Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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
21, 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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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.


https://www.flickr.com/people/landrovermena/ on COM:QFI list

I'm a fairly experienced Commons:License reviewer and I'd like to appeal the decision to add this Flickr account to the Commons:Questionable Flickr images list. It seems to have been the official account for Land Rover (the car company) for Middle East and North Africa. It started in 2010, and was active through 2018, and during that time uploaded something like 11,000 Creative Commons Attribution licensed images of official Land Rover Middle East and North Africa events, many with attending celebrities. So I think it's both legitimate, and valuable. Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images/Archive_5#Land_Rover_MENA indicates it was added to QFI by admin User:INeverCry by the request of User:Elisfkc; for some reason I thought it was the request of User:Christian Ferrer, but he corrected me). INeverCry is, sadly, banned now, so Christian Ferrer suggested I asked elsewhere, such as here. Christian writes he's not confident that images such as e.g. [1] or [2] have really free licenses given by Land Rover; which seems pretty straight forward to me, they are Land Rover diagrams so clearly images owned by Land Rover, who else would own them? Would you (admin(s), any or all of you) be able to reverse the decision, please? --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed - we already have over 5,000 images from landrovermena on Commons. Are we going to delete them all? --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify a bit my comment about the two images linked above, me too I'm sure the images are owned by Land Rover, and that is the problem, because of what I'm not confident is that Land Rover Middle East and North Africa, which is subordinate to Land Rover, has the right (i.e. do not have the legal competence) to gives free licenses for such media. That being said there is also potentially a lot of adequate content in the Flickr stream, and although I did not want to "white list" this Flickr account myself, I'm not strictly opposed if one, or more, of my fellow administrators make the opposite decision. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, there seemed to be way too many images that had a caption of All Rights Reserved and/or images that Land Rover did not mean to actually release. I am very interested in whether Land Rover Public Relations agrees that these images were supposed to be CC-BY (contacted not through Flickr and not the MENA group, but the head office). If Land Rover PR responds that none of the images were supposed to be released and someone in the Land Rover MENA office was accidentally releasing them under CC-BY without realizing it or that account is actually not affiliated with Land Rover, then all 5,000+ should be deleted. I have emailed them and will send proof of the answer either way to VRT. Barring a response from Land Rover Public Relations, I would say to keep the status quo as is. Elisfkc (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an official account by Land Rover. Why can't they release their own images under a free license? We already have had a similar discussion, and it was concluded (after a long discussion), that a free license given by an official account is valid. Yann (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Where may we find a reference to this account from the head office of Land Rover?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, and I didn't look. Are you claiming that this is not a genuine account? Yann (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann: I don't know; I thought you did at 20:44 above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to https://landrovermena.com/. Notice the Flickr icon at the top linking to https://www.flickr.com/landrovermena. --13:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) GRuban (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2013/05/jaguar-land-rover-enhances-engineering-facilities-middle-east Notice the list of official sites, including, at the bottom, www.flickr.com/LandRoverMENA. If this is a fake site, they've certainly gone to great lengths to make it look real! If this is an official site, our due diligence stops there, we can not be expected to write to every company asking "that image you released on your official site - are you really sure you officially released it"? When would that end? Why would someone's word by email to a Wikimedia editor be somehow more official than someone's post on an official web site that everyone in the world could see? --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G., Christian Ferrer, Elisfkc, and Yann: If, purely hypothetically, someone from Land Rover were to write back and say "no we don't release these images", how would that be different from revoking the Creative Commons Attribution license - which, we agree, I hope, is irrevocable? Remember, these 11,000 images have been published on an official site (as I hope I've shown above), for the last 5 to 13 years. If we allow a company official to say "whoops, we were wrong" how is that different than revoking the license? I'm all for letting an individual say "I clicked the wrong button", I did so myself in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with I am an artist.jpg. This is a large company. The chance is excellent that the person writing any email will be a completely different person than the person who put the images up 13 years ago, their boss will be a different person, they may work for a different office entirely (Land Rover is a global company, and changed owners multiple times), they will have no context on the original decision. We will not be asking them "was this a mistake", we will be asking them whether they want to withdraw the license. We don't do that. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GRuban: Yes, thank you for this information. @Yann: I meant above that you wrote "This is an official account by Land Rover."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks GRuban for this information. So there is no doubt that this is an official account of BMW. It is not like a local BMW dealer publishing pictures on their website. If the license were changed within a few days after publication, we could recognize that it was a mistake. If files are published for years with a free license, there is no way the license could be considered invalid. So I am removing "landrovermena" from the list of bad accounts. Yann (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are we certain that the person that released the image had the authority to release it? How are we certain that Land Rover MENA even had the right to publish these images? Elisfkc (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not take the marketing or media person of a big company for a newbie. These people aren't free to do what they want. So I reverse the question, how do you think possible that they publish thousands of pictures under a free license by mistake? Yann (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty easy, someone thinks Flickr is like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc, thought it was an easy way to share and host their media images, and pushed the default button for CC-BY 2.0 on the account setup, not realizing what it meant. Then, everyone else thought it was good to go and kept the default. They seem to clearly upload images just sent to them without actually going through and renaming the files to have them make sense (as seen here). They are also images that appear to belong to others (as seen here with the image also listed on Getty) taken at events sponsored by Land Rover. Elisfkc (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elisfkc: So you think people in BMW MENA are dumb? This is a bad idea. Never underestimated others. On the opposite, I think that publishing marketing material under a free license is a good strategy. It helps spreading the mark and the products. Yann (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, Elis, by that logic we would have to stop accepting all free licences everywhere, because "what if they made a mistake"? Sure, there are rare cases when people do make mistakes, but in general when someone does something it's because they wanted to. If we start with "but what if it was a mistake?" as a base assumption, we'd have to delete not just these 5000 images, but maybe half the content of the Commons. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I never said that it was a fake site, and the photographs e.g. of events are fine for me, however I find curious that marketing photos such as [3], or such as the two images previously linked, have free licenses [4]. On an other side if Land Rover don't control what is doing Land Rover MENA with the copyright of the material owned by the mark, maybe one can think it is not our buisness and that we should accept their free licenses. Personaly I think I will stay neutral on that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparent authority. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science Photo Competition 2023 in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hi! I have a quick request from organizers of the Ukrainian edition of Science Photo Competition 2023 – we'd like to invite people who participated in this context in the past to join this year's edition

  • Text of the message (first line is the subject, everything else is the body of the message; I've already accounted for having a correct signature & timestamp)

AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Sent. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category move

Plese move Category:Quality images of rail vehicles in India to Category:Quality images of rolling stock in India. It is standard by the other categories in Category:Quality images of rail vehicles. Thanks, MIGORMCZ (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment That was renamed by Sbb1413 yesterday, an explanation would be useful before to move all stuff back. Thanks --A.Savin 18:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kornelia Ninova in 2013.jpg

Please delete the version of 11:16, 25 April 2017 as copyvio. Komarof (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]

That would be 12:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Jeff G., I'm using wiki default UTC, please double check yours (probably UK). --Komarof (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Komarof: My local date is Saturday, November 25, 2023, and my local time is 03:19:34 -0500 (EST). I added 5 hours to the time I saw, 07:16, and came up with 12:16 UTC. I transitioned from EDT -0400 to EST -0500 the first Sunday morning in November, which this year was 5 November. It is currently 19:38 UTC. How did you come up with 11:16?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just set UTC in your preferences temporarily and you’ll need no math to see this. Komarof (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Komarof: The trouble is that I think in local time now, no more overnight shifts with UTC logs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revision deletion for File:Green Party Taiwan logo.png

Please hide revisions from 3 January 2020 to 4 January 2020. These files are not verified in the VRT ticket. Thanks. SCP-2000 09:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violations by User:Wilber Jael

I came across this user because they categorized an image under Category:Transexual Action Organization (improperly since it's a defunct org from the 70s).

Looking into the account, all their uploads seem to be images taken from the social media accounts of the photo subject with their own watermark added.

Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: user notified. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Locking of this account

Hello, please lock my account globally on all connected projects. If this is not possible here, please let me know that I can take care of it elsewhere. Thank you, RandomDuck5000 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RandomDuck5000: just to clarify, are you asking to be indefinitely blocked? - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RandomDuck5000 For requesting lock, you may go to m:SRG, but there's no possibility for self-requesting lock. Lemonaka (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think one can self-request a lock. You're free to post a note at SRG, but I'm doubtful that it will be allowed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Action review needed

QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk · contribs) nominated lots of photos for deletion, they were confirmed as a globally banned user planespotterA320 (talk · contribs). Their deletion may need to review Lemonaka (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For me all deletion requests look like to have a proper reason. I do not see why we should not handle them like every deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=824955622"