Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 78

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Uploads by Vitold Muratov

I have concern about a large number of images uploaded by user:Vitold Muratov, and claimed, or licenced, as "own work". Examples (some NSFW) include:

and many more besides. Vitold appears to be a Russian speaker, which I am not; and is blocked for long-term abuse.

I would say we've finally found the guy whose kink is photoshopping pictures of his naked mother into scenes, but the title of "Dr.Goebbels assesses the possibilities of television.jpg" strongly suggests trolling. A lot of his stuff is bad photocollages. Take a look at the full size version of File:Young people on hot summer days.jpg for example. I would suggest deleting everything that isn't a building or has a source. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Vitold Muratov is an old man and the naked woman in the photos is not his mother, but wife, girlfriend or something like that. Typically his photos about naked people are his own work. Taivo (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Vitold has replied on his talk page, to the notification that the above Goebbels image has been nominated for deletion by saying: "Dr. Goebbels was one of the leading figures of the Nazi regime, who held an official position in Germany. For this reason, mentioning him as an official political figure is NOT subject to copyright.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erica C Barnett.png

As it's been about 3-4 months, would a non-involved administrator kindly assess the consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erica C Barnett.png in which the participants have unanimously expressed delete sentiments and arguments?

Thanks,
--Dmehus (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --Dmehus (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop YouTube and Vimeo license reviews from unauthorized users like me!

Hi, It appears the edit filters are not blocking me from reviewing YouTube files despite the fact that I'm unauthorized to do so. I assume that edit files use JS regex to match blocked stuff, if it's true. Here's a fix.
{{(?:[Vv]imeo|[Yy]ou[Tt]ube)[Rr]eview\|(?:.*)\|reviewer=(?:(.*?)(?:\||}}))(?:.*}}|)

PS: Group 1 is the user name. -- Eatcha (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue with some of a user's silhouette image uploads

Found via this tweet. The Deinonychus article on English Wikipedia includes this image, uploaded by Bricksmashtv4, whose "human" comparison silhouette appears to be taken directly from a character portrait made for one of the games in the Japanese video game series Hyperdimension Neptunia. A reply tweet noted that several images uploaded by this user include the same silhouette. This seems like a clear copyright violation; could someone please follow this up? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

These are certainly copyrighted silhouettes, but there are really two possibilities of how we deal with them in the images here. We can either replace the human silhouettes with free ones, or white/crop out the silhouettes completely and just leave the skeletals as they are, with revision deletion of the old versions or course. IJReid (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to just replace it with something like File:Human outline generic.svg. GMGtalk 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That looks ideal to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I did leave a note at [1]; maybe the WikiProject Dinosaurs can align on a silhouette to use or express their preference. For my taste, the original picture is very detailed, so a very generic human silhouette might look out of place. Here is an alternative File:Silhouette of man standing and facing forward.svg that is used in some of the similar pictures. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SEO/PR/Spammers stuffing EXIF data with promotional info

Encountered a new trick today used by SEO/PR/Spammers. User:Emavam has uploaded 7 images. All of them have been to promote businesses, although that may not have been apparent to a casual viewer (especially since some of the most obvious stuff has been removed). Look at File:Giant Panda Bei Bei - Smithsonian National Zoo Washington DC.jpg. It is a photo of a Giant Panda at the Smithsonian National Zoo in Washington, DC. The EXIF file says "Event Production Company" in two fields. It has "mobile stages" in one field. It has a link to the business in three fields. It has the business name in another field. And it contains GPS info. That GPS info doesn't go to the Smithonian National Zoo, it goes to the event company location. This is a very deliberate and under the radar attempt to use Commons for SEO. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it common to have urls in exif data, and is there a way to search for it? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Good catch - thanks  . All contribs gone - they all "promoted" something via images. User warned and will block next time. --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: EXIF data is generally added by the device taking the image and most people don't pay any attention to it. It is common for professional photographers to add copyright info and for news agencies to add descriptions and keywords. Having a URL in the EXIF data isn't necessarily a sign of anything nefarious. I have never seen it used as it was in this case (but I haven't been looking for it). For the record, I have my doubts that it had any impact on search engine ranking for these companies. This probably just makes it easier for us to detect spammers. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) While this case is rather clear, I doubt we can establish a sharp edge here: each attribution is some kind of self-promotion and in many cases authors wish to be attributed by a link to their official webpage, often commercial. Ankry (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Why have these images been deleted, rather then being re-uploaded with the EXIF data expunged? Did they have no useful content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
They were very unlikely to be the uploader's own work. I found one on the website of one of the businesses being promoted. None of them were in use. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Massive upmerging and deletion

Any help is needed here:

category:JPG flags by country
category:PNG flags by country
category:GIF flags by country

All files to be upmerged and all subcategories to be deleted. Categorization by file format is generally not allowed. See, eg Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:PNG maps of Europe--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Has there been a broad consensus for this other than a DR? Because that would probably mean we should look to clarify the bit at Commons:Categories#Categorization tips that references file formats. GMGtalk 18:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This can all easily be done by bot, however, the discussion for one DR does not set the precedence without broader discussion. I am happy to move one or two smaller categories but we are discussing over 300 categories here. This will require a request for comment or village pump proposal to proceed. ~riley (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
please add the note something like "categorization by file format is generally not allowed" to the appropriate place. But keep in mind that there are exceptions (although in future they may be upmerged and to be deleted), eg category:SVGs by subject, category:PDF files by subject. More examples here: Category:Media by file format--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
the appropriate place is probably here: Commons:Categories. Related discussion: User_talk:Estopedist1#MP3_categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:~riley that a discussion need to be held first and a policy change need to happen before proceeding. To me this seems to come out of the blue and the phrase "categorization by file format is generally not allowed" does not get more true just because one user keeps repeating it all over the place. Probably there a plenty of things that need to be done since a lot of edits in this vain have already been done manually, preceeding broader discussion. Ainali (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this addition (per user:Themightyquill) to Commons:Categories: 

...
* '''what format?:''' information about the unusual media type, like [[:Category:Audio]] or [[:Category:Animated GIF]], [[:Category:SVG]]
**NB! categorizing by file format and content makes sense in a few cases, like SVG (eg [[:category:SVG maps]]) or PDF (eg [[:category:PDF architecture]])

--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That language is not really clear. I suggest to add "quite" between "in" and "a" to make it less ambiguous. Ainali (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali and Themightyquill: I am not the native English speaker to understand nuances, but then so:
...
* '''what format?:''' information about the unusual media type, like [[:Category:Audio]] or [[:Category:Animated GIF]], [[:Category:SVG]]
**NB! categorizing by file format and content makes sense in quite a few cases, like SVG (eg [[:category:SVG maps]]) or PDF (eg [[:category:PDF architecture]])

--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the quite is exactly what I'd like to get away from. How about this:

Before we add Category:Photographs to that first list, we might want to resolve this discussion from 2015. It might be worth saying something specifically about not categorizing JPGs in Category:JPEG files, etc. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill and Ainali: seems to be good phrasing and should be implented as soon as possible. Although, we have category:Images by file format, it is fortunately very poorly developed, except for SVG and PDF.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't like it at all, that is exactly the opposite meaning if we want to encourage people to use these categories. We have to be more inclusive in the language to convey that these categories are very useful in many cases. Ainali (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali: Yes, I think you misunderstood Estopedist1's intention, because you clearly disagree. I don't see why Category:JPG flags, for instance, is useful at all. Nor would Category:JPEGs of dogs or Category:JPEGs of Paris be useful - Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: I agree on all your examples. However, distinguishing MP3 files is very useful for anyone who wants to reuse the media since there are so many players and plugins on platforms that only can play that format. Putting all the audio files in one big category makes reusing our files much harder. Ainali (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali: I don't have a problem with Category:MP3 files but I'm not convinced that Category:Holiday music from Incompetech should be sub-categorized by Category:MP3 files of holiday music from Incompetech and Category:Ogg files of holiday music from Incompetech. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Again I agree with you. What would be useful though is Category:MP3 files by language since that can find relevant educational material that can be used by specific audiences. Ainali (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and Ainali: educationally is best and user-friendly is solution category:Audio files in Swedish, where you can find all audio files in Swedish. And there is also rational to develop subcategories system (see eg category:Audio files in English)--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: As I already argued, that is not user friendly at all considering that we host a flora of audio formats that many players cannot deal with. MP3 files has so much wider support that this makes sense to acknowledge. Ainali (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali: A category like Category:MP3 files in English pr Category:MP3 files in German would list an enormous number of files with an enormous variety of content, so it would inevitably be further subcategorized, and we end up with the same situation all over again. Then File:Deutsch 2572b JM.mp3 ends up in Category:MP3 files of Curso de Alemán Para Principiantes con audio. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: The previous situation was actually useful as it made it possible to use the category trees to find files for a common need, so if we end up there all is good. Ainali (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Except for the majority of people who don't need a specific file format, just the content - for them, such a system made finding anything much harder. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
What facts do you have to back that it is a majority? To me it seems like a bold claim. Ainali (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ainali and Themightyquill: I also add strong arguments against MP3 (also other file formats) files categorizing.
(1) Imagine you create "MP3 files in Sweden" then it automatically encourages others to create next MP3 categories (MP3 files of music, MP3 files of rock music, MP3 files of biology). It is obvious that mirroring category tree with "Audio files by languge", "Audio files by subject" etc is not rational.
(2) already the fact that within over 10 years the category:MP3 is so poorly developed shows that humans are much more interested just for content not the file format.
(3) (weak argument) Future seems to be not format specific. So very likely our Categories by file formats are prone to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) Just saying somtehing is obvious is not really an argument. If a mirror makes it user friendly, why not use it?
(2) That is not a fact. Why would anyone bother creating category trees long before it was possible to upload such files? Perhaps people tried to upload files ten years ago, was depressed and went elsewhere and then missed the news that we allowed such uploads much later.
(3) Who claims that? And when will it happen? If it twenty years down the line, longer than Wikimedia Commons have existed, We will have provided a lot of value on the way and if it needs be deleted by then it still have served us fine along the way. Ainali (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I just now realized that there is a property for file format on Wikidata so this can be captured through structured data and soon easily queried for. So since the categories are not really needed for finding files of these types I now have no objections to the proposal from Themightyquill. Ainali (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

nice catch, user:Ainali :) Now any administrator can add following text to Commons:Categories policy:
* '''what format?''' Files can be categorized according to their media type, like [[:Category:Audio files]], [[:Category:Videos]] or [[:Category:Animations]]. These media types can also intersect with the content of the images (e.g.. [[:Category:Audio files by subject]], [[:Category:Videos by subject]], and [[:Category:Animations by subject]]). Categories for specific file formats or extensions (and ''especially'' categories which intersect the content of images with their specific file format) are useful in only a few cases, notably for [[:Category:SVG files]] ([[:Category:SVG by subject]]) or [[:Category:PDF files]] ([[:Category:PDF files by subject]]).

--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  OK, it is here: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2020/01#Specifying_categorizing_by_file_format--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete page, please

Whatever went wrong … I cropped an image using Croptool and made a typo in the new filename. Being a filemover I renamed the file. Afterwards the old filename was shown as redirect under usages, and I requested a speedy delete. Now, some hours later, I checked, but got the info on the file page with the wrong name that no file exists; my speedy deletion request and the redirect exist, though, in the description source. Please, delete someone of you this file. — Speravir – 22:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, this is the usual behaviour, right? I just forgot this, apparently. (Deleting would be nonetheless fine.) — Speravir – 00:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done thanks to ~riley. — Speravir – 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Revocation of LR rights

Hi, ALH is a LR here. He is inactive since March 2018. So, I think he is eligible to have his LR rights remove--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 06:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  Comment I do not find guideline for revoking license reviewer right. Maybe 2 years inactivity is too short timespan? Maybe ten years are needed for that? Taivo (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I have asked about this recently after noticing someone who was using the rights inappropriately.
The only way to remove LR rights is to raise a sysop request here, which is an adversarial approach that could be better, even though it rarely happens. If someone wants to write up a proposal for some obvious circumstances for de-LR, such as types of misuse, certain types of block that make it silly to let someone still have the LR, or repeated apparent incompetence that would be helpful.
As for ALH, if we follow other types of removal of rights for inactivity, then
(a) they should be notified in a formal way on their user page
(b) they should be given 30 days grace before the rights are removed
(c) the process for the return of LR should be made clear, though in this case it probably means a LR request from scratch as that process is pretty trivial anyway.
--Fæ (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: do you have a link? Also, has it been considered to make the process for removal the same as the process for applying? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Junior Jumper: I added something to Commons:License_review#Reviewers. (it's not much) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the old link. The same decisions and discussion in that archived thread appear perfectly valid now to my eyes. Here's some stats based on updating the old query from 2015 which should help folks think about how we remove this (minor) right based on whether someone has been inactive for at least 18 months. Some of these accounts retired back in 2015… just after the last housekeeping sweep of image-reviewers:

List of 69 users who are in the image-reviewer group, but have been inactive for more than 548 days - as of 29 January 2020
User
ALH (talk · contribs)
AaronY (talk · contribs)
Acather96 (talk · contribs)
Admrboltz (talk · contribs)
Amalthea (talk · contribs)
Anetode (talk · contribs)
Angus Guilherme (talk · contribs)
Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)
Bookscanner WMFr (talk · contribs)
Chech Explorer (talk · contribs)
ColonialGrid (talk · contribs)
DAJF (talk · contribs)
DeirdreAnne (talk · contribs)
Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs)
DrJunge (talk · contribs)
Drkay (talk · contribs)
ESkog (talk · contribs)
Eekim (talk · contribs)
Ethically Yours (talk · contribs)
Gary King (talk · contribs)
Ginés90 (talk · contribs)
GrapedApe (talk · contribs)
Green Giant 2 (talk · contribs)
Hydriz (talk · contribs)
James086 (talk · contribs)
Jujutacular (talk · contribs)
JurgenNL (talk · contribs)
Justass (talk · contribs)
Kiran Gopi (talk · contribs)
Liamdavies (talk · contribs)
Ltshears (talk · contribs)
Mabdul (talk · contribs)
Mahanga (talk · contribs)
Mareklug (talk · contribs)
MattWade (talk · contribs)
Mono (talk · contribs)
Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs)
Nard the Bard (talk · contribs)
Natl1 (talk · contribs)
Nihiltres (talk · contribs)
Nmajdan (talk · contribs)
NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)
Open Access Media Importer Bot (talk · contribs)
OsamaK (talk · contribs)
Picasa Review Bot 2 (talk · contribs)
Quadell (talk · contribs)
Quintucket (talk · contribs)
Raeky (talk · contribs)
Ramaksoud2000 (talk · contribs)
Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Revent (talk · contribs)
Rjd0060 (talk · contribs)
Robek (talk · contribs)
Rubin16 (talk · contribs)
SarahStierch (talk · contribs)
Seidenstud (talk · contribs)
Steve Smith (talk · contribs)
Stevenfruitsmaak (talk · contribs)
Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)
TeleComNasSprVen (talk · contribs)
Trex2001 (talk · contribs)
VasilievVV (talk · contribs)
Vitor Mazuco (talk · contribs)
Warfieldian (talk · contribs)
WhiteWriter (talk · contribs)
Wiki-Bot (talk · contribs)
Zil (talk · contribs)
Максим Підліснюк (talk · contribs)
タチコマ robot (talk · contribs)

Quarry:query/41707


--Fæ (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of speedy delete and bulk deletion of files from categories

LamBoet (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

  1. User LamBoet has bulk deleted several dozen images from categories under Category:Insects by quantity because they did not conform to the user's aestetic of what should be included in them. (e.g. [], [], and all other Category:Oberthur Études d'entomologie which had been categorized there).
  2. User LamBoet then proceeded to speedy delete (citing C3) several categories that were then empty (e.g. 9 insects, 10 insects, 11 insects).
  3. User LamBoet had already been engaged in discussion about these items (here) and so was well aware that there was disagreement over the deletion. They also did not cite any consensus that had been reached on the matter (I did not find any myself). Instead, LamBoet proceed to profess that they were not required to use COM:CfD and that instead they were comfortable doing a speedy delete despite objections.

The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussions and immediately delete files or pages, which does not mean that administrators are compelled to delete them if there are circumstances that provide for a simple better solution. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation. There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination; if you tag any content for speedy deletion, be sure to notify its creator.

— in: Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion
User LamBoet's efforts to delete content of a category and then proceed immediately with a speedy delete after being told that such actions are controversial and should only be done after a COM:CfD has been concluded appears to be in direct contradiction of the above policy. It is clear they have no intention of listening to a lowly user such as me on the matter, so perhaps a simple reminder from an administrator would help remind them of the value of the consensus process and the need to respect it and this matter will end here. Josh (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: This user is not an administrator and never has been. Whoever deleted the content to which you refer, it wasn't them. GMGtalk 18:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I understand that the actual deletion itself was completed by Taivo (talk · contribs), but that was merely a maintenance action after the category had been emptied and {{SD}} or other similar template addeed to it. It would not seem right to take Taivo to task for this, as I am sure they simply assumed the speedy delete tag was correct and could see that the category was empty at that point. Any user can remove the contents from a category and slap {{Speedy delete}} on it, and the category will be deleted. I would think the real responsibility for the action would lie with that user and not with the poor admin who is just trying to help take care of backlog. LamBoet (talk · contribs) is the one who removed the files and prompted the deletion. Josh (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
To be honest: I don't see any benefit of categories like Category:4 insects. Are they made for children who learn counting? --Achim (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there any use for any categorie in Category:Animals by quantity at all? I fail to see any. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: I understand why you were annoyed that I got some categories you created speedy-deleted, but I think it's cheeky of you to complain this way about me.
I am the one who came to your talk page to explain that you were filling/creating subcategories of Groups of insects with files that didn’t belong there (Lepidoptera illustration plates). You dismissed me and refused to provide any more precise reason for your edits than “why not?”.
So, yes, since you stopped answering, I ended up taking the initiative of re-categorizing these files myself (file page edition is not a COM:CfD matter), i.e. I moved the files to the appropriate subcategories of Category:Lepidoptera illustrations, and I added the proper taxon-name categories when I could. Yes, this left a lot of your “N insects” categories empty, so I requested speedy deletion for part of them (as I routinely do for empty/redundant/useless or prematurely created categories), but I took the time to “salvage” some of them by putting at least 1 appropriate file in them (like this).
And now, you reverted all my edits, including part of the appropriate categories I had put (example), you recreated the deleted categories, and on top of that, you are coming to complain here? If the admins think my behaviour was too bold, I will fully accept it, but I don’t think you (Joshbaumgartner) are in a good position to lecture me about consensus-seeking, and in any case, these files will end up being re-categorized again, whether it’s by me or by someone else.
PS. I have nothing against “N insects” categories (N>1) when they are filled with actual groups of insects, although I agree the usefulness isn’t obvious. The situation is much worse for Category:1 insect, which is catastrophically redundant and makes me worry that User:Joshbaumgartner doesn’t understand well how the Commons categorization structure works. --LamBoet (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@LamBoet: I appreciate that you have done significant work to correctly categorize several of the images by species. I took pains to only revert the exact edits in which you removed quantity categories, although some of those edits were a move to another category. In the future, first adding the new category, then deleting the old category prevents this kind of entanglement. If there are cases where I also undid an edit of yours that did not involve removing a file from a 'X insects' category, then please allow me to apologize as that was certainly not my intent. Generally speaking, I think you are doing great work on species categorization and definitely want to encourage those efforts. Josh (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55, Sänger, and LamBoet: Discussion about how a category should be used or not used (including defining contents, categorization schema, and outright deletion) belong in Commons:Categories for discussion, and is not the issue I am raising here. The issue here is whether it is acceptable for a user to delete en masse the contributions of others without utilizing the COM:CfD process, even if they feel strongly that they are in the right to do so, when there is no precedential previous consensus on the matter and opposition to such deletion has been expressed (i.e. not uncontroversial). If it is acceptable to do so, then does this not undermine the entire concept and value of having a COM:CfD process at all? If it is not acceptable, then what, if any, recourse is there to deter such rogue actions and encourage users to utilize the COM:CfD process? Josh (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I've started this for the top category of this complete and utter nonsense: Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/01/Category:Animals_by_quantity. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger: Thank you. As for the actual question of my post, though, do you have any comment? Josh (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Wich question? These "categories" are nonsense, they are just blue clutter under the pictures, they have no reason to exist. Creating such categories is imho nearly vandalism. And such completely useless stuff may be deleted on sight. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My dear fellow, others may tell you to be respectful and treat others with collegiality. But I will pick the opportunity of your rudeness to segue thusly: Keep your narrow-minded deletionism off other people’s work, please. If you cannot imagine what’s the use of categories such as Category:Insects by quantity, that only means you lack imagination and/or that you see Commons as much less than it is to others. And that’s fine, provided that your lack of vision doesn’t actualize as removal of what you don’t comprehend — which you are smugly and agressively defending above. And that’s the actual near vandalism. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of My Name from WikiCommons Images

I have been on Wikipedia/Wikicommons for about 14 years. In 2006 (when I was still a minor), I uploaded some images and released the rights under CC 3.0 … however, I also attached my full legal name to these images. I do not want my full legal name associated with my Wiki account(s), for privacy concerns and especially as some of these images are somewhat embarrassing as well.

Some of the images are currently in use — I was wondering if it would be possible to delete the images and then reupload them with the exact same file name. This way my name is fully removed from them. (Even manually removing my name will still have it often show up in the file history, as well as on Google). Thank you so much. --MosheA (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@MosheA: Is the name in EXIF information of the file or just on the Commons page? If it is just the Commons page the old version can be deleted/hidden so only admins can see them.
Can you list the files affected by the change?
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@D-Kuru: Thank you for the prompt response. Well, I'm not sure what EXIF information means, but there are a few images that I'd just like my name removed from. I don't want my real legal name associated with my Wiki account.
Wouldn't it just be possible to delete the images and then just reupload them with the same name?
An example is this, which even though I had the historical data removed (not sure how, asked someone else on Wiki to do it for me) still shows up in Google searches for my name, even though I requested that Google update the cache weeks ago. Obviously, I do not want my name — actually, even my account — associated with this image that I uploaded when I was a young teenager:
…………… here
and
…………… here
The other images are not embarrassing, but I would still like them removed (and then reuploaded, obviously, without my full legal name) for privacy concerns. Thanks! --MosheA (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If you don't know about EXIF information than you more than likely did not add them. The en:Exif information is where the camera puts in all the extra information that is not directly content related (eg. time and date when the image was taken, camera model, ISO rating, apature). You can add EXIF data yourself if you want like a copyright note or an author name. If your image includes such information you would have to upload a new version. The EXIF information is listed under "Metadata" on the file's page. Example: Take a look at Chasen kusenaoshi with and without chasen-top oblique-fs PNr°0506.jpg and scroll down to "Metadata". There you can see a small table and in one row you can find "Author - D-Kuru/Wikimedia Commons". That is the author information in the EXIF data
There is no point in deleting the image since the information is written on the image description page. You can delete individual versions of a description page so that they are no visible anymore.
The images on different Wikipedia projects just point to the same image on Commons: File:CowDefecating.jpg. The file is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version (GFDL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (CC-BY-SA-3.0). Both licences require that the author is attributed. So you wont get around using some name (username, new nickname, whatever). A possible solution would be to release the image into the public domain (see {{PD-self}}). If you do that, you give every copyright you hold away (just to be clear what you are doing). Everybody can do anything with the image and is not restricted by anything
File:CowDefecating.jpg is just one image. Please check your uploaded files and list the ones where your name appeared in the past. Just create a small list and use this as template: * [[:File:FILENAME.jpg]]
I don't see why this should be an embarrassing image though. I understand that you do not want this image to show up when your name is entered in Google. I don't get why you don't want to see your username as well. If you don't like your username, it can be changed. Also keep in mind that the internet never forgets. So in some archive somewhere in the deep web, your name will always be liked to the image.
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@MosheA: We do need a name (author) though, so we can credit you according to the CC-BY-SA licence you choose. Shall we just use your username? Ciell (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: & @D-Kuru: , thanks for the comprehensive info … I am far more familiar with Wikipedia than with WikiCommons.
Yes, the EXIF info was automatic. I want my name, username, etc permanently dissociated with the aforementioned file. If this requires releasing the image into public domain ({{PD-self}}), so be it. I realise that the Japanese and Dutch versions link to the original, but the metadata or something is still there, so it still comes up when you Google my full legal name. I'd like any and all association with my name and this image removed first, and then I can focus on the others (in which I just want to remove my legal name). So can I release this image in the public domain, and then have it deleted and someone else reupload it so it does not come up when you Google my name? As it stands, when you Google my name, the associated Japanese and Dutch versions show this embarrassing picture. I just want it removed. PLEASE. Many thanks. --MosheA (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The way we will go here for File:CowDefecating.jpg: You relase the image into the public domain (again the reminder: If you release the image into the public domain you resign from any (copy)right you hold. This change can not be revoked and the image can be used by anyone for any purpose without any limitations) Then I will edit the page and add/remove all the necessary information to/from the file. After this I am going to delete the old versions so that only admins can see them.
For the rest of the files we will do something similar. You have to decide first if you want to keep your current username.
--D-Kuru (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
And: what Google shows, isn't actually in our hands. It depends on the caching of the image file. Give it a few days, sometimes maybe 2 weeks. Then Google should have cached the pages in new and your info will not show up any more. If it does, you can ask Google to take it down actively by emailing them (right to disappear).
I hold admin rights on the Dutch Wikipedia, but there's nothing I can do for you there: there's is no information on the image stored locally. It's all coming from Google and the caches: on the websites, but also the ones in your browser. Ciell (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@MosheA: What jo gonna do, what jo gonna do when the admin waits for you. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: and @Ciell: I have no problem relinquishing rights to this particular image (the cow one), but my only concern is if I want to make changes similar to this (completely removing my name) and I don't "own" the file anymore. Is there any way you can just delete it and then re-upload it with the same file name? I hereby give you the right to do that here. --MosheA (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: Yes, I have worked with Google for things similar to this for my company in the past; I requested that they clear the cache for the cow file, and it was approved for the English and Dutch pages, but denied multiple times for the Japanese one. Not sure why.
PPS: @D-Kuru: —— run, run, run :D
@MosheA: Don't worry, once you released the image under {{PD-self}} or {{CC0}} (it doesn't matter, since both are pretty much the same) I will care about the rest. But first YOU have to change the licence. I do not hold any copyright for that image and I therefore can not relicence the image. Your edit will only be visible by admins since it will be deleted as well. But we need you to change the licence so that it's a causal licence migration - that's why I also can't relicence the image. If somebody starts to ask questions in 5 years I will not remember why I did that. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@D-Kuru: Sorry for the late replies, am extraordinarily busy these days. My only concern with the {{PD-self}} or {{CC0}} is that I will suddenly lose all rights to the image, and if there is indeed any leftover coding or such with my full legal name on it that will cause it to appear on Google, then I won't "have a say" in that image anymore.
Question: do you think the image actually has any encyclopedic value? I do not. But if you think it does (the fact that it is in use does not necessarily mean it is necessary on that page, IMO), then may I ask why do these separate Dutch and Japanese versions exist? For example, the image is also in use on the Chinese Wikipedia page 家牛 — however, there is no separate Chinese WikiCommons image, as is the case on the Dutch and Japanese pages, and the original English WikiCommons image is used instead.
This is all a concern because even though my full legal name no longer appears on the WikiCommons images at all, the Dutch and Japanese pictures still show up on Google searches for my full legal name …… even though the name does not appear anywhere on the page. It has been well over three weeks, in fact closer to four, since I have requested that Google clear the cache. The Google results usually take about two weeks to update. As such, I think that the historical metadata in those Dutch and Japanese files (which, as I understand it, are only visible to admins) will still show up on Google search results, no matter what, regardless of whether or not they are on the actual page. Hence why I am reluctant to release the rights. As such, may I ask that the Dutch and Japanese versions simply be deleted, at least, given that they can simply use the English version (which happens to not show up in Google search results for my name), the same way the Chinese version of Wikipedia does? Thanks… --MosheA (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if you resign all the rights to the image you have no longer any control what is may done to the image. If this image shows up when you search for your name than this is up to Google and they have to fix it. There is nothing Wikimedia/Wikipedia can do to fix Google's long lasting cach. Even if you did resign to any rights of your image, you do not do the same with your name (so you still can do something when people use your name in a wrong manner). Look at it from the other side: The image is GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenced. You name was the author you have to attribute when reusing the image. You do not have a say yet either since this is how you would have to be attributed in the past. You can asked for the attribution to be changed or be removed.
The image is in use on four different Wikipedia sites, so it obviously has an encyclopaedic value to some. There are far worse images and video files on Commons that, in my personal opinion, have even less encyclopaedic value than you think your image has.
The images on nl.wikipedia and ja.wikipedia do NOT exist on that Wikipedia. They are linked from Commons. If you delete the image on Commons, you delete it on every Wikipedia. When you check the top of the image there is no option to "Edit" the page, but only to "View on Wikimedia Commons". When you try to edit the image description page on other Wikipedia sites (which should be possible if the image is on that Wikipedia site) you get redirected straight to Commons. BTW: Here is the image on zh.Wikipedia - again: This is only the file as it is shown on Commons. The image does not exist on zh.wikipedia
If you don't like the way I layed out, there is nothing I can do to help you. If you want to think about it a bit longer, do so. For the past decisions I will quote an advertising for a funeral parlour in my area: "Some decisions you make forever". If you cut off your ear as a minor, it will not grow back as adult. You did release the image with your name attached to it. The licence can not be revoked. For all eternity you have to accept that the licence requires that you are attributed with your full name with the image. The only way I see is to make the image mor attractive for reuse without any licence. But again, that is up to you to decide.
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@MosheA: unlike what Ciell said above, Google cache can take way longer to expire. Months, possibly even years. It depends on how "active" the page is. The main page of a popular news website would be refreshed multiple times a day, some unknown barely ever visited page can take forever.
I "recently" (half a year ago) dealt (no, actually: still dealing with that!) with something like this. Google is really nasty and I don't know how they make associations (well, Pigeonrank I guess), but just removing the username from the file page may not be sufficient.
My advice:
  • Use your m:Right to vanish and create a brand new account for Wikimedia. Forget your existing account. It's too bad, but Google is tough. Important: use the "email renamers(_AT_)wikimedia" method so an OTRS ticket will be created. Mail the ticket number to D-Kuru so it can be listed on the file pages to verify they are properly licensed. The tickets are only accessible to people with OTRS access, so these won't publicly link the images to your name.
  • Releasing your files as public domain (CC0 is preferred over PD-self) isn't required, but you might as well as there will realistically be no way to enforce any license (you're not going to hire lawyers for this..) if you wish to be anonymous. It is true though that with the current attribution license you "have a say". But websites that used your images previously and attributed it with your full name (assuming that happened, I don't know) you probably can't do much about (other than asking nicely), as they attributed them correctly at the time.
  • After the name has been changed here, if you don't release the files as public domain anyone using the file from that moment (so not existing uses) will have to attribute whatever you asked for as attribution, like "anonymous". (or nothing, if you don't supply a name, it doesn't have to be provided[2]) One exception though: say that a news website used your file some time ago and attributed it to your full name. A new re-user could take the file from that news website (instead of taking it from Commons) and attribute it in the same way. This isn't very common, but possibly in theory.
  • The "right to be forgotten" does not extend beyond the EU. And Google wants to know quite a bit about you if you wish to be forgotten, and outside the EU you can't even make the request. Frankly, I can't recommend it personally. Just wait for their cache to refresh and pray..
Hope this helps. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: , thank you very much for the thorough info. I am well aware of Google latching onto personal information and buying and selling info and being stubborn about letting it go. I even stopped using Gmail because of it, and using Tor browsers and VPNs and the like. I very much despise this personal info being public, but what can you do! I am just wary about the Dutch and Japanese versions, because the cache for the original English was removed after a couple of weeks. Google also approved me to erase the cache for the English one, although not the Dutch or Japanese ones. Not sure why, which makes me suspect that it is in the metadata only visible to admins for those pages, and not the English one. But I don't know.
Deleting my Wiki account and starting a new one seems like a pretty drastic step…but I'll keep this in mind if I ever consider it. Thank you again for the info.
@D-Kuru: , thank you very much as well for the detailed information. I recognize that I released the photo as a minor, and fully acknowledge this; I am not attempting to take away this image from WikiCommons. I recognize that is irreversible. I am trying to take my name off of it, and I have every right to do so. I wanted to remove this picture for a long time, and was told back in 2012 that I, as the author:
“ The author has every right (attribution and moral) to not have his/her name associated with the file ”
…either way, I am not sure how to go about this. Also, I really do not think this is an apt comparison to compare cutting off an ear as a child and having to "deal" with it as an adult. That is a serious and irreversible procedure with lifelong consequences; this is entirely reversible. I am sure you understand why I am hesitant to change the license, because then I will have zero say in it, and I'm sure my name will still be in the metadata and then I'd be stuck. --MosheA (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@MosheA: for the cow image, your name has been removed from the page. But we have no control over anything else. The Dutch and Japanese pages only mirror what is on Commons. These "pages" exist everywhere. For example, w:de:File:CowDefecating.jpg or m:File:CowDefecating.jpg also work. Google doesn't realize there is nothing original in these pages and caches them seperately. (kinda stupid really) I don't know how or where you requested a cache refresh, but logically the mirrored information on English Wikipedia would likely rank higher and thus get refreshed more often than the mirrored information on Japanese Wikipedia. I've even seen cases where the mirrored page on English Wikipedia ranks higher than the source page on Commons. So it's likely only a matter of time. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by JoshuaIsTheFalco

Several uploads by User:JoshuaIsTheFalco (search), made to Wikipedia and subsequently transferred here by User:TarzanBoy24 (to whose talk page the talk page of the former account redirects) between 2018 and this month, seem problematic. For example:

There are 236 files in all. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:JoshuaIsTheFalco for several such files that were deleted a year ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done? I warned TarzanBoy and deleted speedily the files due to failed license review. Taivo (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
You've deleted the examples I listed above; but I referred to "236 files in all". 228 files remain,and may or may not have similar issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Please note that JoshuaIsTheFalco and TarzanBoy24 are one and the same, see global rename log. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 21:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
2 days ago I deleted speedily 16 files plus today 17 more. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There are still 175 images from this uploader, whose claims of authorship cannot be relied upon. What is to be done about them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I went through all of them. Speedy deletion is not right decision. They can be nominated for regular deletion, but in my opinion own work is possible. Taivo (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It's possible, but how can anyone know? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Done a bad thing... :-)

I've deleted an image somewhat out of process. Take a look at the deleted contribs here. I am simply not comfortable with this. To me there are issue with consent and maybe informed consent and it bothers me. If I'm really wrong feel free to undelete but please give it some thought first. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Worth checking the user talk page too. Blocked temporarily and I am suspicious. --Herby talk thyme 13:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It probably should just be left to oversight rather than using an open thread. If your decision seems complicated, this is more an issue of having better guidelines in IDENT. Commons has a significant number of photographs of children, people with mental disability, people of types having medical treatment, prisoners, dead bodies, etc., care should be taken to avoid setting a precident without the community able to discuss similar cases if not the case in question. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: Don't forget there is Category:Nude children. So Commons already did go further.
@Herbythyme: So much images with copyright violations, self-promotion or advertising and myspace-like images get uploaded to Commons every day, I lost track about them many years ago. The image is deleted, my my. The image has no educational value other than beeing an image of a person working on a Wikimedia. I doubt that 10 year old can really contribute quality edits though. I don't see any reason to block the person though.
@Topic: Maybe I'm thinking too far here, but: The image looks like it is a screenshot from a video (compression, lightes, focus). Because of her pose I was reminded of a report I saw a few years ago on TV where they talked about Cybergrooming were they tape girls and spread the videos online in their network. Maybe?
--D-Kuru (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The user said in Arabic (via Google Translate) it was their own photo. An appropriate rationale would of been F10. Plus, blocking someone with no warning for saying “I hate you” doesn’t seem appropriate. 1989 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to unblock them. I'm afraid I simply don't believe them but I realise I am out of step with Commons these days. --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Sideline but if the file is re-uploaded (or undeleted) I will take it further. --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion per F10 seems fine. For non-admins: Harmless photo of a kid, potentially the uploader themselves. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree CSD F10 speedy is appropriate and sufficient. This may or may not be harmless, but hard to know unless the editor stays engaged and chooses to explain their interest. At a more general level, it's great for minors to have fun editing this project, but we could do with some school-age-friendly guidelines and better guidelines about when photographs of children need special attention even when they are not of any obvious legal concern. --Fæ (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Earl Of Leven versions

An earlier, overwritten version of File:3rdEarlOfLeven.jpg needs to be rescued. I seem to remember that there was a template for this; if so, please can someone remind me what it's called? Otherwise, can someone split the earlier file out from the history, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

File has been reverted to its original version by Arnoseven. Split requests should be typically posted at Commons:History merging and splitting. I'm not aware of any templates for such requests. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for an Administrator's second look

 
Reverse of photograph showing date stamp on original, 20 July 1961.

Hi. May an Administrator have a second look to the strange closures of the discussions Commons:Deletion requests/File:A-convoy-of-combat-vehicle-in-Iraq-July-20-1961-391768248197.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:A-convoy-of-combat-vehicle-in-Iraq-July-20-1961-391768248197 (cropped).jpg? The strange closures by @Ruthven: consisted in:

  • "Kept: no valid reason for deletion"; and even more exotic:
  • "Kept: no valid reason for deletion: assume good faith + photo appears on the web with this date."

Indeed:

  • file doesn't appear on the web in 1961 (Internet didn't exist at this date) but 26 August 2016, one year before upload on Commons;
  • closing Administrator makes a confusion between creation date and publication date: Iraqi law never mentionned creation date as start of the copyright period even in its 1971 version;
  • closing Administrator shall know that COM:AGF states that "Editors should do their best to document the files they upload, and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate", which was the case:
    • legend says 1963 and not 20 July 1961;
    • there's no source link except a mention "Agence Dalmas via IMS Vintage Photos" (even if Agence Dalmas is the copyright holder closing Administrator shall now that image banks are full of undisclosed items);
    • there's no proof that 20 July 1961 is the publication date.

I request then that these 2 files must be deleted per COM:PCP, {{subst:npd}} or {{subst:nsd}} after 7 days or . Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. These are images from 1961 or maybe 1963. While there is a very small theoretical possibility that the images were published for the first time a few years ago, with that rationale we could not publish any historic image without "proof" that it was published way back. This has never been required on Commons and is copyright paranoia. If there are indicators that an image has not been published close to being taken, we can discuss COM:PCP, but not for every image, just because there is no "proof" it has been published before. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Precautionary principle is clear that files are not deleted based on overly hypothetical doubts, but require significant doubt be demonstrated. There must be a good reason to suspect non-publication, such as the photograph being some amateur guy on their holidays. This looks like a photograph taken for a news publication, it's much harder to imagine that these photographs were never published and were never available in a public archive until decades after they were taken.
Copyright paranoia is a real problem on Commons, and as a community we tend to default to deletion. Especially for old photographs of high educational value, significant doubt needs more than asking uploaders to prove something impossible, there must be a reasonable burden on the challenger to demonstrate that their doubts are more than hypothetical. Without this even our most reliable GLAM uploads are at risk, as within a few years after their upload, there is rarely any volunteer available to debate their cases, fix broken links, or are interested enough to do basic research within the standard "7 days". --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: May @Fæ: please use quotation marks when refering to that unsigned thing which has no status on Commons (it's even not an essay)? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Update the source was IMSvintagephotos.com which does not take long to track down via Google. The reverse of the photograph is stamped 20 July 1961 with some rubric from 'Photo Dalmas' in French. IMS state they hold an original "real press photographs" print, not just a scan from another digital archive.
PS. I'm aware that 'copyright paranoia' exists as an essay, however I was not referring to it, just the concept. --Fæ (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid it has not even the "essay" status... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Rather than creating more tangents, please accept that all the bullet points in your opening request have been addressed. --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Question What if these images are not Iraqi but were taken by a Swedish news agency? I think PD-Sweden would apply since they would be documentary photos taken before 1970. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: You are right: it appears that fr:Agence Dalmas is a French photo agency so may we know from @Esquilo: the reason for using {{PD-Iraq}}, where he found this image and the explaination for the supposed 20 July 1961 publication date? May @Ruthven: too explain why he believes it's not a French photo since he agrees on the fact it's an Agence Dalmas image? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
International Magazine Service is a Swedish agency. See here and note the stamp. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "Good Luck!" as you say. Three countries so far! And what about Iraq which was the rationale for uploading and then keeping the file? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The photo is probably taken by/for fr:Agence Dalmas but it was bought by IMS for publication in Sweden. I always check if a photo is PD in the country of origin before uploading. If it is I use the PD-template of the country of origin. About the date I'll look up the reverse side with annotations later today. /ℇsquilo 06:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  Comment As said above, deletion requests mustn't be done on "what if", but on solid evidence. All the rest is copyright paranoia (essay or not essay, it doesn't matter), which is very close to vandalism on a project that is based on (re)publishing media files, because it damages the project and the work of the users. I invite the users that want to propose a deletion to please do the homework, and dig into the matter. Personal opinions like "I don't think it's 1961" clearly have not the weight of an evidence. Ruthven (msg) 10:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthven: You are counterfeiting the facts. There has never been "solid evidence" that image has been first published in Iraq (informations raised by @Fæ: below on the origin of the image tends to prove the contrary) so it would be nice if you admit your error. It's very funny too you advice others to do their homeworks since uploader has not done his and you haven't done correctly your closing job neither. Instead you are evading the issue and even daring evocking "vandalism" (it's not the first ime you use this term against me: I've told you already to go through COM:AN/U). Indeed PCP has never been the rationale for deletion (though PCP is a policy and "copyright paranoia" is... nothing): it was "Please provide evidence that image has been published more than 50 years ago." You should know too they are other places to discuss Commons policies or essays and you are free to launch a vote on them if you want them to be deleted/amended/adopted; indeed we are dealing with a very concrete case here among serious users. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Er, had you done a little more investigating before raising the DR, Ruthven might not have closed it. Had you bothered to Google the image, you would have found the site and the back of the photograph to look at, that's about a third of the effort you took to create the DR.
Before raising a case like this on the noticeboard, it is definitely worth doing some homework before castigating all and sudry as less competent than yourself. Without doing the basics, this really does boomerang back at you. --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: I'm not a clairvoyant so I don't know if "had (I) done a little more investigating before raising the DR, Ruthven might not have (wrongly) closed it." What I know is that there are only two problems here so it's useless to reverse the charges: first, the wrong closing by @Ruthven: and, second, the lack of/wrong informations provided by the uploader. As you know it, it's up to the uploader to prove his assertions. As a bonus, instead of the 7 days for {{subst:npd}} or {{subst:nsd}} he had a regular DR he decided to ignore which lasted almost 2 months and I'm as sorry as you he didn't get the time to do what was requested. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  Comment. I agree with all the words of Ruthven. PCP PRP have to be use with common sense othetwise we can't be sure even about own work claim as we did not see the user taken the photo and we did not see actually push the botton relising the photo to public domain. Only if we delete all the file from Commons we can be sure that there is no copyright violations. Then we can celebrate PCP PRP day  . -- Geagea (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where PCP is coming from, PCP is angel dust, while PRP is the precautionary principle.

Reading the back of the photograph in more detail, the rubric in French is a standard credit statement by Agence DALMAS who was based in Paris and went out of business a few years after this photograph was taken. The rubric has an office address in Paris (only a partial address is readable, I have been unable to find the old addresses for DALMAS), and what appears to be the later blue rubber stamp with the July 1961 date was presumably added later and partially reads "TORGAT ... ?WEDEN", so we can also presume that the print was received or made in a Sweden office, maybe in Torgatan. The blue stamp also says "INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE", which might actually be the business name for DALMAS, as it called itself "magazine" too, according to the French Wikipedia article about DALMAS, though there may have been a separate business called "INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE SERVICE"*. Handwritten in red is "Irak", though this could have been added at any time. There is no doubt that the photograph itself was taken in Iraq and so copyright law there is a consideration but not the only one.

With regard to the order of rubric/watermarks, (1) the DALMAS rubric appears to be the original paper watermark. This means that a DALMAS photographer made the original print, it is not a guarantee of where they physically printed it, it may have been made in Iraq and posted back (this was 1961, so shipping prints may have been less risky than shipping original negatives). (2) Then the blue rubber stamp was added to the back, making the 20 July 1961 date a received date rather than a printed date, however this does act as a terminus ante quem for printing and creation. (3) Then finally we have the IMS scan with the digital watermark is added. This would have been added after 2013, unfortunately, the website download process does not provide an original file timestamp for me to compare with.

* Checking up on IMSvintage, they claim to have been founded in 1946, several years before DALMAS, and only got into the selling vintage photographs business in 2013. It seems likely that "INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE" is, therefore, part of the work of IMS as a picture agency, so this is their original blue rubber stamp in 1961. This does not override the potential rights of DOLMAS. It is no coincidence that decades later they are selling off their original archives under the IMSvintage brand. This all adds to the credibility that the scan we are looking at is the authentic first print. --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

PCP is often used to abbreviate precautionary principle, but it always made me think of angel dust as well. So I always use PRP too. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record: While I think the initial keep closure was correct based on the (non) discussion in the DR, I am fine with reopening the DR to discuss the doubts about the country of origin. @Ruthven: Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nickpo

This user is died, see in Russian Wikipedia. Please to protect the userpage of deceased user. Salsero al Zviadi (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done. Protected -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Second pass reviews by User:FlickreviewR 2

One of my uploads was flagged by this bot, and an experienced editor put it up for deletion. These actions were unnecessary and ignore the original correct copyright releases and after some investigation, I believe there is a systemic problem to correct.

As an independent example of the bot actions, diff shows an obviously PD image being flagged with the template {{FlickreviewR}} with "status=flickr_not_found". This appears to then require a human review, which is completely unnecessary for files which were previously reviewed. In this case the file was correctly reviewed by the same bot in March 2018 as existing on Flickr at that time with a public domain mark, and as this license was unsatisfactory, it was eventually replaced with PD-Russia-1996.

The fact that the source has disappeared from Flickr (as most files will) is not a reason to ignore past license reviews and risk accidentally deleting files by insisting on additional human reviews that literally add zero value and may never be done.

@Zhuyifei1999 and A1Cafel: for comment. --Fæ (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Bots do exactly what they are told to do. The manual replacing to {{Flickreview}} should not have been done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
If the bot is being told to do destructive things to files which are perfectly validly hosted on Commons, then "it was only following orders", is not good enough. If the file has previously been tagged by the Flickrreview bot, then it should not be tagging for a second time, there's an error, or if a file has been tagged for Flickrreview after being on Commons for 7 years, as in the case with this Kargalsev work, then it ending up in deletion review because the bot has automatically tagged it as having "undeterminable" copyright is bizarre. This is a very poor way to handle our long term collections.
Nobody said "can't find image on flickr" equates to having DR; the person filing the DR should check whether a DR is reasonable. And no, bots are different from humans for a good reason. Humans can subjectively evaluate whether or not something should be done; non-ML bots do exactly what they are told to do by humans, based on an algorithm that should be as simple to explain to humans as possible. That said, if one make a ML bot that is able to do subjective evaluations to replace humans on this part, I have no objections. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: could you explain why you are adding flickrreview tags to long term hosted files, or files which are marked as public domain? Clearly the Flickr source going away or changing is not a good reason to see these files deleted. We are wasting volunteer time by rehashing the same old copyright discussions over and over again. --Fæ (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Why was it not tagged 7 year ago? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
In 2013, it was not standard practice. Today it's become the norm, but actually it's still not 'required'. I believe, if someone wants to check the archives, there was a long discussion in 2014/2015 about my code potentially doing the LR for batch upload projects. It is still daft that for batch uploads we don't respect the fact that the upload code already checked the source. For this example, it looks like I may have manually uploaded the file and later finished writing up the code to do the rest. There is zero doubt that it was correctly licenced.
For the bot, perhaps we should be using a cut off date, a bit like our GOF guidelines. For me, tagging anything hosted more than 3 years is overkill. --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Unrelated to the FlickreviewR issue, is there something I'm missing about the file used as an example? Why would a painting by an Irish painter of an English politician be PD-Russia-1996? What does File:Alderman Sir George Wyatt Truscott (1857-1941), and Mrs Richard Jenkins (38575923901).jpg have to do with Russia? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks and notifications

Normally, when a user is being blocked, they also should be notified. But what about partial blocks? E.g. due to edit warring I just have blocked possibility of editing of two pages for a user. Should I notify them? --jdx Re: 05:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting closure of discussion

Could someone be kind enough to close the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#We don't have enough videos, some proposals to Improve the issue of meagre video files on Wikimedia Commons? It's been up for 3 months and discussion died about a month ago. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Image delete requests

Hi, Could someone kindly delete all images at Category:Davey2010/CSD please,
All of the images are basically duplicates - very blurry or have serious un-fixable lighting issues - The blurry/lighting ones were retaken,
I've kept at least one image of all buses photographed (there's a few where only one image was taken and they're not great (ie here and here),
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision delete request

(moved request up to save board clogging.)

Hi, Sorry to be a pain,
Could an admin kindly delete the first thumbnail at File:Arriva Kent & Surrey GN04UEC, Chatham Bus Station, 23 January 2019 (2).jpg please as as per PRIVACY I'd rather it not be there, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done by Riley (Thanks Riley!). –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Now done, but sure! :) ~riley (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please can someone enact my uncontested edit request, over a month old, at Template talk:Do not crop#Wording? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete previous versions of File:Scorpion and the frog kurzon.png

I created and uploaded the image File:Scorpion and the frog kurzon.png. Being a perfectionist, I made numerous modifications to it. I'd like an admin to delete the previous versions of the file. They were all my work so it's OK. Kurzon (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done GMGtalk 13:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo and Túrelio: Thanks, guys. They weren't large files, but I like cleanliness. Kurzon (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin Supervision

I have created this deletion request, because I doubt that the Austrian Armed forces were allowed to publish the image under a free licence. The discussion is already pretty salty and I request supervision by an admin (or admins). The admin(s) should be masochistic since they have to like to put up with those kind of very dry and grindy talks. I don't care if you are in favour of the deletion request or against it, but I see that behaviour is decreasing more down to the childish level (I do not exclude myself from that!). If you don't want to deal with it, that's OK. You are still more than welcome to share your point of view!
A word on why I got to this point: I had a longer talk with the person who operates the flickr account in the ministry of defense of the Austrian Armed Forces and I would say they have no clue what a CC licence even is. Sentences like "If they give the images to us we assume that we are allowed to publish them" - which they sometimes do under CC-BY-NC-SA - tell me that they probably don't even ask. They also said that if it turned out they did not have the copyright, they reverted it to All rights reserved (long after the image was uploaded to Commons). They also did that with images they got from other Armed Forces. I also talked with that person about the NC part and that a CC licence can not be revoked. Turnes out they neither know what NC really means nor that CC licences can not be revoked. The innitial thought was that I wanted to find out if the image was licenced CC-BY-SA on purpose or if this was a mistake (the images are CC-BY-SA on Commons and CC-BY-NC-SA on flickr). Sometimes the Ministry of Defense does something stupid and you have to put them on trail for them to fix it. Relicencing the image could be such a case (why it would fit that the licences got changed long after it was published)
--D-Kuru (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issue. For some reason, you started a discussion without providing a rationale for anyone and then afterwards you seem annoyed that no one agrees with your very complicated theory without actual proof. The discussion seems fine and does not seem to require "supervision" at all. It seems like you have a larger theoretical issue here that could relate to these images that could be better for the village pump and further discussion rather than a quick and dirty deletion request at the moment. It does not seem like other consider your speculation an emergency that requires immediate deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing category

See Category:PNG files. There is one file: File:Blank.png, where category "PNG files" should be removed to keep this maintenance category empty--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done I reduced the protection to upload-only, and I removed the category. Guanaco (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete previous uploads of File:Topaketa errunikoak 2011 0010 (cropped).jpg

Could somebody delete all previous versions of File:Topaketa errunikoak 2011 0010 (cropped).jpg? I was exeperimenting with various croppings for this image and I want to delete all the previous failures. Kurzon (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done I also updated the file page with {{Extracted from}} so the original is more easily found. Guanaco (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedies in data namespace

Could someone delete these four files? I think there is no way for me to request a speedy for data. Fæ (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done as uploader/author requested deletes of recent uploads. —RP88 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, a bug fix resulted in a parsing error and the creation of these files by mistake. Can someone speedy these 19 files too? (39, the search result is changed due to lag in the uploads showing up in the public facing replication the search works on. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

File:李文亮的训诫书.png

Sorry about that, due to my misunderstanding on scans and exact images of PD files, I just nominated File:李文亮的训诫书.png for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:李文亮的训诫书.png. May any administrators assist to close this discussion? Many thanks and sorry about my mistake.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete previous versions of File:Melos Sparta and Athens 416 BCE.svg

Would one of you admins kindly delete previous file versions of File:Melos Sparta and Athens 416 BCE.svg? I created this map and, being a perfectionist, kept fiddling with it and re-uploading edited versions. I would like an admin to delete the preceding revisions. Thanks. Kurzon (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

QI

I'm not familiar with usual QI practice, but to me

look like SPAs. --Achim (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

He is vandalizing QI Candidates, please help --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

File name request

Hi, Could an admin kindly move File:Davey2010 - DSCN6548 40.jpg to File:Chalkwell Coaches LJ04LFB, Chatham Bus Station, 23 January 2019.jpg as used the latter name on the wrong file, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done. Ahmadtalk 21:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ahmad, Many thanks for doing that I appreciate that :), Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 22:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem! Ahmadtalk 06:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Spanish admin?

Could a Spanish speaking admin please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madhava sine tabe in Devanagari.JPG? I don't like relying on Google translate Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe Magog the Ogre speaks Spanish. Masum Reza📞 18:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I do. The uploader responded that it was written by a 14th century author. I asked who the translator is and never got a response. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Time for abuse filters to block (temporary and permanent)

Hi. To me we have some persistent LTAs and enough spambots getting caught against filters, that I think that it is time that we consider the ability to apply blocks with spam filters, either short term application or permanent. The blocking ability is now in place in numbers of wikis, and has been for a number of years and it is not seen as problematic or out of control. If we did go down the path, we would want to look at some concepts and practice around what would, and how would we apply temporary or permanent blocks, though as we already have a good blocking policy and application of that, then it is not about novel concepts of why we are blocking. If there is a general feeling of agreement, then I will put forward a more specific plan. We did it a little while ago at English Wikisource for these same mentioned reasons. @NinjaRobotPirate, ~riley, Wutsje, and Achim55: admins who know the issues to which I am referring.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support This crossed my mind today - there is a clear need for this. Look forward to reading a more specific plan of action. As always, thank you billinghurst. ~riley (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This would clearly be useful. Wutsje 02:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to clear up any possible confusion, I'm only an admin on English Wikipedia. I think this could work if done carefully. Another thing that would help is if the WMF gave the global community an easier way to collaborate on dealing with these long-term vandals. As it stands, an admin who blocks a vandal sockfarm on one wiki is likely to be harassed to another wiki. Vandals are getting more sophisticated these days, and they can sometimes figure out how to evade global blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    We do have global abuse filters, though the large wikis were not included in them, and most have chosen to not be included since, so there are means existing for which the wikis have control. We do have global blacklists, though the issue with the m:title blacklist is that we do not have logs available for these, so any person who has a hit can just keep fiddling their way through variations without being noticed and without consequence until they have success, c.f. m:spam blacklist where local hits are locally logged in Special:Log/spamblacklist. The network of checkusers are able to collaborate on these matters and take actions or request actions from stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • {{Oppose}} blocks should be only done by humans. Terrible experience from fawiki blocks performed by Abuse Filter. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say the block feature of the AbuseFilter is actually a double-edged sword. As 4nn1l2 has mentioned above, blocking has been active at the Persian Wikipedia for a rather long time now. As an abuse filter manager there, I think it's very risky. I believe that abuse filters are a good way to fight long-term abusers as they just block them before the LTA can start their vandalism. That being said, there are usually false positives. A false positive is acceptable when talking about tags and warnings, can be acceptable when talking about disallow, but can't be acceptable when talking about blocks and range blocks; we can't block good-faith editors using an automatic tool that doesn't even tell them what they should do if they think the block is not justified. The current situation of abuse filters at the Persian Wikipedia is not appealing to me. The community is not satisfied with false positives, but is interested in blocking vandals automatically. This has led to abuse filters with the ability to block that are barely supervised. I'm worried that the same thing might happen here. I wish we had a tool similar to the abuse filter, maybe the abuse filter itself, with the ability to use AI. The current tool is rather inflexible, bypass-able, and ineffective, compared to a tool that can learn the LTA's behavioral pattern over time. So, though I really like to fight long-term abusers, {{Oppose}} for now, I suppose; at least until we can find a proper way to deal with false positives. Ahmadtalk 13:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2 and Ahmad252: Any implementation can be abused, and anything can be fouled up (deletions, merges, CVs, ...) and we don't stop using those due to mistakes, we instead implement a system that works with appropriate checks and balances. That faWP poorly implemented and managed abuse filters and blocks should be more of a warning and a lesson, than a harbinger of death. You have identified that the process that is implemented and tactics used that is pertinent.

    For meta I can show you the block log for abusefilter m:special:log/block/Abuse filter, and there was one false positive out of 500, and that person was temporarily blocked for two hours. At meta I can show you spam filters that has had 2 false positives in 2 years where the IP address was blocked for a day. [4]. Because the rules of implementation are test test test; block as a last resort; short term temporary blocks can be used to great effect with LTAs; actively curate your abuse filters. There are some good and simple processes that can be implemented to ensure that we can utilise abuse filters adequately, and suitably, and I definitely am a "hasten slowly person". However, when admins and people are being repeatedly harassed onwiki, existing means are not working as LTAs can prey on the weakness that exists at this wiki; AND we can better deal with it in real time, with some automated tools with zero or negligible negative impact, then we should explore doing so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks. I think we should test it before anything else. I suggest writing a filter, waiting for it to be active for, say, one week or two, and then checking its log to see the result, and decide based on that. I can't actually predict the result based on Wikipedia or Meta, as these projects are different from Commons. I struck my oppose, but I strongly think we need a test to examine the risk. I think we also need a policy for it to ensure that the block feature won't be overused. Ahmadtalk 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: I struck my oppose vote. Let's try this for some months and then decide. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Has worked fine on Meta for quite some time now. Simply not that many admins interested in this aspect of the project to hope that this sort of thing will always be taken care of by humans. --Herby talk thyme 13:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For those who are opposed, I would be interested in the possibility of clearing this for a limited trial, two or three months or something, then have a !vote after we can gather real-world Commons-specific data on effectiveness. At the end of the day, Commons is qualitatively different than Wikipedia, and this may or may not work very differently than on other projects. As a comparison, I believe English Wikipedia still has a filter to prevent the use of "fuck" in mainspace. That would never work for Wikquote, as the instances of legitimate uses are simply different. GMGtalk 14:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, this should probably go at COM:VP, and not COM:AN. This change would require community consensus, not administrator action. GMGtalk 18:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That is a conversation about abusefilters in practice, not about the ability to block. Blocking at any time should always be a last resort, and it should only ever be for as short a time as needed, and that is no different as a personal decision, or with an automated process. Admins here actually need to pay greater attention to abuse filters, not less, and maybe this can be part of an improved approach, and some conversations about what is appropriate for an abuse filter. Some abusefilters in place have not had adequate and timely review in my opinion. Having written and managed a few at meta for global filters, I am aware of that subject.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Presumably this would be an option to step-up a filter (where simply disallow or other outcomes aren't sufficient as a long-term fix), and that if there were problems (false-positives, or even now when this mode isn't an option) we would use other options. So let's see some examples of filters where one might want this, and then we can look at its history to see what false positives there are. Just like we always can review filters to see if they are overly broad or something. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong support A few days ago I was dreaming about such possibility when I was modifying an AF's rule which detects one of well known cross-wiki LTAs who adds rather predictable content but uses open proxies. --jdx Re: 21:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I hesitate. Where are the best vandalism-detecting filters? In English Wikipedia, of course. My first ever edit in English Wikipedia was considered junk and reverted by bot (in en:Oops). Twice. Probably the situation is worse in other languages. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: See my commentary above with links to meta abuse logs. There are some clear rules, practices, discipline and processes that need to be in play for abusefilters that block. Controls like … no one admin should a decide on a blocking filter. With regard to our LTA, I have found that a 2 hour block is very effective as 1) it is a short block, though for an LTA on an OP it is very useful as it will feel like an eternity. Similarly for an abusive LTA with an account name like here it gives an admin time to act and confirm a block; or a steward to be notified of its creation and to lock.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A formal proposal with suggest admin guidance follows @Taivo, Jdx, DMacks, GreenMeansGo, Herbythyme, Ahmad252, 4nn1l2, Wutsje, ~riley, and Achim55:

 — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Issue

I believe that I've mentioned this somewhere that there's an issue with incomplete uploads made by users. Such as File:Iamanujsharma.jpg & File:Iamanujshrama.jpg. Incomplete as in the file can be seen but can't be edited. Am I the only one facing this issue? Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Found it, mentioned at the help desk. (see Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2020/01#Bug?). @Ciell: Just to inform you. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
To add on, the uploads are logged at the upload log but can't be seen at Special:Contributions/Call me Aime. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Minorax, strange that it happens again. It might be a bug, could you please create a phabricator ticket about it and report it to the developers? Ciell (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: @Phabricator:T245339. Note: This is my first time creating a ticket and would appreciate if someone could fix it if it's in the wrong format. Thanks! Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 12:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: If this is within the policy, do temp-undelete the image so as to let others see what's going on. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Minorax, thank for the report, and don't let the devs scare you over there. They mean well, like all Wikimedians.
Yes, I could do an undelete, but I'll let Andre Klapper decide what is needed. He is in charge of the main bug triage. Ciell (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:IWM

Please can someone close and enact Commons:Deletion requests/Template:IWM? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to implement blocking by abuse filters

MOVED TO:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following the scoping discussion #Time for abuse filters to block (temporary and permanent) (permalink), a formal proposal for consideration.

One of the standard abilities for abuse filters in mediawiki is to allow blocking of accounts or IP addresses (Block the user and/or IP address from editing) based on criteria in a filter. It has not been something that we have typically needed over the earlier years as we haven't had persistent vandalism or spam. Things have changed, and it is the time for us to move to having blocking functionality available.

[technical detail https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=abusefilter.php and setting $wgAbuseFilterActions['block'] = true;]

If that occurs we also need to define a default period for blocks. I suggest that the default would least demonstrate that we are looking for a minimal approach, so let that be the most gentle setting. Though noting that this would just be a default, and a dropdown with other values will always be present for selection.

To have this change made at Commons, we would need to demonstrate a consensus of the community, and lodge a phabricator site request. Noting that this is a technical change, not a policy change to what we block, or to the blocking policy. Accordingly I propose:

  • Wikimedia Commons moves to have enabled the ability to block through its abuse filters.
  • Default periods for blocks to be 2 hours for user accounts, and 2 hours for IP addresses.

I also note that if consensus is reached that Commons administrators will need to work to operational guidance and that is being developed in a separate section, and is outside of the scope of this technical request, and will have a separate consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. The referenced consensus is weak, two supports and general discussion is not convincing. This type of systems decision can and should be made on convincing reports and analysis. We do not have to implement the filter in order to do testing, we can simply run a test of the proposed filter against past contributions and analyse what the impact would be, both positive impact for reducing disruption to this project, and negative impact for possible good-faith contributors. Without this, it is unclear what a "minimal approach" is, or how it would be measured. So, let's have some test reports so the community can vote against more than hypotheticals. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I have personal bad experience with vandalism-detecting filters in en.wiki. I do not know, what kind of edits are considered vandalism by bot. I have seen no analysis yet about proposed filters. What if quarter of blocks will be false positives? I do not know that, I feel, that nobody knows. After test run and analysis my vote can change. Taivo (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Taivo: Every edit you have been making is already going through every active abuse filter, there is no change involved here. The suggested change is an action that comes from an abuse filter. From your 167k edits, maybe you can explain and relate on your experiences with abuse filters affecting your editing here, I can see about 42 interactions in the logs.

    With regard to the processes, I covered that separately below, and our process would not be getting that criteria, that is why we test and manage. We already know what is happening here. I gave specific links to meta's logs (abuse and block) where there is the process in place and it can be demonstrated what is happening. I perfectly understand a cautious approach, and that is what is being proposed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  3.   Oppose on procedural grounds. This should go at VP and not here. VP has twice the page watchers and is the appropriate place for seeking community consensus. GMGtalk 02:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

Comment

In response to Fæ. Umm, I referenced no consensus, this is the discussion for consensus. I mentioned a scoping discussion.

With regard to your request for analysis, there is plenty of evidence of spambots active here, and those attempting to be active here. We have been manually been blocking these for years, and this is to stop having to do this manually. This proposal does not change what we are blocking, to that there is no change, it is the processing from manual to automated. This becomes about ensuring that the filters are targeted appropriately, and tuned appropriately for their use, and to agreed measures, some here are close though would need tuning to go the next steps. I linked to some of those active blocking filters at Meta, which would be similar, though not exact that were performing well on 700+ wikis covered by global abuse filters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggested guidance followed at #Draft of operational guidance for use of blocking by abuse filters. Feel welcome to make suggestions, or asked for clarifications to be made.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: As I indicated previously, if you are seeking broad community consensus for site-wide changes, you need to transfer these discussions to the village pump. AN is a place for requesting administrator assistance, not a place for building community consensus, and having this discussion here instead of there is out of order. GMGtalk 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
When I scanned the referenced discussion, it read as a proposal with votes. You mention "general agreement" a few lines in, but the title "Time for abuse filters to block" I read literally. If you want to discount that discussion as no evidence of consensus, that's fine.
However in line with GMG's point, the history here is (1) run a proposal for "general agreement" that people vote on, (2) run a proposal to "implement" that is laid out as a vote, (3) run a proposal for "we would need to demonstrate a consensus of the community", which this presumably is not.
That's 2 votes more than we actually need and seems exhausting for the limited numbers of volunteers that will be interested and know what we are talking about. --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Fæ, I wrote the following to the subject line "Time_for_abuse_filters_to_block_(temporary_and_permanent)"

Hi. To me we have some persistent LTAs and enough spambots getting caught against filters, that I think that it is time that we consider the ability to apply blocks with spam filters, either short term application or permanent. The blocking ability is now in place in numbers of wikis, and has been for a number of years and it is not seen as problematic or out of control. If we did go down the path, we would want to look at some concepts and practice around what would, and how would we apply temporary or permanent blocks, though as we already have a good blocking policy and application of that, then it is not about novel concepts of why we are blocking. If there is a general feeling of agreement, then I will put forward a more specific plan. …

So please don't selectively quote or misrepresent what has been said. I said that I would come forward with a proposal, and I have done so. I did not call for votes, and no body counted votes, they expressed opinions as guidance to my opening statement. I would also like to address the contradiction in some of the argument. It is indicated that this is a limited scope argument for a limited set of people interested and knowing about what we are talking. Yet also argued that the conversation should be at another forum where it would be of less interest and less relevance and small knowledge base, so how does that work? This is an administrator only action, and there are numbers of administrators who keep away from the area, so how is that going to progress in a more inexperienced forum.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The contributors affected by this change are not limited to administrators. It is weird to limit the discussion or consensus to those in the sysop group, when it is everyone that will be affected by it. From what you are saying here, I don't understand why you are replying to me, because I am not an administrator, so by the logic above, I have no say here on what happens. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft of operational guidance for use of blocking by abuse filters

This is a conversation to follow the request for consensus to the #proposal to implement blocking by abuse filters (permalink). Its purpose is to develop an initial set of operational guidance for administrators, and to assist in the reassurance to the broader community that administrators should use blocking filters as a last resort measure, and per the com:blocking policy for the shortest reasonable period.

For spam filter blocking guidance I suggest something like the following, and put this out for comment and improvement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Setting blocking filters
  • only applied after alternate settings of filters have failed to resolve the situation (they are not a first response to a problem)
    • required to have undergone a period of reasonable testing prior to blocking is applied
    • would ideally have a second administrator review filter and settings in place
  • used for the minimal period required, per blocking policy
    • noting longer blocks would normally only be used where shorter blocks are not suitable
    • noting longer blocks will typically need longer testing period prior to applying
  • will have suitable notes made in the filter's history to enable any administrator to review the process undertaken
  • should be actively monitored in the logs on a regular basis
    • where they are not being actively managed such filters should have their blocking suspended
    • those with longer terms blocks should be listed on Commons:Abuse filter, or a suitable subsidiary appropriate page, identifying admins managing the filter and confirmed as being actively managed on an annual basis.

Challenges to the use of blocking filters can be made by other administrators at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, notifying the administrator(s) who have written or manage the filter. With the agreement of a second independent administrator the blocking aspect can be suspended while resolution of the concern is resolved. A single false positive would not normally be seen as a reason to immediately suspend a filter, though a string of false positives could initiate such a suspension. [None of which is meant to override any emergency need to act.]

Written guidance: specific notes should be made at Commons:Administrators/Howto about abuse filters and appropriate management by admins who utilise them; and any determined guidance for administrators should be added to Commons:Abuse filter, or an appropriate subpage, and linked from the Commons:Administrators/Howto.

Discussion

  • I am not favorable to any requirement for a quorum of administrators. We should not be enacting language that favors the opinion of administrators as opposed to their access. Obviously hidden filters are an access issue, but especially as it concerns edit filters, just because someone has sysop access does not mean that they are technically competent. I couldn't code my way out of a paper bag if my life depended on it, and I'm sure there are many non-sysop users on this project that have a much more informed opinion on edit filters than I do. Any user should be able to challenge a filter, and we should not wait for a quorum so long as the challenge is serious and credible. We should disable first and discuss second. GMGtalk 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @GreenMeansGo: I was taking it as granted that any user is able to complain about a filter, and its action, and to raise those concerns. That is the now, and will always be the case. {Aside: I will note that so far it is not evident that there have been issues logged using the form at Commons:Abuse filter}

    The wording was more nuanced, it was for admins to challenge the action of a filter to block, and that should not require knowledge of the code, instead of its intention, and that should be logged in the notes field of the filter, if not evident from the title or a tag. This is more that the actions of the blocking are in line with our policy.

    I worded the line about 1 and more admins to cover a situation like if a filter has been operational for 200 days without an issue and stops 20 spambots a day, then gets a single false hit, should it be turned off and remain off? Should it be degraded? Can it be left running while the circumstance is investigated? One admin raising an issue can start the investigation but not necessarily have the filter immediately changed, whereas two admins reviewing would be enough to suspend a filter irrespective of whether they code or do not, as they both agree that the situation sufficient to act.

    You don't trust your coding, and I may or may not trust you to code a filter, I definitely value your opinion on whether a filter should or should not be blocking, or the circumstance where it should not be blocking. It is written as admins, as users cannot turn on/off filters, only admins can act.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I generally support the proposal, but I think we should first move it to village pump (or create an RfC). We're practically making the abuse filter an administrator, something that the community should discuss it. Village pump has way more watchers than this page; that will help the community, especially non-admins, to discuss this change. Ahmadtalk 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

DRs made via Android app

Is there a means to block all DRs from users using the Android app? I'd strongly support that until the developers get their crap fixed. Since months the DR notifications have been sent to the author, not to the uploader as it should be. Now they've tried to fix that and the notifications go to the requester themselves instead of the uploader. --Achim (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Achim55: Got some examples? There may be enough components within such a post to do something through an abuse filter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
billinghurst, just the most recent, have to go to bed now...
Thanks, --Achim (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in the abusefilter looks readily available to catch the android filter.
The tags for the post "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit" are not available to the abusefilter, and one would guess that they are applied afterwards. Whether there is the possibility to get access to a component of the metadata is unknown to me, maybe @MusikAnimal and Daimona Eaytoy: can lend an opinion there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that actually they are. I haven't used them yet, but according to the documentation there are two variables which seem to be useful: user_mobile and, possibly, user_app. They are provided by extensions MobileFrontend and MobileApp respectively, both installed on Commons. --jdx Re: 07:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Whether the user is editing from mobile app (user_app)	
Whether or not a user is editing through the mobile interface (user_mobile)
@Jdx: Unfortunately those two fields are empty in these two edits, please see the above two indicated lines in the "examines". So the app designers have apparently missed those components or moved onto other means.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it before I wrote my previous comment. But I have a strange feeling that Special:AbuseFilter/examine does not work properly. I have to write a test case/rule to make sure about it. --jdx Re: 10:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey! So, first of all, tags are applied after the edit is saved; hence, AF cannot "see" tags as you correctly guessed. We do have variables for mobile edits (the ones you pointed out), but they don't provide any distinction for Android users vs others. They don't appear in "examine" because those variables aren't computed for past edits; however, they work correctly for ongoing edits. This is T203166, and the same bug also affects other core variables (see T102944). Note, this isn't easy to fix. --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Daimona Eaytoy: Many thanks for the explanation! Yes, I have noticed that these variables do not provide distinction, but I think that in our case it does not mater whether one uses Android app or regular web interface for mobile devices. The point is that "mobile users", especially anonymous ones, produce a lot of crap that has to be dealt with. BTW. Until this day I thought that all those nonsensical DRs with reason given "Because it is" were work of a stubborn vandal. It turned out that Android app has a great share in creation of them.   --jdx Re: 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jdx: Right, pointed out here in October. --Achim (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI: latest hits of today. Notifications are sent to the requester.

And for the record the request on GitHub 5 months ago. --Achim (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  Comment that we have a "nominate for deletion" button so prominent on EVERY image in the android app is just ridiculous. Why would we want that? Sounds like the best means to progress is to ask for that to be removed, OR moved to a less evident spot, OR not shown until an editor has passed a certain number of edits, or achieved a certain status.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Malfunctioning gadget deleting images

MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js is critically broken. The "Remove this tag" button is deleting images.

How to reproduce:

  1. Turn the gadget on in your preferences
  2. Go to Category:Duplicate, and select any image.
  3. (A plausible use case would involve clicking on "Process duplicates", comparing the images, deciding they aren't exact or scaled down duplicates, and cancelling out. But this is optional WRT reproducibility.)
  4. Click on "Remove this tag". When it asks you to merge the file descriptions, say "what the hell?" and cancel out of it.
  5. Click on "Remove this tag" again. Get an error message. Cancel out of it.
  6. Click on "Remove this tag" a third time. Congratulations, the gadget has just used your account to delete an image without your consent.

I reported this at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js several days ago, but there's been no response.

Hesperian 00:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

DRs opened for more than a month

Hi! Could a Commons sysop taken a gander and make a decision on the following DRs:

Thanks, --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The current backlog is around 3.5 months. Admins will come around to those DRs on their own time, no need to remind us. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Sebari: Understood. Thanks for responding. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: Sorry if this sounded more harsh than intended. I just wanted to express that the DR is not forgotten, it's just that nobody came around to it yet, but it will happen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Sebari: Didn't take it that way lol. I'm just a little surprised it's taken that long, considering I did flesh out a rationale for deletion. But I totally understand. :) --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Close and keep

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Eurovision Song Contest 1980 photo sessions

Can this be closed & kept? It's messing with my VFC selections. The DR rationale contains a "Bestand:" link and when I'm filtering out everything that already has a Bestand: link in the wikitext (to avoid adding double links), I'm also filtering out this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I can do it myself, but I feel there's too much discussion there for me to do it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  Done Gbawden (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of admin tools - Arthur Crbz's deletions

It has been brought to my attention on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard by Ciell that Arthur Crbz has gone through and deleted hundreds of files (estimate) as missing permission that were tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. These files were deleted with the use of VFC and I suspect no manual review was done on the files. OTRS pending files can only be deleted without a discussion after 30 days. A ton of files now need to be undeleted from the following categories...

All the files in these categories were incorrectly deleted:

It's worth noting that more than these categories were deleted from, these are just the ones that should undeleted from today onward (30 days). It appears these deletions have been happening for the last month based on Category:OTRS pending as of 1 January 2020 being deleted 12 days later.

Normally, I would discuss this directly with an admin but due to the scale of these deletions, this needs to be a larger discussion. Due to the cleanup aspects as well, more than one admin needs to be involved in this discussion. ~riley (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd definitely like to hear form Authur on this. Was this just some...particularly largish scale misunderstanding? GMGtalk 19:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Did some talk page stalking. It appears based on User_talk:Arthur_Crbz#Works_of_Jana_Skalická that Arthur believes these are acceptable deletions. While his logic is sound with one or two files, a spot check shows he has deleted collections like the Rietveld Collection (95 files) and the van Achterberg Collection (141 files). Compiling a list of 200 pages to undelete, undeleting and then trying to replace their usage is resource heavy. We also have files like File:Weilbach am Main (Mayer-Orgel) (1).jpg caught in here that were OTRS verified but also had an incorrect template. Automated deletion, without looking at the file page, is extremely concerning because of this type of collateral damage. ~riley (talk)
I've now notified Arthur about this thread. --Túrelio (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Was opting for pinging rather than templating an admin, but that works too. :) ~riley (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi!
I have recently been involved in the "cleaning" of maintenance categories related to OTRS. Namely :
According to the category description, files can be deleted 7 days after being added to this category. This short time delay makes sense to me. It encourages uploader to send their permission quickly after uploading the file. As a reminder, Krdbot tags files with {{OTRS received}} as soon as we receive an OTRS permission (if the file name is readable, so 90% of the cases ?). I don't see any misconduct here. If there is, please change the category description accordingly.
According to the category description, files can be deleted 31 days after being added to this category. There was (and still is) a huge backlog in this category. I don't see any misconduct here. If there is, please change the category description accordingly.
According to the category description, files can be deleted 7 days after being added to this category. Before deleting, I'm checking files in this category that are very unlikely to require a permission: old artwork, old picture, pd-text, pd-shape, etc. Then, I delete files.
  • Regarding the requests made on my discussion page :
The more you delete files, the more messages you get on your discussion page. Almost all messages posted on my discussion page are uploaders complaining about their files which have been deleted. In most (or all) cases, file was in Category:OTRS received for weeks and the permission tag wasn't added to the file description. In most (or all) cases, the copyright holder didn't reply to the OTRS agent's last email. I'm always happy to explain why the file has been deleted. Other emails are about undeletion requests because OTRS permission is finally received.
If you think you can do a better job, apply as admin and do it. Whatever the Wikimedia community you are involved in, you are always more likely to receive criticisms and attacks than gratitude.
Cheers! --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Arthur Crbz: {{OTRS pending}}, per the template documentation and CSD are only eligible after 30 days. {{OTRS pending}} turns to {{No permission since}} when eligible for deletion (30 days, or longer if backlog). If an OTRS-related file does not have a deletion template on it, and you are deleting it, chances are it is a premature and an out of process deletion. I understand you are going off of the category description, but that is not policy. The issue with Category:OTRS pending's description is that it is only accounting for the permissions-commons backlog; it does not account for the fact that commons permissions are also sent to the 30 something language specific permission email addresses. The entire reason {{OTRS pending}} exists is to get the content on wiki, allow it to be examined by an OTRS agent, and approved without being deleted before this process can be achieved - by deleting at 7 days, you are screwing up this process for the non-English users.
I appreciate you already undeleting the 7 files that you deleted without opening, but you have made no comment to all the other files I have identified as out of process deletions. I have already identified the 236 files from Hansmuller (permissions-nl) who is standing by and waiting for you to undelete these files as part of his Wikipedian in Residence project. He has contacted you on your talk page and while Ciell was going to take him off your hands, I am turning this back on you as the deleting admin to undelete these files. There is an additional 20 from Gampe (permissions-cs) and Mharrsch had a collection of 20 files too (permissions-commons). Again, this is just looking for collections in your deletions from a one week period.
There are 8 more files from Cmcmcm1 that had {{PermissionOTRS}} on them but were deleted anyways, which shows you never opened them. If we wanted to automatically delete the files in Category:OTRS pending, without any review or manual confirmation, we would have an admin bot do it.
You have said that "file[s] can be easily undeleted" so you undeleting these should be no problem. I am not trying to be punitive, but I am trying to give you the perspective of the work you are creating for other admins. Everyone involved in this discussion so far is an admin, so I'm going to sidestep your "If you think you can do a better job" comment. I am sorry if I am coming down strong, but you are offering no insight into your deletions and by not offering to undelete the previously identified files, it seems you aren't willing to work together. I hope as we continue this conversation you can prove me wrong. ~riley (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
If the wording on the category page is unclear or confusing, it seems easy enough to change it to be more helpful. The files can be undeleted, true enough, and I'm happy to help with that (if someone can explain how one finds deleted files no longer in a deleted category). But the real issue is that Commons is already confusing enough for new users, without having our volunteers explain on-wiki and via email how the system is supposed to work, only to have it actually function in a way that is totally different. That's likely to accomplish little but frustrate everyone involved, discourage contributors, and make more work for admins and agents alike. GMGtalk 12:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The change in the OP-category description is from January 22nd by King of Hearts and Jcb changed the number of waiting days from 30 to 8 on January 25th. Pinging them, for they both maybe want to explain the changes they made. Ciell (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell and Arthur Crbz: Back when I made the change, the backlog was over 100 days long, and sometimes people would just delete anything over 30 days old without checking the length of the backlog, so you would end up with images getting deleted even though an email was sent to OTRS. Since then the backlog has gotten a lot better; I guess I should have implemented it as a min function but I just didn't anticipate that the backlog would disappear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi King of Hearts, can you add a min. function now? While I could figure it out, I am sure you could do it in a quarter of the time it would take me. Thanks! ~riley (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to argue, I think I have provided complete explanation about these deletions. I will just answer one last time to your points. Regarding {{OTRS pending}}, you highlighted an inconsistency between the category description and the template documentation. Actually, it was changed by King of Hearts on the 22 January 2019[5]. I strongly encourage you to change the category description so it won't happen again. Don't blame an admin for applying a policy written on a page (even if it's a wrong policy) and assume good faith.

The cases you highlighted (Ciell, Gampe,Mharrsch) refer to this inconsistency issue. Regarding Hansmuller's files, I didn't intervene because Ciell was taking care of these uploads. I will be happy to assist to handle this OTRS ticket.

Regarding Cmcmcm1's files, I made a mistake. I won't blame the OTRS agent for not removing the {{OTRS pending}} template after adding the permission. It's called making a mistake, can happen everytime. Maybe for you too?

"file[s] can be easily undeleted" is a sentence that I always write to uploaders (including in OTRS emails). It reassures the uploader, encourages him to send a permission and not to reupload deleted files. It's called, being nice and friendly with people. As a Commons admin, I know that undeleting multiple files can be painful (remember when the permissions-commons backlog was so long that files were already deleted). As we say in French "On ne sauve pas des vies"}}, we are only speaking about deleted images.

You can always tell people if they are making mistakes. Check here for best practices. Cheers! --Arthur Crbz (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Crbz,
I think it would really be helpful if you could reflect on your own actions a bit more, in stead of only pointing to others.
As an admin, YOU are still responsible for your own actions. It is up to you to check if rules are being followed, before you undertake an administrative action like deleting. By using the visual file changer, you cannot review every file before deleting, and furthermore: the description on the category page wasn't changed until January 25th, but you've been deleting OP-images before deadline since the New Year a stated above by ~riley. Ciell (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: I think you have your dates a little mixed up. That's Jan 22 2019, not 2020. Of course, that doesn't really change whether this adjustment to "policy" was done without consensus from or consultation with the community. GMGtalk 15:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, you're right! Striked my last comment. Ciell (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Crbz: I am disappointed with the amount you are deflecting. I can't speak for Ciell, but I think what we are looking for is instead of saying, "I won't blame the OTRS agent for not removing the {{OTRS pending}}", you should be saying "I won't do automated deletion without reviewing the files in the future". I am hearing a lot of this is why it happened, but very little discussion about how you plan to clean up this mess. The goal behind this discussion is not to hang you out to dry, but to ensure this is not repeated and to get this cleaned up. Can you please respond with how you will clean this up? ~riley (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Crbz As a fellow-OTRS agent, and a fellow-Commons admin, I'm asking you to restore these categories and images please. They shouldn't have been deleted yet. Ciell (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As indicated in previous messages, the misleading policy has been visible for months on the category page. I have actively participated in the maintenance of the categories Category:OTRS received, Category:OTRS pending and Category:Media missing permission since December/January. Hundreds of files have been deleted during this maintenance. Note that only deletions performed on Category:OTRS pending are questionable (because based on the misleading policy) and represent a very small percentage of the deletions made (most of daily categories have less than 5 files). So, there is no point to undelete all the files that I have deleted recently (and it's not a feasible solution).
How will it be cleaned? Actions should be taken only for files deleted because of Category:OTRS pending's misleading policy. For "small uploaders", it will be solved by OTRS agents/Commons admins on a daily basis. I don't think it will create a tremendeous workload (because of the small number of files deleted). For "heavy uploaders", I will handle undeletion in the coming days. Here is the list of affected uploaders highlighted in previous messages (please mention other cases here or in my talk page):
I will update this list as soon as undeletion is performed.
I trully think this is a reasonable solution to the problem. Again, these deletions were performed according to the policy written in the category description. I consider that I can't be fully accountable for this "mistake". As the topic has been already discussed multiple times, I will no longer respond/comment about this issue (except for the undeletion mentioned previously). --Arthur Crbz (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's worth clarifying that text in a category page is not policy, admins are expected to identify policy and apply it correctly. That said, I completely understand how this mistake was made and there is discussion above to ensure this mistake isn't repeated by modifying the category page.
I agree it is not worth your time to delete all of these and that the best approach is to only undelete collections. That said, I am asking you to go through your deletion log dating back to when you first started this deletion. I think that's more than fair to ask, rather than imposing it on us to highlight affected uploaders. You have more knowledge of your deletions than we do and may have some remembrance on what collections or large batches you deleted.
I am waiting on Mharrsch's files to be undeleted per ticket:2019102210009673. ~riley (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Crbz, If you could finish up restoring the images, I can proceed with the permissions. Ciell (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Crbz, pinging you again. Please let me finish my work on Achterberg. Ciell (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse

Hi. There's a user on enWP who has been trying to publicise the name of the speculated Ukraine whistleblower. This has led to an edit filter and a dozen or so rangeblocks with TPA disabled on an increasing number, His latest approach has been to upload a screen grab of C-SPAN's coverage of Rand Paul's speech in the Senate, falsely tagged {{PD-USGov}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rand Paul 2020-02-04 US Senate.jpg), and to create redirects, four so far, to allow continued linking to this image despite it being blocked by the enWP abuse filter.

Regardless of the merits of the copyright claim, creation of redirects on Commons to circumvent technical measures on another Wiki designed to prevent linking to the specific image, is clearly inappropriate. I'd note in passing that these edits are being deleted and suppressed via Oversight. It's a pretty clear abuse of Commons as a means to try to circumvent protection, rangeblocks, edit filter, oversight and other technical measures by multiple admins on enWP. I doubt that Commons would be tolerant of this use of redirects if they were done to bypass an image blacklist in order to include dick pics. Guy 12:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked indef - inappropriate user name anyway Gbawden (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
And I deleted redirects. --jdx Re: 13:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Much thanks. Guy 14:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gbawden: What's wrong with the username? It isn't exactly politically correct but neither is it blatantly offensive. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
True @World's Lamest Critic: Fair enough Gbawden (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Kind of went on a tangent there about dick pics. Never mind. --Fæ (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Not just a tangent but also a gross misunderstanding of just how much Commons loves dick pics. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
User name is inappropriate. Can confirm. Rand Paul is not a hot babe doing stuff naked. GMGtalk 22:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not kink-shame or taunt someone into verifying Rule 34 for you. DMacks (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Facebook

Could someone please put {{Facebook}} up for deletion?

It incorrectly redirects to the fair use speedy template. This is factually incorrect as it is being used to tag for speedy images which make no claim that the files are fair use. The template is sysop-only, so I cannot raise a discussion on it. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to {{Copyvio}} MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Crop SNAFU

I meant to upload File:Japanese culture - Hype Japan 2018 (cropped).jpg over the top of the image from which I cropped it, rather than as a new file. I messed up: sorry. Can someone apply their mop, please?

  Done - Fixed by Pigsonthewing. –Davey2010Talk 21:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

CSD F2

Looking at some speedies marked under COM:CSD#F2, it seems confusing that we have different ways of marking the file:

These look different, may not even link to the F2 standard CSD text, and don't seem to categorize in the same way.

Could an administrator take a look at harmonizing these? --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MetroLisboa-linha-verde.svg

Would an admin mind taking a look at this DR? If there are no longer any concerns about the file’s copyright status, then the DR can be closed. Related discussion can be found at User talk:P199#Commons:Deletion requests/File:MetroLisboa-linha-azul.svg. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  Half done I closed the DR. File:MetroLisboa-linha-verde.svg is deleted temporarily and should be restored once it's been delinked. The old copyvio revisions are revision deleted. Guanaco (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Guanaco. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, P199, and Tuvalkin: I think we need to do the same with the other images of this type. Let local wikis implement the unofficial logos if they wish, once the official logos are properly removed and delinked. Thoughts? Guanaco (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you, P199, Tuvalkin think works best is fine for me. I only nominated the files for discussion because I thought they didn't comply with COM:L. Most of the DRs were opened for a month and went without any comments before P199 deleted the files. If they would've been kept via DR, then that would've been fine with me. My post at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MetroLisboa-linha-verde.svg wasn't an attempt to try and lecture anyone on copyright; the images seemed to the same to me, but that as probably due to my failure to properly purge my browser and I apologize for causing confusion over that. If the two versions aren't truly different though, it might've have been better to simply upload the free version as a separate file under a different instead of trying to overwrite a file being currently under discussion at DR. I'm assuming that the other files nominated were deleted because they were copyright violations; if that's not the case and an admin wants to restore them, then I've got no problem with that as well.
If someone wants to use free versions (even unofficial versions) instead, then that's fine with me as well. I don't know how non-free content is handled on Portuguese Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia not free logos can be used as long as it is done in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; non-free logos wouldn't be allowed to be used in templates per Wikipedia's policy and other types of non-free uses is highly restricted, but they could most likely be uploaded for use in the main stand-alone articles about each respective line as en:Template:Non-free logo. The unofficial free versions, however, could be used in templates on English Wikipedia if that's what the consensus is to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, «apologize for causing confusion» is the right way to go here. Thanks to you three (Guanaco, Marchjuly, and P199) there are now a few hundred articles in the Portuguese Wikipedia showing (again, twice in 24h) broken links and misfomatted tables, in spite of my swift replacement of the real logos with free look-alikes. (Delinker will not fix this because these uses are made via a template, btw.) So, on behalf of the Portuguese Wikipedia community that edits Lisbon public transport articles, thanks but no thanks. Commons failed here, big time. I will just upload the fake logos as new files and edit the template to call those new filenames — you guys feel free to continue to play Laurel and Hardy with DRs, F5s, clueless lecturing, and appalling lack of good faith. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (No DR warnings were received at wp.pt, as far as I know.) Things would be peachy by now if one of the four “approximate logos” hadn’t been «deleted temporarily» one week ago and yet never restored. That’s how Commons failed: Hundreds of redlinks and misformatted articles across several projects, forever awaiting Commons delinker to act (it wont, as these are called by a template that assembles the needed filenames on the fly). Once we at wp.pt finally have these four “approximate logos” available (and not just three of them with one missing!), we then can decide what to do: Either local storage of accurate images, no use of images, these or better “approximates”, or even convincing the Lisbon Subway to license these logos for some kind of accetable free use. For now, with hundreds of redlinks and misformatted articles, understandably everybody’s furious at what was done here, at what was done while stating that Commons «don't delete images for editorial reasons»: Well, it did. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not active on Commons this weekend. But it looks like that User:Marchjuly has answered the issue already. I can understand the frustration on wp.pt, but why wait until the DR was closed before acting? --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(I had to remove this from the archive.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maryly Van Leer Peck President.jpg

Would an admin mind taking a look at this DR and seeing if it can be closed? There's a non-free file of the same name uploaded to English Wikipedia (en:File:Maryly Van Leer Peck President.jpg) that's shadowing this file; if this file is kept, the non-free would either need to be deleted or renamed; if it's not kept, the shadowing problem will be resolved once this file has been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:   Done Gbawden (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

LR edit-filter has bugs

Can I know why archiving YouTube pages are tagged with infamous tag "License review by non-image-reviewers" ? My bot is just adding archive links. -- Eatcha (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Example: 1, 2, 3 and many others. -- Eatcha (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It's because the filter doesn't check the "review", it only checks the added template. Ahmadtalk 09:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Ahmad Is this a problem ? My bot is the worst user as per Special:AbuseLog. Can the filter be fixed if it's a problem ? -- Eatcha (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No, your bot has bugs. It replaces {{LicenseReview}} with {{YouTubeReview}} and adds archive link as the archive parameter of YouTubeReview (which BTW does not exist according to the documentation). So try to modify the bot to replace LicenseReview with empty YouTubeReview and add archive link in the proper place, i.e. as the second link in source parameter of {{Information}}, something like [http://web.archive.org/web/20190927204842/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySSQ9CeduAY archived source]. --jdx Re: 10:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A software bug is an error, flaw or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways w. My bot is doing what is needed to be done. The LR system is buggy, why do we still have more than 5 years old waiting for license review ? I added the review param in docs. FWIW : Flickr-reviewer is also saving archive links (since yesterday) in the template, please update docs if you have time. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
FlickreviewR 2 belongs to the "image reviewer" group, EatchaBot does not. So it's no wonder that AF warns when someone without proper rights messes with a licence review template, i.e. tries to add a parameter. BTW, why doesn't YouTubeReviewBot do this job? It has LR flag… --jdx Re: 11:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have access to YouTubeReviewBot's password anymore. If I rest it to create a new bot password then the original task's bot password will become invalid. -- Eatcha (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Some speedy deletes

Please this category Category:User:Roland zh created categories (to categorize more accurately) and all subcategories to be deleted per CFD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Amber Fort, media to categorize more accurately--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done Taivo (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Old files without a license review

We have a discussion on Commons talk:License review about what to do with old files that have not been reviewed formally. Both under the heading "Old files and broken links" and under "Category:Photographs by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force". We have talked about if we should make a template like {{Grandfathered old file}} to add on those files or if we should delete all old files.

We need some sort of concensus before we can make and add a template. When the template above was created it was after a discussion on this noticeboard. So that is why I bring it here.

Personally I suggest that we introduce such a template to add on old files uploaded by a user that seems to be one we can trust. So if it is uploaded by a newbie with less than 100 edits in total here on Commons (or Wikipedia) and if it seems unlikely that the website licensed the file free then we delete. But is it uploaded by someone with thousands of edits and uploads and it seems likely that the file could be licensed freely then we add a template with a good text about the situation. --MGA73 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of who we trust (INeverCry example?), if we draw a standard "old files" line at 3 years old, so that these should not be tagged/templated as needing a license review just because the links are dead, we then can say that even old files may be tagged as needing review if there are additional good reasons to doubt the license.
Even files 5+ years hosted, might be doubted due to the original source discovering that what they thought they had checked copyright for, turned out to be a mistake. We also have situations where copyright law itself changes, and even legally PD files later have retrospective copyright applied. --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes all files can be challenged. For example I may review a file of a statue because the description says the statue is located in a country with FOP. Later someone find out the description is incorrect and the statue is located in a country with no FOP. Also a file on Flickr can have a good license but later we find out it’s a Flickr wash account. But requesting a license review on a file with a broken link makes no sense. In that case just start a DR and tell what the problem is. --MGA73 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I support the proposed template. As a side note, though INeverCry had plenty of problems, incorrectly reviewing files was not one of them; the files they LicenseReviewed are good. --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I had tried to fix this with Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/02#Acceptance of files from external sources without a license review. Maybe I should try adjusting it and give it another go. I could exclude bots (I don't really see the problem with bots, but it bothered BevinKacon) and make it very clear the proposed idea is only to add license "reviews", not to remove them if a user stops being trustworthy. (that would always have to be judged on a case-by-case basis) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I think it was a damn good try. Sad to see it fail. Perhaps we could start by discussing the files in Category:Photographs by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. There are a few thousand files there. I don't know how many was reviewed but someone can probably easily make some queries and find out.
I'm afraid we can't review the files now. So all the files that are not reviewed have a problem unless we trust that the uploader did a good job. Perhaps someone can make some queries and find out who uploaded the files. I think that @Fæ: uploaded a lot of them.
If hundreds of files from that source was licensed freely I find likely that other photos was also licensed freely.
If we can find a good solution for those files it could perhaps be an inspiration for other files. --MGA73 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: User:Alexis Jazz/Proposal incubator#Acceptance of files from external sources without a license review, I'll copy this to COM:VPP if no major holes are found. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I made a few comments to meet the arguments of the "oppose" votes. --MGA73 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Restore File:Georgii Tushkan.jpg

I uploaded a photo of the Russian novelist Georgii Tushkan. It was deleted because it was not certain it was in the public domain. I wish to restore is with the PD-Russia template. This photo of Tushkan was taken in the 1940s, making it public domain in Russia. Kurzon (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

COM:UDR is a more appropriate forum for undeletion requests. Feel free to make your request there. Abzeronow (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  Not done. For Russian photos, 70 years must be passed not from photo creation, but from publication. You must give evidence, that the photo was published more than 70 years ago, when creating an undeletion request in COM:UDR. Taivo (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fonts of japanese kanji, which are not acurately depicted on @cs.wikt, but fine on @en.wikt

For example, it is hanzi 与 in chinese (mandarin) versus kanjiin japanese. Can someone help with this problem? (causes desinformation for readers) Thank you in advance. --Kusurija (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Easy move can be done only by an admin

Please can you fulfill this easy task: User_talk:Auntof6#Request--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1:   Done Strakhov (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Upload of copyrighted work

User:GattoCeliaco has uploaded a lot of copyrighted work, and licensed it as {{Own work}}. Someone should review the users contributions on Wikimedia Commons. - Premeditated (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, Premeditated? A lot of it appears to be old artwork and even though it is mislicensed if so it would fall under COM:PD-Art. It is also generally accepted that you notify GattoCeliaco if you open a thread about them on an administrative noticeboard. --Majora (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: Well, I'm not an art expert. But multiple different files that has been upload is of an artist that is still alive (like W:Nicola Verlato - File:Nicola Verlato.jpg, W:Odd Nerdrum - File:Odd Nerdrum painting.jpg, among others) and can't be {{PD-art}}, and will need COM:OTRS. But I highly doubt that the user has permission. There is no source to where the images has been taken from. The user has also been recently blocked on W:itwiki for copyright infringement two times.[6] By letting the user continue with this behaviour, could make it look like it's accepted. - Premeditated (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The account has not been used for very long and has uploaded only a few files. Premeditated as you have concerns, it would be a good move to put one or two up for deletion, with the nomination explaining the artist's death dates as you have. If the uploader wants to discuss them, they can do so in a deletion request. --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

So, I have put my time through it (with my minimal art expertise). Here are a list of files that definitely can be deleted. That is over half of the users upload. Other files might need some detective work to figure out. But if this is acceptable on Wikimedia Commons I'm not gone push this any further.

- Premeditated (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Premeditated: Images have been sent to DR. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GattoCeliaco. For future reference you can activate the ability to do bulk DR nominations by going to your gadgets and activating "VisualFileChange". This will produce a new link on the side bar that says "Perform batch task" which will allow you to quickly nominate many images uploaded by the same person at once with a similar deletion rationale. It is preferable when doing many images at once from the same person to use this method. If you have any questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Rename request: Category Gazeta de Caracas files

MOVED TO:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request, as the uploader of the files, the move of all the files in Category:Gazeta de Caracas. The request consists in changing the format from "Gazeta de Caracas [date]" to "[date] Gazeta de Caracas" in order to have a chronological order and to make the search of the files easier. For example, the original title of "Gazeta de Caracas 13 de enero de 1809.pdf" to "13 de enero de 1809 Gazeta de Caracas.pdf"

The reason why I making this request in the noticeboard is because the category currently contains 86 files, and I think a centralized request would be better than requesting each one of them individually. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Courtesy revdel

Could someone revdel the first two file versions at File:Sunset Beach, Tarpon Springs, United States (Unsplash).jpg? The EXIF has been minimally trimmed on the file as a courtesy to the photographer, who has raised a DR asking for their name to be removed.

The photograph always was CC0, so does not legally require attribution to be maintained on Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
We also need to remove the first upload comment (log comment) as it has the photographer name in it. I thought that would happen in a revdel. --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I have now hidden the upload comment as well as part of the history, since that contained the name as well. There is a difference between revision deletion (which removes the whole revision from the visible history) and just hiding selected information (file content, summary, username). I usually opt to do the latter to preserve as much information as possible. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and sorting out this courtesy action. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox link to move to a revision link

Could someone swap the link to Faebot/Sandbox1 in the protected discussion Commons:Oversighters/Requests/1989 to a link to this revision?

Once this is done I can blank the sandbox and may reuse it. This would be in line with the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/User:Faebot/Sandbox1 as I understand it. @Srittau: FYI.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Lok Sabha MP images - GODL?

I need a confirmation from an administrator or a reviewer if images like File:Gautam Gambhir - LS MP.jpg come under Template:GODL-India or not. Posting the query here because there is a huge backlog on the Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India and I plan to upload more such photos if this one gets accepted. Bharatiya29 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bharatiya29: Review not passed because it's a recreation of File:Gautam Gambhir MP.jpg. Besides there's a confusion between Government work (which is generally hosted at the Press Information Bureau but not only) and Lok Sabha's work (which is the Parliament). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The previous image was deleted because of a request by its author. That doesn't imply that it was a copyvio. As far as confusion between the government and the Parliament is concerned, I think our best option is to clarify it through a mail to the Lok/Rajya Sabha Secretariat. Bharatiya29 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bharatiya29: Nobody has said it was a copyvio and "COM:CSD#G4, Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus" was correct. The irony regarding this file if that it was a copyvio too. Besides we are waiting Lok/Rajya Sabha Secretariat permission at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loksabha Secretary since their files, as noted by @Eatcha: , are not released under a valid license. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Bharatiya The person managing their Public relations team has no interest/knowledge in National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy Government of India. They are required to release almost everything they produce under Government Open Data License but when you email them about the issue they will reply "only for non-commercial use" and if you ask about Government Open Data License they will resent the same email for the second time. If you need an urgent reply add Wikipedia in the subject otherwise you may never get a reply as they don't give a damn about anybody. // Eatcha (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are listed under the Central departments list of the Open Government Data Platform. Hence their data should come under the GODL. Bharatiya29 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Pipe-separator

Hello. I request deleting local override MediaWiki:Pipe-separator. It's creating extraneous space for users viewing special pages in English. See phab:T234006 and phab:T222903#5852725. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done It doesn't seem to have an effect, but that's possibly a caching issue. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

add author for File:Commons-logo-en.svg

It was designed by Reidab. per Commons:Logo/Vote#Reidab_logo. But their name is not mentioned on the file page, not the best way for commons to treat a past contributor. // Eatcha (talk · contribs) 10:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done Taivo (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


Please suppress a file revision

Hello, I noticed that another user uploaded an image including their own personal information, and later blurred the image. However, the unblurred image is still available, it would be helpful if someone could suppress this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Curb_Safe_Charmer_conflict_screenshot.jpg&oldid=398661363 Adamw (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Easy request

{{To be categorised by year}} --> to be moved {{Unidentified year}}

Reason: harmonization and removing duplicate system "to be categorized". Same eg {{To be categorised by country}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done –Juliancolton | Talk 06:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this appropriate language for a user (an admin) to use?

I would be grateful for someone to look at this page. Apart from implying I'm a moron, User Rodhullandemu threatens to block me. Charles (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification? Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe the ping did it’s job. 1989 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Making indirect personal attacks is not the appropriate language for anyone to use. Whether that was the intention or not (and they said it isn’t), it was definitely an unnecessary thing to say. As for the block comment, I assume he meant it in a general sense—meaning he isn’t directing it at you. If he was, please explain how. 1989 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Perfetly common and acceptable idiom. He did not imply you are a moron. He did not threaten to block you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your contribution Andy Mabbett, but I think you may have misread what was written. Rodhullandemu wrote: I am not going to respond to personal attacks except by blocking those who make them can only imply that I made a personal attack and that he is threatening to block me. Charles (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • There is a time to pick up sticks, and there is a time to drop sticks. I suggest the latter has arrived, lest I take issue with you using Commons to publicise your own commercial interests. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • He said he would block those who make personal attacks. If that applies to you, consider yourself duly warned, and don't make personal attacks again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • What you said in regards to mentioning their en.wp ban out of nowhere could be somewhat of a personal attack. I’m confused as to why you felt the need to say it wasn’t used on English Wikipedia before that, as usage was not part of the discussion. If it was intended to later pour salt on their wound, then both you and Rodhullandemu are in the wrong, like AFBorchert said. 1989 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Andy's comment above. I didn't see any evidence of personal attack and where you were called a moron. This is likely to be a language issue as most of us here are not native speakers of English language. Regards. T CellsTalk 10:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Expressions like “to make it clear to even the most moronic moron” are inappropriate at Commons and in particular in the course of a VIC discussion. Likewise is it inappropriate to import conflicts from other projects by refering to sanctions elsewhere. Please remember that if you think that a comment is inappropriate it is best to discuss this first in friendly terms on each others talk pages before common project space is turned into a battleground and before this is raised on this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Was my user account deleted?

I've created one Wikipedia article and submitted a couple photos to Wikimedia, yet my user account seems deprecated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Timlash

However, it doesn't seem to show up on the deletion log either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=User%3ATimlash&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=

Any idea how this happened and how I should best proceed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlash (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I cannot answer what is going on with your account, however, please note that English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are two related and connected, but separate projects. Perhaps you are looking for this? Special:Contributions/Timlash (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Timlash)? Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Timlash: Your account was never suspended here at Commons or at the English Wikipedia (en:wp). None of your contributions were deleted at Commons. Please contact an admin at en:wp or one of en:wp administrative boards if you want to have checked your deleted contributions at en:wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

With regards to English Wikipedia, the only item deleted was a draft article, which had been deleted by another admin as a copyvio. Otherwise, nothing else has been deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 11:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal approved

this proposal (Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2020/01#Specifying_categorizing_by_file_format) is approved. Related admins: user:Themightyquill, user:~riley, User:GreenMeansGo. So please improve this: Commons:Categories and after that massive upmerging can be started--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Riley: what do you mean? No objections is stated, hence automatically approved after 30 days?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge to pictures but use Infos from second

Hello Admins, I hope this is the right place for this request. I found two near identical pictures from the same flickr source. File:193 802-6 (Flickr 11480812745).jpg and File:Emmerich Vectron 193 802-6 Taurus 1216 954 WLB (11480812745).jpg. The first one was tilted a bit, the second one has the better categories. I'm not sure how to string both together. Can somebody help? -- DoomWarrior (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending DR requests

Hello! From January, we have some pending OTRS-related DRs (see my edits). I know that there is a big backlog, but I kindly ask you to check them and leave your comments there. Thanks in advance and please forgive me for this “advertising”, customers don't really like to wait (but they are polite, at least). Regards, Bencemac (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Bandera falsa (Fake flag)

Comprobé que los artículos sobre Burguete (un municipio de Navarra) en Wikipedia en muchos idiomas; por ejemplo Burguete en Wikipedia en español aparece como bandera del municipio, una bandera que no lo es, ni nunca lo ha sido (lo he comprobado en el propio Ayuntamieno), he preparado un archivo svg con la bandera auténtica
¿qué procedimiento puede seguirse para eliminar ese error?

I checked that the articles on 'Burguete' (a municipality in Navarra) on Wikipedia in many languages; for example Burguete in Wikipedia in Spanish it appears as a flag of the municipality, a flag that is not, nor has never been (I have checked it in Ayuntamieno itself), I have prepared a svg file with the authentic flag
What procedure can be followed to eliminate that error? JLVwiki (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A few more links would have been convenient:
If you upload the flag, categorise it properly, you can put it in the articles of the diverse projects. I don't think, a bot will do such content stuff. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@JLVwiki: you'll just need to upload the correct flag first, then go to the bottom of File:Bandera burguete.JPG, open each article, and replace the flag with the correct one.--Roy17 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@JLVwiki: --Roy17 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanksǃ ̪@Roy17: I have loaded the File:Bandera de Burguete.svg and replaced it on Burguete in Wikipedia in Spanish and in Wikidata; I will continue with the task. JLVwiki (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Castles in Kashmar

سلام لطفا صفحه را ایجاد کنید زیرا ارور میده نمیشه ایجاد کنم. ممنون — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwoo2022 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 March 2020‎ (UTC)

  Done. --Achim (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Aukh district.svg

The map would be a copy of this File:ДегӀастанан Ӏовхойн кӀошт.svg English translation. Please restore the map. --Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Russian version File:Ауховский район.svg. --Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  Done. The file is in scope, source "own work" exists. Restored. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Creation of Campaign:wlafrica-br

Hi guys, I need to create the Campaign:wlafrica-br

the code is:

{ "enabled": true, "display": { "headerLabel": "{{Upload campaign header Wiki Loves Africa/pt}}", "thanksLabel": "{{Upload campaign use Wiki Loves Africa/pt}}" }, "defaults": { "categories": [ "Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2020 in Brazil " ], "statements": [ { "propertyId": "P276", "dataType": "wikibase-entityid" } ] }, "autoAdd": { "wikitext": "{{Wiki Loves Africa 2020/pt}}\n[[Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2020 in Brazil sem checagem]]" }, "licensing": { "ownWorkDefault": "own", "ownWork": { "licenses": [ "cc-by-sa-4.0" ] } }, "tutorial": { "skip": true } } }

Thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 10:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess you would like to do it yourself.   Granted upwizcampeditors. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 11:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Tulsi Bhagat thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete MediaWiki:File-deleted-duplicate

See phab:T246879. Deletion of MediaWiki:File-deleted-duplicate resolves the issue. (tested on betacommons) Sadly no more links to the deletion log and COM:REFUND, but that's probably a feature request for Phabricator. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: That was a result of Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/07#UploadWizard isn't clear enough about re-uploading as the original message was not descriptive enough for some people. The resulting errors were mentioned in phab:T200173 which was never acted upon, or even assigned to anyone. --Majora (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete redirect

Commons:Village pump#Unofficial logos

Please instruct CommonsDelinker to replace File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg with File:Unofficial Windows logo variant - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg (or edit w:ja:利用者:市井の人 and w:ru:Участник:Qwertyadrian yourself if you can) and delete the redirect. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Problematic DR closure by Srittau

1

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Leiem: in the 25s-long File:Nanjing Rd., Shanghai (Oct. 2019).webm, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNg5N6hi1k is clearly audible starting at 0m14s and lasting 10s.--Roy17 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

2

Commons:Deletion requests/File:山森阿蘇神社..gif: I started the DR because I gave benefit of doubt to the uploader after he had been issued a final warning, but the uploader still failed to upload the original. The problems of this user's contribs can be seen in his upload log and ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/MaarPublishing. User:Srittau's assumption is baffling.--Roy17 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you ever tried to talk to them before bringing them here. It is my experience that people are often willing to listen if you calmly bring up a problem to them on their talk page with your rationales and reasonings. If their "assumption is baffling" you should given them an opportunity to explain themselves. You'd be amazed how often that works. We also have never really had a community discussion on what de minimis means for videos anyways. I have a quite strict interpretation of the DM rules. Others may not. Such things lead to uneven enforcement. --Majora (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: no, that does not work with User:Srittau. You may try browsing through his talk page archives, or AN or AN/U's archives, to find how many times Srittau made mistakes and refused to correct. To avoid any waste of time for anybody, any such problematic closure is reported straight to AN. If the matter is clear cut, it can be fixed straightaway by anybody; if it's not, further discussion can be had right here with more imput, better than talking to a wall.--Roy17 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I always listen to feedback, but I might not always agree with it. Unfortunately this is something you can not seem to accept. I also recommend reading the history of your "allegations" against me. Also Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Someone Great Cast Play Our Real Or Fake Cocktail Game - MTV Movies.webm. This is getting ridiculous. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: You keep mixing up "mistake" with "difference of opinion". I always correct mistakes. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
No, User:Srittau does not correct his mistakes. Problematic keeping is sent here, whereas problematic deletion is sent straight to UDR.
Some examples of Srittau never correcting his mistakes (he was pinged in each case, multiple times in some cases):
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fraser1956.jpg
  2. Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-02#Files_deleted_by_Srittau--Roy17 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
(Reinstating my close comment). Closing this here. The problem is obviously that Roy17 is having a personal problem with me for disagreeing with them on a few occasions, not with DRs in themselves. This is especially obvious since Roy17 always uses my username in the subject of those discussion topics instead of the DR that's being discussed. @Roy17: Consider this a second warning after the one in Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Someone Great Cast Play Our Real Or Fake Cocktail Game - MTV Movies.webm. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: Please note that this is ostensibly not a report about "my behaviour" as your revert message states (we are not on AN/U), which is exactly the problem. Roy17 claims to report a "problematic DR", but in reality tries to paint me in a bad light. And this underhanded psychological trick obviously worked with you. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing obviously worked on me. It is simply inappropriate for you to shut down a thread on yourself before any other comments besides you and the OP have been posted regarding the actual substance of the post. I would do the same for anyone trying to close a thread on themselves. It is inappropriate. Period. Let someone else do it. You are the very definition of involved and administrators should not close threads they are involved in. That is pretty standard regardless of project. --Majora (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
You are right, I am sorry. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The fastest and constructive way to end this thread is to correct the TWO mistakes (by anybody). There's no need to bring up anything else. Yet again Srittau tried to cover it up. The problems still stand as of now.
His uncooperative behaviour, including but not limited to the arbitrary use of sysop tools, is well illustrated here. And he has pretty awful judgement in closing DRs.
I just checked Commons:Deletion requests/2019/11 two days ago and felt assured as there were only three of mine remaining. Yet he managed to make mistakes in two that he closed. It's not the first time. And the aforementioned mistakes in the past were not corrected by him despite he was pinged several times every single time. (From my perspective, EITHER it was all poor judgement, OR he takes every opportunity to frustrate me.)
That is exactly the reason I send the problems straight to a public forum (kept ones here and deletion to UDR). It saves my time, his time and the community's time. But of course the most time efficient solution is for Srittau to exercise better judgement and understand his capability, or if he cannot, stop dealing with DRs.
If User:Srittau agrees his behaviour should be investigated, I am more than happy to write down a list of his problematic DR closure on AN/U.--Roy17 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the decisions in both cases where acceptable. In other words, Srittau did not make any mistakes here. I think, too, the one audio part is de-minimis due to the noise. For the file 山森阿蘇神社.gif neither Google nor Tineye find other external uses. Yandex finds [7], but this must use the Commons image in background, because it links to the very recently renamed filename (very=seconds before research). — Speravir – 02:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Batholith: could you please share your thoughts? What do you think of User:MaarPublishing's  ?--Roy17 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Import Restore-a-lot

I made Restore-a-lot, a fork of Cat-a-lot. Please create MediaWiki:Gadget-Restore-a-lot.js with the contents from https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-Restore-a-lot.js&oldid=217194 (tested version) and add this line to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition: 

* Restore-a-lot[ResourceLoader|dependencies=mediawiki.util,jquery.ui|rights=delete]|Restore-a-lot.js|Cat-a-lot.css

under the "AuthorizedUsers" section.

Known limitations:

  • Only works at Special:DeletedContributions currently. (as such it also doesn't interfere with Cat-a-lot)
  • Only works with English UI. Add "?uselang=en" to the address in the address bar of your browser to change your language temporarily if you're not using English.
    Fixed --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't try anything other than selecting files to undelete, optionally selecting "Custom undeletion reason" (yeah, that actually works!) and finally "adding a category". NOTHING ELSE has been tested and probably just won't work. All unused Cat-a-lot functions have been hidden now.

The English UI thing could easily be fixed, but I'm a butcher. For anyone who does understand JS: instead of the <a> "title" attribute which includes " (page does not exist)", the content within the <a> tag should be used instead.

Happy restoring! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

While this is good process, I don’t think a half-baked script should be included in the Gadgets section, especially if not everything has been tested. 1989 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough: User talk:Alexis Jazz/Restore-a-lot.js. Please test it, for obvious reasons I can't test it here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Have you tired doing something with MediaWiki:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js instead of Cat-a-lot? 1989 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@1989: I actually didn't think of that.
Okay, I thought about it.
Not the best idea. You probably want to select all the files to undelete, then press a button and go get some thea or coffee. DelReqHandler doesn't allow selections. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Yes it does. 1989 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Wut.. the checkboxes don't appear until you hit "MASS process". Jesus. I never noticed that. Still, DelReqHandler acts rather dodgy too often imho. Last time I used MASS process it didn't create talk pages pages with "kept" and I often see admins who close DRs as "delete" but somehow the files don't get deleted. It's a strange tool. Anyway, I've been busy for many hours getting Restore-a-lot to work. It works now. If anyone feels like forking DelReqHandler, have fun. I need to eat and shit. Only so much time. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@1989: I thought about it some more. Your idea sort of made sense, but from a technical point of view, it would probably cause headaches. Delreqhandler can't select files that have been deleted. This could be changed, but that would result in delreqhandler possibly trying to delete files that have already been deleted. So instead, Restore-a-lot now supports deletion request pages and COM:UDR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please remove any code that are unused and change any namings from cat-a-lot to restore-a-lot (except those referring specifically to cat-a-lot) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Never mind, if it stays as a user script. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: I hope we can get it cleaned up enough so that it can be made into an actual gadget. But I really do need all the help I can get. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Disclosure for paid editing

After reading Commons:Deletion requests/File:Park aerial 2010.jpg I was alarmed to see an administrator using their authority to give warnings to a professional photographer that to contribute to Commons they must publicly disclose their contract status. @Pi.1415926535: for comment.

This is false. No contributor should ever be misled in this way.

Could all administrators please keep in mind Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy which explicitly states that disclosure is not required on Wikimedia Commons.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass delete redirects

Hi, Just wondering - Is there a way redirects can be mass deleted or would these need to be deleted manually ?,
For instance if I were to list them here in list format could they all be deleted in one go?
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I have my ways. Wassup? 1989 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey 1989, I was wondering if the linked links could all be deleted as they're all redirects - The DSCN ones were original upload filenames and temp were temporary file names incase other files were better (took multiple images of same vehicle on same day),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: delreqhandler can do this when using the MASS process function. (deleting individual redirects doesn't work with delreqhandler though as it'll delete the file instead) I've removed your list, I'll put it on a user page in a second. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh actually.. Commons:Deletion requests/Davey's redirects - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Alexis Jazz, Ahhh I think that script/tool was mentioned to me before ? dunno, Anyway many thanks for doing that I appreciate that, Thanks, `–Davey2010Talk 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow!, Genuinely never thought of DR, I'll check the files just in case, Many thanks again Alexis for your help here it's greatly greatly appreciated :), –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Help:Gadget-DelReqHandler is only for admins. And for me (I may or may not have blackmailed people to get it), but I still can't actually delete anything with it here. Either way, I wonder why you didn't just suppress the redirects? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
LOL love it! :), To be honest I've never paid much attention to the box or what's there, I simply moved the files without really paying attention to the writing if that makes sense, Anyway thanks Alexis for kindly doing the DR and thanks 1989 for doing the deletions! :), –Davey2010Talk 17:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@1989 and Davey2010: I'm not too sure anymore it was just redirects. I should have checked every single link. It appears you sometimes moved a file and then uploaded something new over it. I'm checking everything now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
No wait, now I see, double move: [8] [9]
I'll check everything anyway. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, I've checked all redirects and only one was a file (which I removed from the DR), It's all completely confusing but basically files were moved everywhere either within categories or as filenames but the files should still be here, I know a few bad quality files were speedy deleted so that's what you might of come across ? (I believe Riley deleted those tho?),
I've gone through my move log and all "moved froms" are deleted and all "moved to"s are here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: oh, alright, a bit messy but that's how we like it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Lol just a bit   –Davey2010Talk 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

From the archive: proposal "Specifying categorizing by file format"

Sorry, but again this one: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_78#Proposal_approved. No one gives me explanation, why this proposal wasn't successful. No objections were stated! Possible helpers: @~riley, Auntof6, Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, Crouch, Swale, Taivo, and GreenMeansGo: --Estopedist1 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no process where proposals are "automatically approved after 30 days". If you look above on the same page, there is a different proposal that is a month older than yours, with much broader support, and it also has not yet been closed or implemented. Your proposal has thus far gotten input from only one user, and so it does not yet represent a broad consensus for a change in site-wide policy, especially not one that may require the deletion of a large number of pages. It's also not clear from your proposal that it implements the changes you would actually like made. It's not clear that changing our language to say that these categories "are useful in only a few cases" necessarily directly translates to deleting something like Category:PNG flags by country and all 161 of it's sub-categories. It's also not clear that @Gone Postal: in their comment is actually supporting such a mass deletion. GMGtalk 12:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I was not suggesting mass deletion, but rather stating that we would need to move towards making the intersection categories no longer needed. For that tools that do intersection viewable need to be better integrated. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
If no one opposes to a proposal then it can probably be approved but maybe this is controversial enough not to be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale, Gone Postal, Themightyquill, and GreenMeansGo: so this proposal in question should explicitly say that in Commons we don't accept topical categories with JPG, PNG, WAV, OGG, FLAC, MP3, TIFF, WEBM, GIF etc. Or should explicitly say that we do accept only topical categories with SVG and in some extent PDF, DJVU and MIDI files? --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I am unsure what it should do. The thing is that I am unsure if I would support at this moment of time mass deletion of categories like that. Sometimes a person may search for a file that is at an intersection of a media type and specific category. For example, let's say I am preparing a presentation, I may be searching for an Ogg Audio file on a specific topic, and then I will need a PNG icon on that topic, and I will be very annoyed if there is just a flat topic category with no filtering mechanism. At the same time, I do understand that if I am just searching for information on the topic, I do not want to have to open 50 different categories for different file types. So it is imperfect either way. So, should you have added that to your proposal... I still don't know, but I would not support it if you were to add mass deletion there. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: user:Ainali already discovered that for this specific search described above by you, we have (source):
I just now realized that there is a property for file format on Wikidata so this can be captured through structured   data and soon easily queried for. So since the categories are not really needed for finding files of these types I now have no objections to the proposal from Themightyquill. Ainali (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: to me it is really funny if admins don't show zero-tolerance to categories like "JPG flags by country" or "PNG flags by country". But good luck with "TIFF flags by country", "TIF flags by country", "XCF flags by country", "PDF flags by country" etc and thousands and thousands subcategories as well :) Just in case I did {{Catsbyfiletype}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete oldest version of File:Curiosity's 1.8-Billion-Pixel Panorama.tif

Delete oldest version, it's just some crap I found on the internet. It act as a placeholder for the real file, which is huge. Chunked upload js doesn't support new file uploads. -- Eatcha (talk · contribs) 11:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Eatcha, regarding your “Chunked upload js doesn't support new file uploads”: Oh, it does! Read carefully in Help:Chunked upload#Creating a new file. — Speravir – 02:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User account blocked for inappropriate username was renamed

Hello, I've renamed MarketingNWC to Añangu. Could you please review the username, and lift the block if appropriate? Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand why we're going to the trouble of either blocking or requesting an unblock for a user that has never made any edits to any project at all. GMGtalk 13:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Because they might want to edit now? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I mean,   Done I guess. But probably could have been done regardless based on the fact that we probably shouldn't be blocking someone for a "company name" username 1) when they hadn't actually made any edits at all, and 2) on a project that actually does allow these usernames so long as they're verified. GMGtalk 13:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I think the default approach has been to do a preventative block - a case of better safe than sorry Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
That just seems like a lot of extra clicking in the age of SUL, when such users may actually have no intention of contributing to Commons at all, or even know it exists. I guess it's not a crisis or anything, but not exactly something I see as a useful way to spend my clicks. GMGtalk 14:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:IWM

For reasons that i cannot fathom, my request on this noticeboard on 14 February that the uncontroversial Commons:Deletion requests/Template:IWM be closed was archived without answer. Can someone please now attend to that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would have closed it, but it still has 198 transclusions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not asking that the template be deleted, yet; I'm asking that the disucssion be closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

All translcusions now removed; the template can be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 2020-03-11 21:14

Add category to file is locked (cascading)

Please add Category:Page Protection Padlock Redesign - All to File:Full-protection-shackle-block.svg, thank you. Thienhau2003 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Done. 07:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Disa uniflora00.jpg

Could an admin please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disa uniflora00.jpg in order to resolve the apparent - and blatant - copyright violation discssed there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not ask that a DR from February be closed ahead of all the other ones that have been waiting, Pigsonthewing. Twice in a row you have now jumped the line. It is not acceptable. If it was apparent and blatant as you so state then you should have used the {{Copyvio}} tag, not opened a DR. We will get to the backlog when we have a moment to do so. --Majora (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
What line? The reason I did not use the copyvio tag was that very time I did so one one of the uploader's other blatantly copyright-violating images, they reverted me. I raised that at VP, and on this (admin) noticeboard; nothing was done about that. And while we're at it, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aspalathus and Crotalaria illustrations from Flora of South Africa Marloth IMG 2181.jpg also needs to be closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_78&oldid=607538806"