Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: [[:]] 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 need an administrator's intervention. This task used to be reserved for the Village pump, but it has become too full.

Attention

• Category:Copyrighted free use still contains many wrongly tagged images. / Fred Chess 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Based on what I've seen when checking "Latest files", this is possible the license that is most often used incorrectly. I think that in many cases, it's done in good faith, as the uploader has been told that the image can indeed be used freely; however, that is often meant as an acknowledgment of fair use rights, or as "use, but don't modify". In the license selector on the upload page, the license is described as covering free use, including commercial use, but there is no mention of the right to modify the image. Perhaps that should be included on the selector, to make it clear that this license needs a bit more justification than an e-mail saying "sure, feel free to use it". Cnyborg 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can hardly find images which are not a copyvio in Category:Copyrighted free use. --Kjetil_r 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

Our "picture of the day" for August 30 was a non-commercial image Image:Aberdeenshire_scenery.jpg. I've copied one from another date (10/2/2006), because we cannot allow unfree images on our Main Page as featured pictures. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocks & Protections

I have blocked Castell (talk · contribs) for one week, because he uploaded lots of images without providing image sources. / Fred Chess 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we adopting a practice of reporting such things here? Jkelly 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm in general I wouldn't think it was necessary... but if a user seems like they have a lot of socks or is otherwise disruptive, it could be useful. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

As a new administrator, I'm not sure about the blocking policy here - there's no official policy on it, but is there some sort of semi-official consensus. Obvious vandalism is one thing, that's pretty easy to handle, but with other things, such as multiple uploads without licenses or with fake license it seems to be a bit more haphazard with regards to the treshold for blocking a user and the length of the block. Can anyone enlighten me a bit, so I don't just apply the rules from other projects here? Cnyborg 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cnyborg, I think, because many of us are familiar with blocking policy on other projects, that we take for granted that everyone knows. Myself, I use a 1 hour/1 day/perm rule. 1 hour for first offense, etc... Sometimes I'll do a short duration block to get someone's attention..."Hey, stop uploading those, you're not allowed." Above all, blocks should be preventative but not punitive. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus on such thing, which is why I suggest this noticeboard be used to discuss these matters. / Fred Chess 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For multiple uploads without warnings or fake licenses, the thing is to give them a very strong personal warning first, including the relevant policies to read and where to get help. If they totally ignore that, and continue to upload copyvios, have no hesitation in blocking them in order to stop them doing so. For some people it seems the only way they will listen. But I think we should also develop an actual Commons:Blocking policy. As well as possibly a Commons:Undeletion policy. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold and created a first draft. I'd like to encourage everyone to edit it with an eye on keeping things very simple, or even to delete it entirely if we're more comfortable sticking to "common" sense. Jkelly 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's not obvious to everyone, I believe Jkelly means Commons:Blocking policy. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

There is a dispute between User:Huebi and User:Makthorpe over the naming of Category:Anasazi vs. Category:Ancient pueblo people (see the talk pages of the categories). I protected the categories some time ago and unprotected them today, but a small edit war ensued again. I know completely nothing about Native Americans plus involved myself to a certain extent by moving everything into one category. I wonder whether an other admin preferrably with knowledge of the subject would help solve the dispute? NielsF 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My head is swimming over reading the debate. I suggest we protect the pages from any further move until the dispute is further settled. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 22:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

See also the comments I've left on User talk:Huebi. I'm not for one name or the other but in the way it is now content is not accessible which is a major problem, I think. If anyonen could protect, I'd be happy. NielsF 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from VP- this is a request for intervention). -Mak 01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit war mentioned two weeks ago in Commons:Village_pump#Pointless_edit_war was halted due to a lock on both categories. After the one week cooling off period, one of the opposing parties declines to discuss the matter, enter into arbitration, and persists in creating a split category

• I am one of the parties involved, and will accept any process and outcome for resolving this problem.

• Already there have been notes from confused users who cannot find Commons materials due to the split.

• The solution could be as simple as a lock after restoration of the unsplit status. I am willing to move all materials to whichever category is judged the correct one. Details and links to the controversy may be found in the Topic cited above

• Any admin care to wade into this dispute?

-Mak 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in no position to act as arbitrator, but my opinion is that "Anasazi" is indeed better as a category name because more people are familiar with it and it doesn't appear to be pejorative to most people. Categories on Commons don't not need to be as politically correct as article names on Wikipedia, because categories are for internal use.

Fred Chess 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To add a second opinion to Fred's, and being very slightly native American (Nansemond on my father's side...it is unlikely I'm any more than probably no more than 1/32th), I believe that Anasazi is the far more common name, and perjorative or not, as it is in reference to an ancient and not living people, it is unlikely we'll offend more than the spirits of the dead. If one believes such things. Myself, I believe the dead have a far greater sense of humor than the living. So I support the decision to retain this Category at Category:Anasazi. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If one of the categories is decided to be the appropriate one, the other one perhaps should have a crosslink in it to the one where the material remains, unless nothing at all links to it from other wikis. I sometimes search for things by directly typing in category names or following links from other wikis. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That was and is done. You folks may ignore this controversy. Unless anyone missed it on VP, the other party has declined to continue advocacy of his position. -Mak 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This noticeboard

Let's do our best to make this noticeboard where admins can collaborate to improve the Commons, and resist any moves for discussion to degenerate into attacking one another. Remember more than ever our collective commitment to multilinguality, and what that implies - acceptance of multi-wiki practices and multi-cultural understandings. So let us be quick to inquire but slow to judge. Share information and suggestions, and refuse to accept personal attacks. Readily admit mistakes and correct them, and allow everyone the opportunity to learn from them. Viva la Commons. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. We should work together, always. Wikilove and all that.

OTOH, I'm happy (oh boy, am I so going to regret this) to offer my expertise related to dispute management.

James F. (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I hereby nominate James F. for ArbCommons ! :) Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)