to the collections of Nationalmuseum" is not a valid reason for renaming. The Nationalmuseum is in the filename because that's where it came from, just like File:1 Brick Lane - geograph.org.uk - 5617121.jpg has geograph in the name. So no, having Nationalmuseum in the filename is not an obvious error.

@Abzeronow: please undo the relevant reames because these are not backed by any policy or community consensus. Thank you,Multichill (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wish to further undo the renames, I have no objection. I stopped renaming since it's apparent now that's no censensus for the names. I will obviously be more cautious in doing rename requests in the future as well. The problem of the Nationalmuseum Sweden wanting their names off of these files will remain though. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree that renaming isn't needed. It's unclear if the interpretation of Nationalmuseum Sweden is even compatible with the views of WMF on public domain artworks. "Inlån" means "on loan". If any works were incorrectly noted as having been on loan, this would be a different question. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our rename request concerns the misleading file names. The artwork was on loan, not the file. The attached ID in the file name (e.g. "Inlån JSS 400-01") is a temporary artwork ID, not a file ID.

If there is a need of association in the file name, it should be the creator of the file, the owner of the artwork or even the user that uploaded the file, but not the institution that once used the PD image.

This is a question about preventing the spread of misinformation and confusion. Nationalmuseum is dedicated to making trustworthy and correct data of our collections accessible, as we trust the Wikimedia community strives for as well. We would be happy to keep collaborating with you in this regard and hope that you can see how file and artwork association is important for GLAM professionals. Elinmeriksson (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photographer of the file is generally considered secondary for pd artworks.

What kind of statement would Nationalmuseum like to see on the file description pages to clarify this? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the need for another statement in the file description other than the source which is already clear in the comment in the file history. The same way that the creator of the file is secondary, like you said, so is the usage history of PD images. If any information should be added, I can add exhibition history for the artworks on wikidata.

I also want to point out that the word "Inlån" in the current file names is not used descriptively nor informatively, but is part of the temporary internal inventory number for the physical artwork - not the file, and this is not in use at all anymore for any of the artworks.

In conclusion: the usage of "Nationalmuseum" and old temporary inventory number indicates that the files were created by Nationalmuseum and that the depicted artwork belong in our collections, both of which is factually incorrect and misleading and should therefore be removed from the file names. Elinmeriksson (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with the conclusions here. While yes there are cases (such as the geograph.org.uk) where that is added to the file name there are also multiple cases, (such as images fetched from Europeana) where we would not consider adding that to the title. There are also multiple examples in the listed renaming requests where the current title combines the temporary Nationalmuseum identifier with the name of the sourcing institution (e.g. File:John Singer Sargent - Camouflaged Tanks, Berles-au-Bois - Inlån JSS 401-06 - Imperial War Museum London.jpg) or the identifier of the source institution with the name of Nationalmusem (e.g. File:Anders Zorn - Gondola, Venice - GKM 1842 - Nationalmuseum.jpg), these are obvious errors.

In general I'm a bit shocked about the very confrontational tone taken here. This is a GLAM institution, which regularly works with Commons, accepting the result of the DR and presenting a suggestion to an issue which they clearly see as misrepresenting the association between them and these files. They did not try to hide the connection to the DR (it's right there in the first message) nor is it the case of a GLAM institution objecting to having works in their collections on the Wikimedia projects or making copyright claims on PD images.

Independently of the above, can we all agree that the more valuable information to have in the filename would be the identifier and name of the actual Institution which produced the digital file (and likely holds the artwork itself)? If you want to contact them about an error, match the artwork against any public listings or track artwork condition over time then that is the institution you will want to get information about. With that as the assumption, is the objection to the cases where no alternative Institution is suggested for the filename? If so that is something which could be addressed. Or is it a blanket objection independently on the merits of the renaming suggestion?

While the opinions above are primarily representative of my views as a Commonist (Lokal_Profil) I'm still signing it with my Wikimedia Sverige account to be abundantly transparent about the professional relationship I also have with Nationalmuseum (incl. helping them get onto Commons many years ago). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagging a protected image as copyvio?

Hello,

The low-resolution image File:The magnificent Ganges River Dolphin.jpg appears to be a copyvio, with a few instances of the same photo in higher resolution available on the web – for instance at https://river-dolphins.weebly.com/river-dolphins.html (slideshow; image URL: [1]) or at https://www.futureoceans.com/projects/endangered-ganges-river-dolphins/, in both instances credited to Elizabeth Fahrni Mansur, a wildlife photographer from Bangladesh[2] (the WM image has been uploaded and claimed by User:Aafi Ali).

I've been unable to tag the photo as copyvio or propose for deletion as it is autoprotected. Can somebody help? Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, a very similar photo, likely of the same dolphin, is attributed to Mansur elsewhere[3], which additionally suggests a copyvio by Aafi Ali. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Aafi Ali has no other edits on Commons besides this one upload. I think that's a pretty clear copyvio. Any objections to a speedy delete? Do we really need to take this through a DR? - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel Go for it. It's not even on the enwiki main page anymore, so they won't yell at us :) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does File:Ganges River Dolphin.jpg seem less problematic? I'd really hope we can have something similar to substitute. - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All copies come from Commons. Yann (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a bit telegraphic, but it seems to mean "yes, it seems less problematic." - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mass-rename all files in category

If you can please rename all files beginning with "Nicole Sharp" in the category "Solar eclipse of 2023 October 14 in Hobbs, New Mexico" from the template of

"CommonsUserName OriginalFileName (FlickrID)"

to the template of

"FlickrAlbumName CommonsUserName OriginalFileName (FlickrID)"

with the FlickrAlbumName being

"Annular Solar Eclipse from Jefferson School Park (2023-10-14)"

that will be much appreciated.

Example:

"file:Nicole Sharp IMG 2946 (53272991358).jpg"

should be renamed instead as

"file:Annular Solar Eclipse from Jefferson School Park (2023-10-14) Nicole Sharp IMG 2946 (53272991358).jpg".

(Text to be prepended to each filename is underlined here for emphasis.)

Reason: The filename without also including the Flickr album name in the filename is too unspecific and makes it too difficult to find the files in a search (neither CommonsUserName, OriginalFileName, or FlickrID provide any indication to what the photo is about, but FlickrAlbumName does).

If this is too difficult, then please delete all of the eclipse files that I just uploaded from Flickr to the category "Solar eclipse of 2023 October 14 in Hobbs, New Mexico" using the format "CommonsUserName OriginalFileName (FlickrID)" and I will upload them again with the corrected filenames as "FlickrAlbumName CommonsUserName OriginalFileName (FlickrID)".

Nicole Sharp (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Batch job running as I type this. I left the redirects in place. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thank you!! I also put in a deletion request for the one duplicate photo. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The redirects might not necessary since the files were only on Commons for less than 24 hours and it should be much easier to find the same files again now. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Nicole Sharp: "might not necessary" => are you saying you would like them deleted? - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - My opinion is that the redirects should be redundant and unnecessary so it doesn't matter if they exist or not. I feel that they are unneeded so it should be safe for you delete them but if you think they might serve some purpose, I do not see any harm in keeping them either. It might be less confusing though to have the redirects deleted since there are a lot and might still show up in some searches. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - OK. I'll delete them though this is harder to do now than it would have been as part of the move. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Activation of file overwriting limitation

More than one month ago we decided to limit the file overwriting to users with autopatrol rights Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/08#Limit file overwriting to users with autopatrol rights. I am not planning to finally turn this on tomorrow.

The abuse filter for this will be Special:AbuseFilter/290 with the massage MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-file-overwriting.

As there was the request for exceptions I created the Template:Allow Overwriting that can only be placed by users with patrol rights through Special:AbuseFilter/292.

For requests for exceptions I created Commons:Overwriting existing files/requests. So we need some people looking on this page. GPSLeo (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One small remark: Instead of “If the overwriting is conform with the overwriting guidelines” it should probably read „If the overwriting does comply with the overwriting guidelines“ or something like that. Can a native speaker confirm this? --Rosenzweig τ 11:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I am not planning to finally turn this on tomorrow" -- is this a typo? JPxG (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uhm... I definitely did not not turn it on yesterday. Yes it is a typo and the filter is ~~not~~ now active. GPSLeo (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for IPBE

Hi, I use a VPN when I'm traveling and occasionally find myself autoblocked. Could I please have the IPBE flag? Thanks, FASTILY 08:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Happy to give you that flag. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! -FASTILY 08:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass reverts on flags

Could someone please have a look at the mass reverts in regard to flags by Juanqianguo (talk · contribs)? --AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And another new account is likewise mass-reverting: Jf889840 (talk · contribs). --AFBorchert (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jf889840 has now been indef'd by Taivo. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot not working

SteinsplitterBot (talk · contribs)

The bot is not rotating the files as it should be since October 10. Instead it keeps adding "Bot locked itself after a internal problem" with the edit summary "Bot: Could not get lock. Lock file already present. Exit." I messaged User:Steinsplitter but he/she hasn't responded yet. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can File:IMG-20221002-WA0041.jpg be deleted asap because of potential copyvio? it was probably the first one in the queue waiting to be rotated, so maybe it got the bot stuck and deleting it might get it out of the way. i found it thru https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=last_edit_asc&search=hastemplate%3Arotate+insource%3A%2Ftate%5C%7C%2890%7C180%7C270%29%5C%7D%2F . RZuo (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted, as WhatsApp would appear to be the source. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steinsplitter's last activities (here and at en.wp) date to September 12, 2023. That's a rather long time for an admin and bot operator to be completely absent. Did something happen? --Rosenzweig τ 17:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo, Abzeronow, and Rosenzweig: The error is still persisting, so I don't think that file would be the cause. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dont know if anyone knows him/her in person. even before this absence he's been editing quite infrequently for at least half a year, often returning only to fix the bots and answer overdue queries on the user talk page.

no idea how to reboot the bot. anyone knows? RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

according to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steinsplitter&oldid=815357988#Template:Edit_request/List , maybe User:Tacsipacsi has access to SteinsplitterBot? could you please take a look? RZuo (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this, so does User:Zhuyifei1999, so I am tagger him/her his as well. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo: The bot worked again and rotated a few hundred files already. But the error still comes back sometimes. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zhuyifei1999 is not active since 26 March 2023, so it doesn't help either. Yann (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do have a working copy of this C# version here. I can use this to get rid of the backlog. Maybe that brings the the bot back to work or allows to identify the root cause. This is not proposed as a long-term solution, as this code is not checked to the extend to run this completely unattended. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i guess some users noticed the problem and rebooted the bot. huge appreciation to Steinsplitter, Tacsipacsi, Zhuyifei1999 or anybody else, whoever is rebooting the bot from time to time. RZuo (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be a big coincidence. Well, I've learned that the old code from C# does not take into account exif orientations, so I had to revert all 10 or so edits I made. However, I also noticed, that these two files failed my upload script File:ISS007-E-12321 - View of Cuba--Easternmost point of Cuba--provinces of Santiago de Cuba, Guantánamo and Holguín.jpg File:ISS006-E-25534 - View of Cuba--Guanahacabibes peninsula, gulf of Batabanó, isle Juventud.jpg. So my guess would be those two also got SteinsplitterBot stuck as well, as it continued working right about when I manually fixed these two. If someone rebooted the bot the same time, that's also fine. At least we are making progress. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i think the ones getting splitterbot stuck are all logged in the report page. the last entry before each resumption of normal service is the log of the failed file.--RZuo (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project Checkusers

Anyone know any reason why requests are handled SO slowly at present? I've been under the impression that the project hand "enough" CUs however I put in a request 4 days ago and nothing has happened. It's not an "urgent" one any more than most of the others however the lack of speed seems remarkable to me (though I may simply be out of date with the way things are (not)done... Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Herby, all accounts in your request are blocked, and it is a borderline fishing request ("It would be good to be sure we've blocked them all")--which is why it has not been prioritsed; verily, at least one subsequent RFCU has been done. It would be helpful to understand your basis for "SO slowly at present" (uppercase in original), especially as en.wiki, as a comparable, has unchecked requests from as far back as 6. October (which is admittedly ridiculous, but 3 days (the timing of the two requests other than yours), is hardly unreasonable. Эlcobbola _talk 14:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So seven accounts (that we know of) abusing Commons quite extensively is not a priority - it would be interesting to hear other views on that... I have no idea if I got them all. I would be fairly sure that there will be an underlying IP for such systematic abuse of Commons and to me CU is there to ensure abuse of Commons can be investigated (if warranted). So maybe why is this not warranted??

And there appear to be an adequate number of CUs to carry out the tasks? What happens elsewhere is not relevant to this community. This community appoints users, tries to keep the project clear of junk etc etc. Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked for a basis for the purport of "SO slowly at present", and gave an example from the largest and most influential project. If you dislike benchmarking to other communities, that is fine, but you've not bothered to provide an alternative or substantiation of the concern. Verily, what disruption has occurred that would have otherwise been prevented? Further, I've not said "seven accounts (that we know of) abusing Commons quite extensively is not a priority", and it is difficult to imagine believing that to be a genuine summation of my comment. The accounts were all already blocked when the RFCU was filed; it would have been prioritised differently is that were not so. If it has escaped your notice, "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases" (these were all ducks, thus indeed their blocks sans CU confirmation) and "Running a check will only be done to combat disruption on Commons". A blocked account, by definition, is not being disruptive, and COM:RFCU is not AN-lite, nor is it for fishing ("It would be good to be sure we've blocked them all"; "I have no idea if I got them all"). CUs are not appointed "to keep the project clear of junk." Эlcobbola _talk 15:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Audio files

Could someone roll back the recent changes to this category, please? Thanks in advance, Wieralee (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done We really ought to have an edit minimum for moving categories - a user with one previous edit shouldn't be able to do that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

raising requirements for Commons:Autoconfirmed users might do? RZuo (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typo on the main page

I hate to nag, but since this is on the main page right now and my edit request is unlikely to be dealt with quickly, I figured it was worth leaving a message here too. The English-language caption on today's POTD has a typo ("quite" instead of "quiet"; see the original addition, which uses the Spanish "tranquilo"). If someone would make the fix at Template:Potd/2023-11-01 (en), I'd appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pornographie

hello . I don't know the rules for film for +18 years. File:Dance222.ogg and File:Dance1.ogg Chatsam (coucou) 13:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chatsam: See COM:PORN, Commons isn't censored and pornography is allowed if it's educationally useful, but here these two files aren't. They are also copyvios, therefore I have speedy deleted them. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Vichycombo: intractable copyright violations despite litany of talk page warnings and 2-week block

This user appears to be continuing to rapidly upload copyrighted material, mostly anthem audio recordings, to Commons, despite having an absolute litany of warnings, file deletions and even a 2-week block recorded on their talk page going right back to April, which is the majority of their account history. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just got two of the images this user had uploaded months ago to be deleted as copyleft violation. I was quite lucky to have known from memory the sources of those images Vichycombo had uploaded. I think this user needs to be blocked indefinitely and as quickly as possible to prevent further damages to the project. Veverve (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:XXX of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic‎

There are a lot of these in Category:Other speedy deletions and they've been sitting there for a while. All of the admins that work on that page - myself included - seem to be ignoring it.

I've been ignoring it because it seems like every month there's a new batch of these with a new name: Nagorno-Karabakh Republic‎, Artsakh, Republic of Artsakh, etcetera, and I don't want to be inadvertently stepping into the middle of an edit war or something.

However, we probably *should* deal with this (both the categories for deletion and the naming in general).

Thoughts? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: If you look at who is editing and tagging those categories and why, you may pounce on a conspiracy, or at least a reasoning. I suspect either "make way for a move" or "not needed anymore" based on your post. I seem to remember some discussion about official renaming and de facto vs. de jure regarding these categories, so check links from Commons namespace. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are enough separate discussions here that we may want to create a centralized list, or a category, or some such.

I would welcome gathering some links here for now and will start it with one I know of offhand. But, yes, there was a recent and more extensive one that I can't quickly find right now. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant discussions

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Nagorno-Karabakh

Commons:Village pump/Proposals#image-reviewer → license-reviewer

FYI. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Territorial division of the World

It looks like this page has no official status, and isn't being well-maintained. It probably should be maintained, including noting current disputes, even if it remains unofficial. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MAIN PAGE: Problematic MOTD of today (3 November)

Hello, the MOTD file of today (Template:Motd/2023-11-03), File:Naked News anchor Marina Valmont speaking about German ePetition 157928 to remove social media apps from app shops in Germany if the social media company does not remove anti semitic posts in a timely manner.webm, seems problematic to me. It concerns a call to action to sign a petition (about banning certain social media from German app stores if they don't act on anti-semitism, which in the light of the current Israel/Palestine conflict does unfortunately have a political connotation) and has been authored, uploaded and made MOTD by the same user, User:C.Suthorn. The current file replaced the previous file, File:National Anthem of Dominica by US Navy Band.ogg (made MOTD by User:Q28), in this template yesterday night, with as argumentation a link to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_106#Q28, which indeed touches MOTD uploads, but, given the small time window between upload, template change and today, this seems more like an excuse to bring this petition to light on the homepage than anything else. I can't revert this change, as it is currently included on the main page, but I do find this problematic and needs attention as soon as possible, as I'm sure this isn't the way these things are supposed to go, and this file is along Commons also shown on many other wikis. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going to override this, because I'd just be one more person pissing in the soup, but it does seem that no one should unilaterally change what file is used for MOTD less than 24 hours before it goes live. - Jmabel ! talk 04:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Contents

Mass renaming request

Tagging a protected image as copyvio?

mass-rename all files in category

Activation of file overwriting limitation

Request for IPBE

Mass reverts on flags

User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot not working

Project Checkusers

Category:Audio files

Typo on the main page

pornographie

User:Vichycombo: intractable copyright violations despite litany of talk page warnings and 2-week block

Category:XXX of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic‎

Relevant discussions

Commons:Village pump/Proposals#image-reviewer → license-reviewer

Commons:Territorial division of the World

MAIN PAGE: Problematic MOTD of today (3 November)

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Mass renaming request

Tagging a protected image as copyvio?

mass-rename all files in category

Activation of file overwriting limitation

Request for IPBE

Mass reverts on flags

User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot not working

Project Checkusers

Category:Audio files

Typo on the main page

pornographie

User:Vichycombo: intractable copyright violations despite litany of talk page warnings and 2-week block

Category:XXX of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic‎

Relevant discussions

Commons:Village pump/Proposals#image-reviewer → license-reviewer

Commons:Territorial division of the World

MAIN PAGE: Problematic MOTD of today (3 November)

Navigation menu

Search