Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 60

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thinking to fix a small typo, I tried to click the "[edit]" link next to the section heading. This led me to edit Template:Blocked itself, rather than the talk page I was on. I've never seen this behavior before. Anyone else? FWIW I'm using Monobook, if it makes a difference. Storkk (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I had forgotten to subst the template, and after doing so, the behavior has gone away, but I'm not sure how forgetting to subst the template should change the edit section link behavior. Is this just a noob error? Storkk (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the current behaviour makes sense to me. There's no actual section for {{Blocked}} to edit (except the transcluded) for a wikitext like: 
== Some irrelevant section headings ==
Some random comments... --User (talk)

{{blocked}}
--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand (like so many things, it's obvious once it's pointed out) that the heading comes with the template, so if it isn't substed there's no section in the source to edit... I'm still not really clear that it should lead to editing the template, but I guess there's no realistic alternative. Functionality-wise, best would probably be to edit the page itself, but I understand that could get hackish quickly. Storkk (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Image distorted.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T141739

Hi

I uploaded image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oshkosh_JLTV.jpg to commons last night.

The small page image is destorted by black lines that don't show when the image is enlarged.

Can you please advise?

Thanks. --Wolpat (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)--Wolpat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolpat (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The image was CMYK-colorcoded, that's good for print, but bad for screen. Now correct, though the colors looks a bit different. --Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Túrelio

--Wolpat (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Meepsheep

I noticed the discussion about his supposedly vandalizing en.wiki recently (w:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Clinton vandalism). I don't know if it's really him, but if it is, than that's a serious problem. This guy is a serious LTA vandal/sockmaster. One of the worst. @Krd: , @Trijnstel: , @Jameslwoodward: , @Elcobbola: , @Magog the Ogre: Pinging our checkusers, just so you're aware of this possible return of a dangerous LTA. Cu.wiki has material on him. Keep your eyes out for overwrites of images of political figures. The overwrites are hard to miss and are usually very disgusting. This may have been mentioned already on the CU-L, but I didn't think it would hurt to mention it here. I'd be surprised if it's really him, but better safe than sorry. It could be a copycat, which would still be a threat to Wikipedia and Commons. lNeverCry 07:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Block of User:PetarM

(Redacted) I've contacted WMF legal about this indecent. I'll be going to bed soon, and didn't want to leave anyone guessing. I take this as a serious issue and will follow with whatever WMF legal tells me to. I doubt they would respond until tomorrow morning at the earliest anyways (I live in Reno, only a few hours from WMF in San Francisco, so we're on the same time (2:00 AM right now). lNeverCry 09:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

INC, I don't know how long are you going to keep this indef block going but at least let PetarM use his talk page to make an unblock request or express his side of story. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 09:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I've returned talk privileges. I just wanted to make sure he knew the comments shouldn't be repeated and that the issue was serious.(Redacted) is a serious problem. lNeverCry 18:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12: You're an admin, so you can see the comment. I only rev-del'd it, and nobody has OS suppressed it. As for the indef block, that doesn't mean I intended to block the guy forever. An indef block is often just done to make sure there will be plenty of time to discuss the issue and come up with a resolution. It can be removed any time once the community or whatever admins are handling the issue feel that the blocked user understands that what they did was inappropriate and that they won't repeat it. lNeverCry 18:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something but his comment looked like your average internet "slang" which you find at your average forum. Of course we should not tolerate it but I fail to see why we should go through all the trouble of blocking him indef, contacting legal and make some unblock deal. A short block (1-2 weeks) would have done the trick. Natuur12 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A short block may be all that's needed. As I said, indef blocking is often just a way of giving enough time for discussion. As for the comments, (Redacted), and Commons isn't a place where this kind of behavior is taken lightly. Not while I'm here. As regards the indef block and report to legal, (Redacted) comments like this from LTA sockmasters like Wikinger, Grawp, Playtime is over, or Poetlister; I'm not used to seeing an editor in good standing make comments like this. lNeverCry 20:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: We both agree that such comments shouldn't be tolerated here. We merely disagree on how the situation should be handeled and that's fine. Me preferring another course doesn't make your actions wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be sensible for comments supporting any Commons administrator action to avoid legal language like "libel" and stick to language used in BP, such as 'disruptive editing', 'gratuitous vulgarity' or 'harassment' if targeted at other editors. The WMF terms of use include "Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation", so emailing the WMF is understandable if what was said was extreme and known to be false. If the words written were something hateful, then oversite should be asked to take a look; as they have not, then I suspect what was written is no worse than you can find in a Google search or in tabloid gossip and for that reason I suspect WMF legal will and should take no action.
There are more complex reasons for caution, but those are better to ponder and discuss away from any specific case. Oh, and to avoid doubt, I have no reason to question lNeverCry's decision to block, it's up to the blockee to explain themselves and whether they understand they were doing something wrong. --Fæ (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't see the text used but fail to see how there will "be plenty of time to discuss the issue and come up with a resolution" if the guy can't edit his talk page and you give no indication that you or anyone else is discussing this with him offwiki. INC, per your readmin request, I strongly advise you avoid getting involved in blocking users (blocking nearly always involves some degree of "drama") and stick to the areas you promised to work on when your adminship was restored. While Fae is correct that you should avoid legal language about specific users, you do that by sticking to uncontestable facts and consider how WP handles "Biography of Living Persons" issues -- negative statements about a living person require strong evidence and may be deleted by anyone if such evidence is not provided. It isn't up to you to determine truth or whether something is libellous, and the best approach is often to remove (revdel if needed) with the minimum of fuss. If PetarM has no history of such trouble, then a warning is probably sufficient. I caution admins about consulting BP as though that is a definitive list of reasons to block or words to use when blocking. It absolutely isn't and the most problematic item in that list is "harassment" which is BP states clearly is only for "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user". Long term users who are generally in good standing in the community absolutely do not qualify for that term or blocking reason. The terms harassment, intimidation, stalking and other similar words are criminal offences in many countries and accusing another user of such is defamatory and itself potentially libellous. They should be avoided. -- Colin (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I made no promises in my readmin not to block people, and I don't now and will not ever. I promised not to involve myself in situations that centered on Fae, Stemoc, or Russavia and to try to avoid drama (not always possible - sometimes you've got to stand up when you feel it's the right thing to do).(Redacted). Also, I gave him back talk privileges this morning. I removed them for a short time to be sure that the (Redacted) wasn't repeated. Perhaps that was being overly-cautious, but better safe than sorry. I feel my block was absolutely appropriate and I have no apologies to make whatsoever. PetarM needs to watch his words. Commons respects people and their right not to be attacked. This applies to famous people and regular Commons editors. My job as an admin is to uphold policy, and inappropriate comments are against policy. lNeverCry 22:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry, it's pretty clear from the comments here you judged this wrong. And you aren't listening to folk who are advising you to stop using words like libel and slander. Please go read the Wikipedia policy, which is good advice for cases like this. The only person who can claim libel on Wiki is the person begin libelled (or their legal representative). It is not for you to determine truth, reputation, intent, etc. Please stick to whether the statement about a person is negative and whether this is generally accepted as true by reliable sources. I suspect WMF will give you the same advice -- they don't get involved in content issues like this unless the person officially complains. So please, take my advice to avoid blocking people. If someone's upset you by what they wrote, ask another admin to handle it. Otherwise you creating drama (which you've done here by continuing to go on about gymnast and what Peter said) will eventually lead to people removing your Admin bit again. Stick to the stuff you are good at and people respect you for doing. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If people remove my admin bit for doing what I feel is right, than that's fine with me Colin. I'm not a coward who will put being an admin before standing up for what I feel is right. My conscience is much more important than that. In this case I didn't create any drama. I didn't use FPC as a moral judgment soapbox. (Redacted). The action of Petar M was inappropriate and deserved a block. I set it as indef because that means indeterminate: it could be a day or a week or any period of time the community deems fit. lNeverCry 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry nobody's suggesting to remove your admin bit this time, but remember you've only had your bit restored (repeatedly) because of all the good work you do with files, not because anyone thinks you are a wise head in terms of dealing with problem long-term-user actions: in fact you keep loosing your bit (or resigning for 10 minutes) when you are the problem user. I agree with you that FPC is about judging the pictures, not the (human) subject and that we should take unfounded negative comments about living persons very seriously. But before you play the martyr game with your admin bit for "doing what I feel is right" wrt "spurious accusation" you might want to do some self examination wrt the living person known as A.Savin, who you edit warred against in order to make "spurious accusations" about him. Nobody here disagrees that the comments (which I haven't seen) were wrong and deserved some criticism and possibly a short block. But everyone is critical of how you handled it. And as an admin, "how you handled it" is really all that matters. An indef block with no talk page access is not a bright move unless you intend it to be permanent. How was Petar supposed to appeal or apologise or demonstrate he understands what he did wrong and wouldn't do it again? Please, I'm giving you friendly advice: you enjoy being an admin and the community appreciates you as an admin, but know your strengths and know your weaknesses. Stay away from blocking long-term users. There are, in my experience, very very few admins with the competence and wisdom to do that well, so you're far from alone. -- Colin (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fae that WMF should take no action at this stage. And if I favor a 1 or 2 weeks block instead of an indef., I clearly support the blocking action (and the block summary in the block log) because there is no room here for the comment made by the blocked user. There is, for me, currently no more drama that, the drama that we will create, ourself. And to create a drama after the comment made by PetarM (is equal to defend the indefensible) is not far to encourage this kind of behavior, and this is clearly not appropriate. I trust INC being reasonable enough to decrease the block, as this is the first block of a long term useful user (and this may be an isolated error), or/and to unblock if there is a clear understanding coming from the blocked user. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • A warning and discussion would be enough; there is no good reason for an extended block. (Redacted). I've discussed the issue at my Slovene talk page; anyone can have a look at it and Google translate it. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't want the block to be extended. An assurance that the behavior won't happen again would be OK for me. Ask yourself when FPC became a moral judgement platform? lNeverCry 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't support the indef block. If I am an admin, I would see what PetarM said against the athlete. I agree with Fae that legal language should not be used, and Colin that indef block should be applied sparingly. I don't think an indef block would solve this. I am sure that PetarM said that (if true) because they are stressed, there's no need to assume bad faith considering their history. ★ Poké95 12:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've explained why I use indef blocks. It's indefinite. In English this means the term of the block is not defined. It could be kept in place for an hour or for a year. I use them to facilitate discussion and try to come to a resolution. Indefinite does not mean permanent. PetarM has now decided to accuse me of tool abuse rather than taking responsibility for his actions. Otherwise I probably would've unblocked when I came online this morning. lNeverCry 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that this block was massive overkill. Does PetarM have a history of making personal attacks? Was he contacted with concerns about his comments and given the opportunity to explain or retract them? Since none of this was discussed in the original post here, I'm guessing that the answer to both questions is "no". In which case, you've exercised some incredibly poor judgment here, INeverCry. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't make a spurious attack on anyone at an FPC. We're supposed to be judging pictures not people. I didn't intend the block to last any longer than it would take to resolve the issue and get assurance from the user that this wouldn't be repeated. I was only doing what I felt was right. I don't know Petar M, so I have nothing against him personally. My block was good IMHO. lNeverCry 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Nobody should need to be told that the edit PetarM made was not acceptable. It was wildly beyond the bounds of what we would consider acceptable. INC's block and handling of the situation, in light of PetarM's behaviour, is fine. Disgusted by Eleassar's rambling crap trying to justify PetarM's behaviour (above) too. Nick (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to justify this comment. I'm trying to explain where did it come from. It was a mistake and slanderous, but it was still done in good faith, not with the purpose to slander the athlete but to assess whether the image should be a FP. I agree though that it was inappropriate and that the FP is not the right venue to express moral judgements. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Psychonaut: I've "exercised some incredibly poor judgment here"? No I haven't. I always wonder why people attack the blocking admin so much. Is it maybe because they really don't have much to say in defense of the actions of the blocked user? lNeverCry 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I happen to think that your administrative work here is generally fine, and I don't think I've ever criticized you or any other admin for a block before. In this case, based on the information available to me, I think you made a mistake. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Granted that the revision-deleted comment was inappropriate, what disruptive behaviour do you think this block is preventing? Again, was his comment part of a pattern of abusive behaviour? Was he edit-warring to restore it after you or other users removed it? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
      • How do we know he isn't going to repeat that inappropriate comment or something like it? All I've asked of him is what we often ask of users who do something inappropriate, which is their acknowledgement that the behavior was problematic, and their assurance that it won't be repeated. That's it. I don't think that's unreasonable or unfair. lNeverCry 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but you're being completely disingenuous now. The majority of my participation here on Commons is nominating copyright-infringing images for deletion. You are often the administrator who ends up deleting these images, yet you don't usually indefinitely block the uploader, even if it isn't their first offence. Copyright infringement is just as illegal as libel—why are you giving all those infringers a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) chance while denying the same to PetarM? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
          • @Psychonaut: No, I'm not. You're apparently not reading the comments above. Firstly, I've blocked thousands of users for copyvios, and hundreds of those blocks are indef. Secondly, blocks for copyvio uploading are more systematic and set; 1 week, 1 month, etc. As I explain several times above, an indefinite block is not permanent. It literally means undefined. The indef block is a better choice because it facilitates discussion without any artificial deadline. If the issue is resolved in a day or two, the block can be removed without the editor having to serve out a set block when he or she is ready to edit constructively again. As for giving PetarM a chance, I've said many times already that all he has to do is take responsibility for his inappropriate action, assure the community he wont do it again, and I would support an unblock. I don't know why I have to repeat all this for you. Read what I've said first, then comment. lNeverCry 09:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. I just saw what INC wrote on PetarM's talk page this evening. I won't quote it, because, INC, if you think it libel worthy of a revdel and an indef block, then wft are you repeating it for? This just gets more incompetent by the hour. Let's just make Commons AN the #1 Google Hit for the topic shall we? And Nick, you seem to think "INC's block and handling of the situation..is fine" yet I do don't see any discussion on PetarM's talk page prior to the block, no AN/U to get community consensus for the block, a block of his talk page without evidence the talk page is being abused, and an indef block with no means or offer of communication. In the light of your criticism of me over Tuvalkin's block, should the H word be coming to my mind? -- Colin (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You may have missed the discussion elsewhere involving PetarM (link here) which makes this most unlike the Tuvalkin situation. I am glad that discussion has commenced (albeit ineptly) to try and resolve this situation and allow PetarM to be unblocked, since I don't like to see any productive users being blocked. Your approach Colin could really do with being toned down a few notches too, whilst you're undoubtedly well meaning, you're a bit too aggressive and argumentative to be truly helpful, please just calm down and consider tempering your criticism of INeverCry, which has been rather relentless of late. Nick (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I see that discussion, which didn't include INC, so my comment stands [And I note that since I don't speak Slovenian, I'm not going to make any comment on what's written there, I just checked the contribs]. I fail to see how someone forced to use another wiki for his appeal is supportive of INC's actions. Nick, your approach could really do with being less obviously biased. My criticism of INC is here quite justified and time will tell if I am right: if he follows my advice he may still be an admin next year. If he follows yours, and thinks he's been "fine", then he probably wont, and who would be being "helpful" then? And that would be a shame. At the start of this month we saw two admins edit war and one of them make repeated hostile negative comments against the other. Yet only the one who was unfairly attacked gets blocked with defamatory block reasons by, hmm, another biased admin. I'm not impressed. Really, the way to handle this whole affair would have been for INC to remove (revdel if necessary) the comment and warn PetarM that this was unacceptable and must not be repeated. End of story. Instead we get this mess, and where INC has contributed more to the volume of online accusations against this athlete than the blocked user did. As for "tempering" criticism, ha! coming from you talking to me, I feel the H word coming on again. I don't need lectures from you. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Colin, the initial block (indef with removing talk page access) is a standard practice when reporting to Support and Safety. But here it seems (from the comments of other admins) the action of PetarM is not serious enough for an action by the legal. So the talk page access is restored and he can make an unblock request (as happened now). So I think we can leave that part now as INC acted on good faith even though it was an overreaction.
PetarM chose to argue that the block is inappropriate which is against the opinion of most admins here. (Non admins like us can't say much as the act/comment was rev-deleted.) I'm personally against grating an unblock without "an acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated". Jee 03:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Jee, this isn't a WMF Legal/Support and Safety issue. No users have been threatened, or legal threats made against users, and the safety of nobody is in jeopardy. It's quite unprecedented AFAIK. Factually dubious and negative statements about public figures are made all the time at WP to the point where they have a policy en:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and it is worth mentioning that because Commons is an multimedia repository so its own policies don't cover these sorts of comments, which generally aren't made here. WMF cannot get involved in settling content disputes, including BLP. They are ethically and professionally not allowed to give specific legal advice other than to their client, which is WMF. The en:DMCA safe harbor rules mean they only get involved if the subject or their lawyers write them an official complaint to take down the offending content. Such matters are dealt with by the community and WP have a series of escalating warning templates to pop on user's talk pages before we get to blocking established users. So INC's threat to PetarM that he had "libelled" the athlete and would be reported to WMF legal is way overkill. INC's threat to other admins not to unblock until WMF Legal have replied is worrying as it gives the whole thing an air of some criminal offence having taken place, and is based on misconceptions about what WMF legal are here for. It is worth noting that until INC escalated this, there was one comment about this athletes drug use and an allegation this was unfair, which could have been removed with most of us never seeing it. In contrast, (Redacted) That's why I tried to advise INC that he's not here to establish truth and argue about the issue. It just makes the problem worse and ends up giving more air to the private hacked material and personal information we have no business discussing. -- Colin (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I too don't think this incident is serious enough to contact the WMF. I had asked it in the beginning. ("Does it severe enough to report to legal?") What I replied to you above is, if it was serious enough to report to WMF, then it is acceptable to indef (with revoked talk access). It is already found untrue and now we are allowed that user to request an unblock. I don't like that user use INC's over-reaction as a benefit to get unblocked. If he want to get unblocked, he need to accept his mistake. Jee 08:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we are all agreed that PetarM needs to acknowledge his mistake and not repeat. But since I don't read Slovenian and refuse to use Google Translate for such matters (having been the victim of it myself), I won't speculate whether he's helped or hindered his case since the block. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I may have said a few words that would be better substituted with less loaded ones. Chalk this up to specific inexperience. I rarely see this kind of behavior from anyone but LTA sockmasters. If Starship9000 did something this, I wouldn't be fazed; ditto for Beals, Grawp, Meepsheep, and other LTAs.

When I saw PetarM say what he did, it shocked me a bit. It was very unexpected, I can assure you. As regards my handling of it, I'll know next time (though I certainly hope not to see any next times) to be more low-key and smart about it. My actions have all come from the feeling that as an admin I owe it to the community to deal with the incidents I see when someone does something wrong like this. Do I do everything by the book and smoothly? No, and I think that should be seen as a good sign of my honesty by any intuitive person. The more calculated a person is in his actions, the less I trust that person. If I see someone act upset and flurried, I figure at least they're being real about it. I may sometimes be a bit overenthusiastic or overexcited in a situation like this, but I never do anything fake and gaming. I also don't act with fear. Any admin who's afraid of reactions on AN, or who carefully scripts their response is doing the community a disservice. Like I said, I know I'm not always right, but I'm always sincere.

As I've said, I didn't expect the block of PetarM to last very long at all. I figured he would take a short time to think it over, and would then take responsibility for his actions and put this distasteful incident behind him. Now his unblock request has been declined by a completely independent admin (someone I've rarely interacted with), so it's in the hands of the community. If PetarM says this was a mistake and won't be repeated, I support an unblock. lNeverCry 09:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it seems some lessons are being learned here. There's so much redacted on this page it probably make no sense to anyone coming here. I should point out my own text has been redacted not because I posted anything wrong, but don't object because I agree the less said about private aspects of a photo subject the better. I think it best if this section is closed and I don't even mind if deleted entirely (no need for revdel, but no deed for it to be visible to Google either). I hope BLP issues are handled better in future. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @lNeverCry Too many words proving absolutely nothing. It's ultimate time to discipline this admin. --178.221.149.79 02:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • A request for disciplining from a block evading Serbian IP. Who could it be on that /17? Not PetarM? Stop wasting your time and mine. If you read above, you'll see no support at all for these votes based on politics/personal details of the subject. You'll see plenty of people from other countries than the US expressing their disapproval. Move on. lNeverCry 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, today i get my "Freedom of speech" back. But i see this conversation is closed ? I would like some Administrator, perhaps lNeverCry who closed it, to open it. Since my time, i couldnt read all. I will make my statement here in a day or max. two. I will also ping all users here that day. --Mile (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Another identical vote

I've now blocked Smihael for making the same vote PetarM is blocked for. This guy is a Slovenian admin. What's up with this politically motivated focus on this FPC coming from Eastern Europeans? Are more votes like this coming? lNeverCry 22:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • And he repeated the same comment on his talk, so he has no talk right now. If you're an admin and crat on sl.wiki and you get blocked for making a politically motivated vote, why would your first action be to repeat the very same comment? lNeverCry 23:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For transparency reasons: A redacted comment in my defence has been made here by me using IP block evasion (bad idea). --Miha (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Truly excellent behavior from a crat, admin, and OTRS member. I certainly wouldn't trust Smihael with my OTRS info. And then we get IP block evasion to blame me just like good old PetarM did. Politically motivated voting on an FPC nomination is pathetic in the extreme. The claim can already be read in the associated articles. What does that have to do with the way an image looks? Does some weak political agenda somehow produce noise, CA, or distortion in a photograph? Smihael and PetarM need to find some maturity. This is really beneath you guys. lNeverCry 01:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@lNeverCry So, political correctness American way? Pathetic, indeed!--178.221.149.79 02:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

FPC is for judging images to see if they qualify to be featured. It's not a place for political agendas, and especially not a place for disputed claims about living people. That kind of material is addressed on wikis in articles with proper sourcing. lNeverCry 02:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I commented in the talk page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • You failed to mention the IP block evasion committed by both of these individuals. It seems a bit fishy to me that this gets discussed in Slovenian and suddenly a Slovenian admin shows up to repeat PetarM's vote at the FPC and then directly afterward at his talkpage. Both have IP socked here unless it was some other people using a Slovenian IP and a Serbian IP. I'm not going to roll over for abusive behavior like this. People blame the admin when they know they're behavior isn't defensible. It's a common ploy by trouble makers. I'm saddened to see it done by two admins from sister projects. These guys need to stop with the trolling vote at FPC and drop the stick. I would remind anyone reading this that one of the users, PetarM has had his unblock request denied by a completely uninvolved admin. I would also point out that Smihael made the identical vote, was blocked for it, and then repeated the exact comments on his talk. He's an admin. He should know better than to behave that way. These guys need to earn an unblock, not be gifted one that's undeserved. lNeverCry 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't support the indefinite block. I do not see what is the reason for block, overstatement. lNeverCry is wrong, Petar and Miha is good users, and many years contribution on Wikipedia - Wikimedia projects.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Blaming the blocking admin is usually the weakest argument against a block. This is the case here. I agree that PetarM and Miha are good editors. They messed up in this case though. Hopefully we can get this resolved soon and move on. lNeverCry 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • About PetarM. Seriously, I fail to understanding that we do not have the courtesy to at least set the length of a block for a useful and productive contributor (see this), of which this is the first flagrant foul, and even who have never been warned for anything (as far I know). To not define a lenght for the block is a balance of power that I do not appreciate ("or you admit your wrongs or you get stuck"). I could understand that if he was blocked several times for the same issue, or I could understand a declined unblock request for a definite block (e.g. 1 or 2 weeks). However I don't appraciate this balance of power for a first block without warning. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What if I do a two week block and the blocked user makes a good unblock request in a day or two? Should they stay blocked the rest of the two weeks? Please understand that in English the word indefinite literally means that the duration of the block isn't definite. It can be a day, a week, or 3 years. As for requiring a blocked user to come to an understanding of what they did wrong and an assurance that they won't repeat the behavior, that's a fair deal if you ask me. I personally wish this hadn't happened. @Christian Ferrer: Take a look at this comment by the FPC nominator: [2]. I have a hard time feeling bad for disruptive individuals when innocent editors are needlessly hurt by their behavior. lNeverCry 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Of course I agree the comment was not appropriate as regard to the athlete, the photographer, and the nominator, and even not at all. But IMO the thing to do was : to remove of the content (as you did), and give explanations at the user talk page, with a warning for not to do it again.
If he did it again, after being warned, so a block of 1 or 2 weeks maximum would have been welcome
You blocked direclty, well ok, honestly I can live with that, but at least with a duration. Because in the spirit of some user an "indef block" can be felt as a block "for ever", therefore something very unfair, and in the life when you live something unfair, it's hard to take the good decision, in any cases this don't help. You can argue that the user have been asked, and now is aware, to give an assurance of understanding for to be unblocked, but it's exactly that I feel as a wrong balance of power, it is for me a bit as "you confess your sin or you get stuck for eternity". And this may contribute to a tougher stance of the user. Seriously, and what if he say nothing? he stay blocked for ever? this can not make him want to recognize his fault. We must assume good faith for valuable contributors who make their first mistake, everyone can make can make mistakes and errors, and yes, we, administrators, have the duty to live sometimes with no assurance they won't repeat the behavior. At least we have the duty to let them a true second chance (even a third!) they will not repeat the behavior, even if we don't have any assurance. This is exactly AGF. What I suggest?
As it is the first block, I suggest a 1 week block (he is already blocked since several days)
As soon if he give an understanding of what they did wrong and an assurance that they won't repeat the behavior : you unblock him
If he say nothing the block go to it's end, that's all
If he repeat the behavior, he get another blocked with a proportional and reasonable duration (from 1 week we go to 2 weeks)
If he repeat a third, or a fourth time the same behavor, ok for an indef block

Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That wouldn't be quite fair to PetarM who's unblock request was declined by an uninvolved admin. It would mean that they were being treated differently for the same problematic behavior. All I've asked of either of them is to assure us that the behavior won't be repeated. I would unblock them immediately with that simple and easy statement. I can't agree with your suggested approach of just unblocking them and hoping they don't repeat the behavior. This user already repeated the comment once. I would also say that I hope to be able to unblock them tonight or tomorrow and not in a week. I'll end by pointing out that you and I are discussing this while the very people blocked for problematic behavior are hardly saying anything. They're admins on sister projects. These are people who should be setting an example for others. Instead they start drama, evade blocks with IPs, and then won't take responsibility for their behavior. Is it really asking so much to get a simple assurance that the behavior won't be repeated? I didn't see your response to the comment at the FPC by the nominator either Christian. Doesn't he at least deserve to not have to worry about this problematic behavior being repeated? As for the block length, I think you're being a bit rigid about setting a time. Sometimes setting arbitrary block lengths leads to someone staying blocked longer than needed. I want to avoid that here. I really don't understand how it would make sense to just unblock them and hope they don't do anything else and if they do block them again and again and again. People need to own their actions, especially people who hold positions of trust like admin and even bureaucrat in this case! I continue to  Oppose the unblock as I've stated. That lies in the hands of Smihael. lNeverCry 04:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: The uninvolved admin who declined the unblock request asked to reduce the block, as per this discussion, if you read his rationale. And it is exactly what I ask for, therefore don't say this is unfair as regard to this administrator. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All I've asked for is an assurance from both editors that the inappropriate behavior won't be repeated. That's it. I think that's very reasonable. I don't know why you're here relentlessly hammering at me on this. I've made my position clear, I have nothing more to say. It's time for PetarM and to Smihael to step up and take responsibility for their actions. If you want to override my blocks and remove them without my agreement, that's your choice Christian, but I'm not backing down no matter how much you hassle me about this. I just wish you'd support a fellow admin instead of advocating for blocked users who pretty much everyone agrees made inappropriate comments that shouldn't be repeated. lNeverCry 04:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • So, if we follow your reasoning at its end, if they don't say nothing, at least not what you ask for, they stay blocked? for ever? for their first fault? indeed I clearly do not support that "fellow admin" position. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • They haven't even been blocked for more than a couple days, and you're talking about forever? Let's see what they do over the next day or two. Let's have some confidence in their judgment. If they didn't say anything for a long time, what would that show about their respect for Commons and the community? That wouldn't reflect that well on them. It would say to me that they didn't value editing at Commons very much. lNeverCry 05:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer: Now Miha is unblocked. I'm quite glad. I was much happier to unblock him then I was to block him. The same goes for PetarM. I really hope we can get him unblocked some time in the next 24 hours. As long as the comments/vote aren't repeated, the agreement can be stated to any other admin here, and I wouldn't object to unblocking (while I'm snoring loudly here in Reno). When he edited here with an IP, I did a rangeblock that may be stopping him from editing ( I don't remember if I made it hard, though I don't think so - either way, I'll remove that IP block now). If I wake up and he's unblocked, I'll be glad to be done with this unpleasant experience. I can assure you I'm much happier doing deletions and catching spambots. lNeverCry 08:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think, if we don't hear from PetarM, we should unblock after the FPC nomination closes, with the understanding that any similar repeat of this behaviour will be result in a new block (for a set period of time). Nick (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I am glad that the case was closed in a friendly manner. See resolution here. I hope that the same agreement can be achieved soon with PetarM as he truly is a valuable contributor with many featured pictures here and on sl and sr wikis and without history of problems. If he does not reply, I agree with Nick to enable Petar further contributions. I am looking forward to constructive work with you, --Miha (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:INeverCry I don't understand your argument. You say "What if I do a two week block and the blocked user makes a good unblock request in a day or two? Should they stay blocked the rest of the two weeks?" Well, no. A two week block can also be shortened. You seem to be under the impression that only an indefinite block can be ended with an unblock request and that other blocks must stay for their duration incontestable and unappealable. Surely your argument that he should stay blocked until he admits what he did wrong and promises not to repeat it extends for most blockworthy behaviour? So you seem to be arguing against brief blocks entirely. It is quite possible that e.g. a one week block would be enough to make Petar think twice before ever commenting like that again on Commons even if he's not got the attitude to prostrate himself before you right now and ask forgiveness. This happens - people get defensive and refuse to budge, but the block still has an effect. And also the community effect of saying this community does not put up with that behaviour, even if the user is unrepentant or unlikely to mend their ways. I think that like Petar, you've dug yourself in a hole where neither of you are willing to back down. Fortunately Nick has offered a way out, so I hope that will be the end of this. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My 1 month block for tool abuse last year piled on top of a de-sysop that took a week, and which was then allowed to go to the last day with no discussion from the blocking admin Pitke and no unblock, maybe made me a bit wary of "short" blocks. They seem arbitrary to me, and people are less likely to want to discuss and do a quicker unblock of a two-week block than an indef one. Indef has to be discussed or it lasts forever. There's no leaving an indef block to rot away in a corner for however long. Does that make sense? I don't know. It might not, but I think the idea has some merit. Or maybe it's just too late at night (it's 2:38AM here in Reno).

Anyways, I agree with Nick's proposal, and I'm glad he made it. That's why I came here. I know I'm off a bit like anybody sometimes, or that I may react sincerely but still be over-reacting. I don't deal with these kinds of blocks often at all. I'm used to socks and spambots. I intend to take your advice and stay away from this kind of thing as much as is humanly possible in future. I'm a cleanup admin and dispute resolution is obviously not my strong suit in the least. lNeverCry 09:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Info The nomination has been closed. Jee 04:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll leave the unblock to @Nick: and @Josve05a: . After seeing PetarM's latest comment at his talk here, I'm not impressed. He nonchalantly disregards the unblocking process and calmly confirms that he evaded his block with the IP here. But it's his future behavior that matters, so he deserves a chance to move on from this and contribute constructively. lNeverCry 07:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • He's now put up a proper unblock request acknowledging his error and assuring it won't happen again. I think it only right to unblock him myself since he's done what I asked for. Hopefully this will be the end of this drama. lNeverCry 08:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Administrator errors

User:Steinsplitter Reverted my useful edits in templates and warned me of andalizm I have not done (See here).Please act --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits such as this (changing the license reviewer logo) and this (removing the english description) are just the tip of the iceberg. Needless to say that the user has a long history of vandalism-like edits. The user vandalized (likely hundreds) of files such as File:Nukkelimiitti, Desucon Frostbite 2014 - 07.jpg, File:Nukkelimiitti, Desucon Frostbite 2014 - 12.jpg and File:Cholita wrestling5 boliviaJoel Alvarez.jpg (and there are x-more!) by rotating them. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Old AN/V Case: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_7#.D8.AF.D9.8A.D9.81.D9.8A.D8.AF_.D8.B9.D8.A7.D8.AF.D9.84_.D9.88.D9.87.D8.A8.D8.A9_.D8.AE.D9.84.D9.8A.D9.84_2 --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter:
  1. File:Wikidata-logo-ar.png:I saw a wrong text
  2. I stopped rotation
  3. The first logo is not appropriate
  4. what do you mean by "is a standard in the WWW"? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I've had a brief look at a couple of the template changes and one of the rotated images. The template changes are the sort of thing that seem slightly arbitrary, so if reverted should be discussed. In the case of the image rotations, I think these are unwise, but I can understand why someone wants to align an image vertically. I have cropped the example I looked at and the end result is more useful than the original. If there are thousands of these sorts of changes then that's a problem. ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل is established, so should be more used to the project norms. I have yet to see critical evidence that would demonstrate vandalism, but as there are lots of dubious changes and some to well used templates, it has become disruptive and ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل needs to take that onboard and engage in discussion especially if they intend to make mass changes that may prove controversial.
Steinsplitter's reverts seem okay to me so far, it's a question of revert then discuss to avoid future contention; but the Administrators' noticeboard is not the right place as no action is needed for that to happen. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 Comment@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Please read.
His rotations violate Com:OVERWRITE (IMHO that is). The removing of descriptions could have resulted in a block, so does changing the logo w/o any comment or discussion. Stating Accurate logo is a joke. Does it mean we all didn't notice the wrong logo for years and are somewhat stupid? Before anymore rotations are made by this user, I strongly suggest a discussion, otherwise administrators may/will be tempted to block as this his mass rotations are clearly disruptive. David, please refrain from rotating without discussion and don't remove descriptions or change logos in templates. IMHO David (ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2) is not a bad guy but acts a lot before thinking. AGF required ;-).
Summary: No wrongdoing by Steinsplitter. Actually there could been have a short block which would have been within guidelines. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The rotations were problematic not just for violating OVERWRITE, but that they reduced the usability of the images for other projects... such an image becomes quite distracting in almost any context. Reventtalk 08:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed — and User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 was repeatedly warned against such rotations. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

canadian user uploading us pronunciations

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:K6ka This user is uploading en-us sound files ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=K6ka&searchToken=ckp7ws6chq6j4bzt9mkupdlnq ) despite the fact that he's canadian. I don't think this is right. Canadians have different pronunciations of words. Here is a map of the different NA dialect via map. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/North_American_English_dialect_regions.jpg I think something should be done about this. At the very least he should of uploaded them with en-ca-community.ogg or something like that. Rezfan83 (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I listened to quite a few of these, and they sound like US pronunciation to me. Just because the user is Canadian doesn't mean he doesn't know US pronunciation. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of the vowels are different. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151861837052908&id=124536002907 Labov made that map of the NA map who is a highly regarded lingustic. Shouldn't wikimedia be shooting for accuracy? Rezfan83 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Rez. We should be trying to be accurate as possible. Not because someone think it sounds similar. Many canadian files names are en-ca-inssertwordhere.ogg The user shouldn't be uploading sound files and passing them off as US pronunciation. Mikekdaniels (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is now more discussed at Commons:Village_pump#canadian_user_uploading_us_pronunciations. Please keep the discussion of the same issue in one thread --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion

Since I am involved, I would like another opinion on Winkelvi's actions on File:Mike_Pence_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg. I understand that Gage's opinion doesn't get undue weight just for being the creator, but don't believe the colors are better, and I do believe that this violates COM:OVERWRITE. Storkk (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The photo as submitted by the photographer gives an unnatural, too-red skin tone for Pence (look at other photog's images of him: he's very light-skinned and pale, really). Additionally, the shadowing around his eyes is too dark. With the version I uploaded, these things have been corrected, improving the photo and, therefore, the reader's visual of the image/article subject. Winkelvi (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not what exact color Pence's skin had under bright lights when the photo was taken (the answer to which I'd probably credit Gage's White Balance before your bald assertion), but rather your repeated reversions and refusal to upload under a new name, despite it being a contested change. Storkk (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, look at countless images of Pence (including those taken by Skidmore) to see his actual skin tone. The change I made is closer to his true skin color/tone/lack of darker pigmentation. Winkelvi (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I can make this clearer, but the issue is not his skin tone. Storkk (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Please read COM:UPLOADWAR, particularly the second paragraph, and upload your version under a different filename before we have to 'make' you stop. Reventtalk 14:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, you appear to be taking a Wikipedia mindset (one doesn't WP:OWN an article) onto Commons. It doesn't apply. That image is copyright Gage Skidmore and is his creative choice wrt colours, though I do think he has more weight than any of us wrt what colour the man's skin actually was then (perhaps he was flushed at the time). He can upload an image of Mike Pence with green skin for all we care. If you think the WP article is better illustrated with a pale skinned version then, as everyone here says, you need to upload a new file, and CC licence requires you to document what changes you made as it is no longer solely Gage Skidmore's work and should not be misrepresented as such. Unlike Wikipedia, Commons is not a collaborative exercise in modifying content (images), but a repository of people's work. Some people appreciate help to fix problems with their images, but it is polite to ask, and remember always they are their images. A free licence does not make it your image. -- Colin (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to explain rather than threaten and shout policy. I agree with everything you've said up to a photographer still being able to claim an image as theirs once it's uploaded here. They no longer have a right to insist negatively or complain about modifications once they release that image. That's how Commons licensing works. If they wanted all or some rights reserved when it comes to modifications, Wikimedia projects are not the place to upload. Winkelvi (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You're correct about the license, but that ability to make modifications doesn't meant that you can edit war about what image appears at a 'particular' filename. If someone (the author, or anyone else) objects to a change to a file, you need to simply upload your version under a separate filename, so that other projects can themselves decide which version they prefer to use. You can't just try to 'win' by continually reverting without discussion, here or on any other project. Reventtalk 15:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
(EC) No it isn't how the licensing works. This image is still absolutely Copyright Gage Skidmore. And if the licence terms are not met when using/adapting it, then it reverts to all rights reserved. See the CC BY-SA 3.0. You are permitted to create a derivative work or "adaptation" as the licence calls it. But then you must "clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work" and list all contributing authors. And while the original creator can't prevent you creating a new work that is different, if they think the change is really awful (much more than the change here) then they can actually insist their name is taken off the attribution for this new work. But this is separate issue from whether you can simply overwrite the image on Commons. To do so, it really has to be essentially the same image with very minor changes and uncontested. While on Wikipedia, we tend to improve articles in-place without forking to create one's own version, on Commons it is often necessary to create a separate file. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the edit button used to warn users that unless they were happy to have their text mercilessly edited, they should not upload. Commons is not such a project and licensing does not permit you to change my work or Gage's work, only to create other works based on it. This is true ethically also for works placed or that fall into public domain. -- Colin (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It is well documented at Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Respect_content_creators. Its an an official guideline; no need to discuss every now and then. Respect content creators. Jee 16:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Cue the hair splitting by kibbutzniks. <eye roll> Winkelvi (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Name-calling and snark are ill-advised for someone whose userpage appears to request special consideration for what they write, and for someone who has started and exacerbated the "unwanted drama and stress" that they purport to deplore. Storkk (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi I agree with you that your edit is an improvement of the picture regarding crop, color, brightness. In short it adds value. But I also agree with the others editors here that the correct procedure is to upload your derivative version, which is allowed under the license, yes, to another file name, and refer back to the original with e.g. {{Derived from}}. It fill the same space on the servers, it makes it unambiguous to indicate which original the photo is derived from by a wikilink, it avoids conflicts on Commons a gives re-users an option to use whatever version they prefer. If you want to change the picture used in, e.g., a Wikipedia article it is also easier to see the difference as a page watcher, as you need to edit the file name and enter an edit summary, like "Improved the picture". If you overwrite an existing file page you change things behind the scenes without that being visible as a change on the wiki pages which use the file. This can be perceived as deceitful by some editors and lead to conflict even when that is not the objective. Best wishes, and I hope my attempt at a further explanation can dampen further eye rolling. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration and explanation, Slaunger. The other editor who added nasty rudeness above your comments? Not really a fan of the attitude. Slaunger's comments: helpful and keepers. Thanks. Winkelvi (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This user, Winkelvi, was blocked on Wikipedia for 2 months (after several other edit wars with other users previously) because of their edit warring and reverting across many articles of my edits. I suspect their reasoning for targeting this specific photo is because they want to assert themselves over me, and they don't actually care about what the photo looks like. They can't add their own version to Wikipedia because they are blocked from editing, and so this is their way of having their edit forced onto Wikipedia while unable to edit for "battleground mentality" as the blocking admin stated. I'd strongly suggest this same battleground mentality exists with Commons as well. In order to avoid any future controversy or argument, I'd very much like to recuse myself from this discussion, as I do not want to foster any more fights that go on and on, and the user in question has no intention of resolving anything amicably so there is no point. Gage (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A bit off-topic. But I had gone through en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#User:_Stemoc, this and User_talk:Gage#File:Bryan_Fuller_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg. So once again our so called "defender's of the Wiki" succeeded to drive away a professional content creator to some extend. He was forced to change his user name to protect his reputation? They seems to prefer you still upload your works in Flickr so that they can transfer them to Commons and claim they upload millions of files here! I'm glad you are bravely decided to continue here. Note that most of the advises/blames you got in EN are full of nonsense. You can add your name in the file name as many did here. Its not Wikipedia decides how Commons maintain their files or content creators. (But they can decide whether or not to use a file there.) I don't see anything wrong in your attempt to add your name here. Policies are not the final words; they are useless when our admins lacks common sense. Let us know when you attacked again in Commons. Jee 03:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Please don't make 'blanket statements' about unspecified people, and what they supposedly want...they simply serve to heat up the conversation and move it off-topic. Gage's behavior is not at issue here... his reverts at the mentioned file were completely appropriate. Reventtalk 08:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what I did. I've no plan to defend the one who attacked him earlier as you did. No wonder as you already proved what we can expect from you. Jee 09:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
your comments above are not acceptable. Commons and English Wikipedia have different policies - Gage has had issues with the English Wikipedia in the past (which I've tried to help resolve) but they are unrelated to the issues at hand here, where Gage is entirely innocent of any fault.
I know a bit of the following section is going a little off-topic, but as Jkadavor is so incorrectly briefed about the English Wikipedia discussions, and because I tried to mediate a 'peace deal', I think I'll take this opportunity to update him.
My long-standing opinion is that Gage is an enormously valuable contributor of high quality content, but that some of what (mainly replacing existing images on articles) can be a discouragement to other contributors of high quality content and that we need to strike an appropriate balance of allowing Gage to add his images to articles, but not at the undue expense of other content contributors. We want everybody who contributes content (be it photographer, illustrator or uploader) to have a reasonably equal chance of seeing their contributions when they edit and browse our sister projects - Wikipedia, Species etc. That's what several discussions on English Wikipedia have tried to make happen, they've been less than successful but they're most certainly not 'nonsense' and to describe them as such is an attack of editors (myself included) who have tried to accommodate Gage and his excellent work on the English Wikipedia.
The way in which English Wikipedia and Commons have different policies is very important in this case - it means that behaviour which is not appropriate for English Wikipedia is normal policy here on Commons, specifically, that the creator of content gets to decide on the technical aspects of the images they contribute, in a way that an article contributor doesn't get on English Wikipedia. Gage has the full right to upload the image in the way he wants, with lighting, contrast, brightness, embeded colour profile, EXIF data etc, as he desires. If any user is not happy with that, on Commons, you make and upload, under a different file name, a derivative work. You don't edit war in your own derivative of the originally uploaded file. I'd go further and say - the photographer was there, the person making the derivative work almost certainly wasn't - so trust their photos to be a reasonably accurate representation of what they saw, even if the resulting photo looks a bit 'off' and could benefit from some processing.
I agree 100% "Gage has the full right to upload the image in the way he wants, with lighting, contrast, brightness, embeded colour profile, EXIF data etc, as he desires. If any user is not happy with that, on Commons, you make and upload, under a different file name, a derivative work." regardless of anything photography is a art and you should ALWASY respect the artist. Chill out and move on, really... Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Finally, I would note that as far as the English Wikipedia issues extend to Commons - well, they don't. Gage has a clean slate here and anybody who tries to import any ongoing friction into Commons concerning Gage will be appropriately dealt with, and as far as Commons is concerned, Gage is just another regular content contributor, he's not under any cloud, sanction or warning here. Nick (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
That is not I see there. People asked him to remove his name from the filenames, including the one one upload many works of him from Flickr to Commons. He very well supposed to know the rules in Commons. It was he who first claimed this user's attempt to include his name in file name is promotional. He even reverted his attempt to rename a file which was not a big issue. Does this the way we attract content creators to here? Never I see you (as a long standing admin here) pointed out that Community that Wikipedia has no right to decide the file name which is Common's business. (If I remember well, Josve05a is the only user stated there there is nothing wrong in mentioning user name/real name in file name.) I may be biased as I too had faced such attack earlier. Let us see what people like WPPilot to add. Jee 11:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has no right to decide on the filename (on Commons), but they do have a right to not use/allow certain filenames or naming conventions, if they choose to do so. That would normally be resolved by uploading the same file locally under an alternative filename, should the contributor/artist not wish to change the filenaming here. That's perfectly acceptable and it gives both uploader and local-wiki an appropriate balance of control. Nick (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: You do not remember correctly, or have missed parts of the history, but (again) Gage's behavior is not the topic of discussion here. Reventtalk 19:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Nick for the explanation though I didn't see anything wrong in mentioning credits in file names there too. Neglecting the other admin's tactics to shut down a discussion on the root cause which leads to these disputes. Jee 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no general issue with having credits or usernames in the filename on English Wikipedia. The issue with credits in the filename was part of the issues that are largely specific to Gage on English Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gage: Thank you for mentioning the enwiki history... AFAIK this was a single case here, so far, but if such behavior becomes an issue on Commons we'll obviously have to deal with it. Reventtalk 08:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I am happy to contribute to civil conversations, thanks for reaching out. For over 7 years my contributions have also included my name, in the file. It is not self promotion it is a request for the user to MAKE SURE that the rules are followed. Each week I find a handful of sites, using my photos that are in violation of the CC license that I upload them using.

Contributing to Commons means that you are making available under the terms as specified photos for others to use as long as attribution is provided. The US courts have in fact over and over ruled that the owner is the owner. My perspective is that I take time money and tools like airplanes to obtain these shots. Commons has no "policing force" if someone takes your pic puts it on it website and copyrights it without giving credit, that person regardless of his/her "thoughts" is in violation of the rules. I have more then one source that I can create income with my work, and for years decided to "donate" usage rights, in exchange for a simple mention of the authors name. Considering the value and costs related to obtaining aerial photos I thought that was a fair exchange and others have been doing this for years.

It seems to me that this is a "mountain out of a mole hill", the author controls the original, end of story. If someone wants to come along and change a face to Green, it should be done as and name as a Alt. as the editor does NOT have the right to override the artistic use of the photo unless its a clear improvement to a collaboration.

A lot of my frustrations with these types of issues are peoples unwillingness to talk in a normal manner to each other before taking rather dramatic actions, on my photos - that at times to me looked as thought it was to simply frustrate me but I am human and could be wrong. Communication makes the world go around, it would be really nice if people used it rather then causing friction, as with this issue, turn it around and work together. Gages photo should be left as is, if another editor cares to update it, upload it as a alt, upload it to the folder on Pence and see if it gets used and really just move on, its not worth the time or the energy..... My 2 cents per request of @Jkadavoor: .... Hope this helps... --WPPilot (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Return of a blocked editor (for socking, making death threats), now on Wikimedia

Dear admins,

This user was indeffed on Wikipedia for extensive sockpuppetry and making death threats towards numerous editors (see also; the extensive SPI archive[3], as well as the relevant discussions on an admins talk page.[4]).
He made one edit here with one of his socks, "KurdistanWarrier22", which is the very same account as the one on Wikipedia; "KurdistanWarrier22" -- one of his CU confirmed socks. I think it'd be sensible to indef this one here as soon as possible as well. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As Commons is a separate project, blocks here need to be based on behaviour here. That said, it is Confirmed that KurdoKardir has abusively used multiple accounts here to (re)upload copyvios, so I've blocked socks--including KurdistanWarrier22--accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 02:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt action! - LouisAragon (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion, please

File:Michael F Bartlett - American Film Director.jpg was recently deleted per DR. I did not notice (what I believe to be, IIRC) the same image uploaded File:Michael F Bartlett - American Film Director - Wikipedia Free Use File.jpg to bypass the discussion. Please could someone delete it per the discussion? BethNaught (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you for notifying us. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Who is the author ?

Hello, I'm an OTRS member and I need to know who is the author of this file : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Volontourisme.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Is the right's owner is [5] ?

Cordially, --Gratus (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Info from the file: Source=Service Volontaire International - Author=Pierredh. lNeverCry 06:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gratus: INC gave you what the file page itself said, but also relevant may be that it is a cartoon signed "Titom". Storkk (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Destructive actions

User:Starless:[6], [7], discussion in Russian Wikipedia: [8]. -- Tomasina (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Jcb's use of "..." on image pages

I am asking for views from administrators to gain a consensus on whether Jcb's use of "..." to artificially pad out information template parameters, is an acceptable way of stopping automated flagging, or whether meaningful text or templates should always be used. There is this report of Jcb's 2016 edits where this has happened, affecting around 580 image files. I have not searched further back in Jcb's edit history.

Jcb has defended these changes, so for them to be removed there would need to be a supporting consensus for any corrective action to be taken, should Jcb not wish to do so themselves. I am unaware of any other editor mass circumventing the automated flagging of empty information template fields in this way.

On three recent occasions Jcb has reverted editors who attempted to remove this use of "...", without the courtesy of an edit comment. The revert today, being the reason that I decided it was worth investigating how many images were affected:

  1. 2016-10-24 Fæ diff
  2. 2016-09-11 Andy Dingley diff
  3. 2016-09-09 Robert Weemeyer diff

A prior discussion at User talk:Jcb#Replacing blank author and source fields with "..." raised the issue with Jcb, and established the need for a wider consensus before any action could be taken.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • If I well understand, Jcb do this in order to sort some selected images from the Category:Images without source (in order to clean this backlog), I assume he do that only for files that he assume they are indeed in PD. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That's correct. This way I have created several holes in the category. If you e.g. look at the files starting from R, you will see only a few files starting with an R. New files in the category starting with R (which happens almost every day) will be noticed immediately and can be fixed the same day. About half of the new files in the category can be fixed by simply removing }} or adding {{en| somewhere. In the end we should reach a situation in which somebody looks at every new file in the category within a reasonable time. The current situation is that we sometimes keep unsourced files for over ten years. Maybe some people reading this discussion would be prepared to visit Category:Images_without_source to deal with some of the files? Jcb (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that filling the sources with "..." is no improvement over a blank source field. The only thing it does is dropping images which need maintenance from the maintenance category. Somewhere in the future we have to revisit these files to correctly identify their sources and authors, as just dropping them from the maintenance category does not mean that they no longer need maintenance. It seems that Jcb uses it to keep track of files which he believes to be clearly in the public domain. However, if you are already editing a file description why not just move/copy the source given to the correct field? To conclude: I'm in favor of removing all the "..."'s from source/author fields as these files still require source/author maintenance. I'm also curious how others think about the use of Template:Unknown in these fields, for example in the file File:Robert de Brantingham.JPG I would opt to add unknown (or some indication) to both the source and the author field. Basvb (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • IMO ellipsis is completely unacceptable, "meaningful text" shouldn't rather be used, the only right way is to use {{author|unknown}} and {{source|unknown}}. OK, {{unknown|author}} and {{unknown|source}} also could be used, but the first two seem to be more proper. --jdx Re: 20:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Stuffing bad data into template metadata parameters has no excuse. Jcb has been told this repeatedly. His response was characteristically uncooperative. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I checked one random example. My understanding here is Jcb used "..." as a synonym for "see below" as both and source are available in "Original upload log". I see this as a friendly response to it which what we expected from the colleagues than a witch-hunt. Tired to see this campaign against Jcb on the way he handling "no source" in several boards. Solution: Create Template:See Original upload log for more details. Jee 03:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think "..." would mean "see below", and I never saw anyone using that as an alternative. "..." could be anything, and that's what we didn't know until Jcb clarified above why he used "...". If Jcb clarified and didn't used rollback to "win an argument", then we would not be here. Jcb has to explain here why he abused rollback and didn't even provided a reason why he reverted the editors Fæ mentioned above. ★ Poké95 04:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    "If Jcb clarified and didn't used rollback to "win an argument", then we would not be here." Agree. And similarly "If Fae asked for clarification first and didn't used revert to "win in who is more right", then we would not be here." See, this is a competition to prove who is more right; not for the benefit of Commons. I had experienced it and my user contributions are traced for finding "even minor problems" and reverted to make such POINTS, until I left OTRS. This will continue until Jcb left the admin team. Better neglect as we need not be part of these silly games. Jee 05:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it is safe to close this thread now, Jcb seems to have acknowledged that "..." is not a good source and he agree to use Jdx's advise above instead (using {{Unknown}} instead of "..."). Now go back to work. ★ Poké95 05:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
"go back to work"
Sorry, I must have mislaid my paycheque 8-(
DROP THE PATRONISING ATTITUDE TO OTHER EDITORS, WE ARE NOT YOUR DOMESTIC STAFF TO BE BULLIED.
Also, who is going to clean up Jcb's mess here? We now have hundreds of images where a recognisable null metadata value has been converted to a useless and meaningless, but no longer clearly null value. Is Jcb going to clean up? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The clean up, if we do it by blanking the "..." entries, is quite easy. I could do that in 20-30 minutes, and Fae might even be able to do that quicker and maybe willing to do so. There are also some " ..."-cases introduced by others through the years (where sources might actually be the issue) so it is a good idea to do that a bit broader. However I still hope to get an affirmative answer from Jcb on the copying of valid sources, besides adding unknown templates, where it applies. Basvb (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Just removing the '...' would cause many files without a real problem to come back into the maintenance category. Many hours of review work from the past months would have to be repeated. I am not willing to cooperate in a proposal in will such a so-called "clean up" would take place. Just leave the current files as they are, don't give us many hours of unnecessary work for files without a problem. For future work the Basvb proposal seems fine, but not in combination with a revert on all the review work of the past months. Sucht a revert would be very counterproductive. Jcb (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The solution to that might be to replace the "..."-files with a specific category (see here (look at cats/edit page) for a little test, name has to change of course). Doing that would result in the files not being in Category:Images without source, but would include them in a specific maintenance category and in Category:Files with no machine-readable source (where they belong). What we do with that specific back log and what to include are questions which then in turn should be answered. Basvb (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, such a solution would work for me. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Fæ: (and others of course) acceptible solution? Basvb (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Basvb: We have established the consensus that all these types of dummy text should be replaced. The suggested solution seems like replacing one backlog mechanizm with another, however if someone is prepared to work on the new backlog as suggested, at least it restores best practice. In the light of continued depressingly bad faith allegations in multiple forums for attempting to create a community consensus, after direct discussion failed, I'll not be offering to do the mass repairs needed. I suggest the fixes span more than Jcb's edits and go further back in time than 2016. Thanks for your observations. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reaction Fæ, it is indeed yet another backlog. However the point of Jcb that this backlog is (slightly) different is valid one, as the files he used the "..." do not have license issues, where in a lot of cases having no source could be an issue for the licensing. I don't think we should expect the new backlog to be reduced quicker than the general one, however that shouldn't be an issue as the general category also has licensing issues and thus rightfully should be a higher priority. Now to the technical solution, making a different cat poses the difficulty that I have to separate the ones added by Jcb from those added by others (as we don't know whether the ... from others means the same or could be a licensing issue. Which query did you use for your overview Fæ? Basvb (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
My report uses a complex pywikibot script I wrote for some en.wp trolling research several years ago to sniff all of a user's edits, especially useful when I was an admin there. It's slow and probably inefficient as it uses page.fullVersionHistory calls after pulling on usercontribs for a desired range; in fact for this report it took a few hours to complete. Instead I suggest you create a project wide search using the now standard source search (which did not exist back when my version was written), or an implementation of it like SearchPageGenerator in pywikibot, as what you are solving is not specific to one user's contributions and so the query should be a matter of seconds of processing time. --Fæ (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether we can use a one-size-fits-all for all users who added similar "..." indications. For those added by Jcb we know that though has been given to the licensing. What intentions or ideas other users had when adding "..."(...)" is something we can't be certain of. Because of that I would prefer those other cases to fall back into the Images without sources category. I'll play around a bit later this week (with quary, cirrussearch and visualfilechange) and see if I can manage something, the half hour might be a bit too positive of an estimation after all. Basvb (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible bug in commons thumbnail-image generation software

The current version of File:Monument JC Houzeau Place Louise Mons.jpg is a color image, showing the tip of a statue and blue sky. However, in section "File history", the "current" thumbnail image is a black-and-white one, showing the whole statue and houses behind it. The thumbnail image at Category:Naturalists is the black-and-white version, too. Clicking on the b/w image in the history section or on the category page leads to the color image. Clicking on the older revision in the history section leads to a large version of the b/w thumbnail image.

I observed this behavior both on my laptop (running an old Firefox version under Ubuntu Linux) and on my tablet (running the default browser under Android). Since I never had this problem before, I think it may indicate a bug in commons' thumbnail generation or administration software. Possibly, the close distance between two version uploads of the image (2 Jan 2009, 21:53 and 21:55) could have caused an inconsistency?

Since I couldn't find a page to file a possible-bug report, I put my issue here; please try to confirm my finding and forward the problem to the appropriate people, if necessary. Many thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I meanwhile moved the image from Category:Naturalists to the more particular Category:Jean Houzeau de Lehaie, but the problem remains the same. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I have purged the file page and this fixed the thumbnail. I suspect the bad thumbnail (identical to the one for the previous version of the file) has been there since 2009 when the file was uploaded, and I suspect that whatever bug caused this back then is long fixed. Please report if you notice the same behavior anywhere else, but if this is the only case, I don't think it's worth worrying about. For reference, this is what the file history looked like before I purged, with two identical thumbs: [9]. Matma Rex (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the quick answer and the thumbnail fix. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Request to restore a Flickr-derived file

An image was deleted because it had the wrong copyright on Flickr. This has now been corrected on Flickr. Can the image please be reinstated? (File:Hop-tu-naa_turnip.jpg & Flickr image) Manx James (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:Undeletion requests. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Manx James: the initial problem appears to have been fixed, however there is still the issue that the carving has its own copyright. Ms. Woolley will need to confirm the license by contacting us using the procedures outlined at OTRS. Once she does this, an OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. Storkk (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: The image comes from a video of turnip carving commissioned by Culture Vannin (the uploader to Flickr). The release forms for the images from Sue Woolley are in order at Culture Vannin. The image of the carved turnip is the property of Culture Vannin, who have now given it to the public domain via Flickr. Must uploaders of images to Flickr prove their right to do so to Wikimedia Commons? (It is now in the public domain via Flickr, and so anyone else can now take & use the image &, surely, upload it legitimately to Wikimedia. So I don't understand how it could be for me & Culture Vannin to now prove it so .. Sorry - I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just not getting it!) Manx James (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
While it seems likely that you are correct that Culture Vannin observed the proper copyright procedures, we should probably archive it via OTRS. This is not only to ensure we are following copyright formalities correctly, but also because potential re-users of the file need to know things like the exact conditions under which they can use Ms. Woolley's design. This would be most easily fixed by Culture Vannin forwarding the copyright release form to OTRS, or Ms. Woolley confirming that she releases all rights to the design and carving to the public domain (to match the video still's license). Storkk (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. Will get that sorted. Manx James (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Remerciement

L'agent OTRS User:Scoopfinder, déjà à l'origine de mon bannissement de Wikipédia, passe son temps a utiliser la fonction "remerciement" pour me provoquer en douce, sur tout les projets. Il me connait et voudrait que je pète les plombs pour me faire virer de Commons aussi. J'aimerais qu'on lui rappelle que cette fonction n'a pas été créée dans ce sens.--Classiccardinal (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour Classiccardinal, je ne comprends pas ce que le statut OTRS a à voir avec tout ça, mais admettons.
@Scoopfinder : Tu as déjà été averti sur frwiki pour des remerciements via Special:Thanks à des gens que tu sais qu'ils ne t'apprécient pas beaucoup, ce serait bien que tu ne fasses pas la même chose sur Commons, ça ne ferait qu'envenimer les choses.
@Classiccardinal : Évitez les attaques personnelles comme ici ou là svp, je sais que vous et Scoopfinder vous ne vous appréciez pas beaucoup mais stay mellow comme ils disent ici.
Cordialement. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Vu et en accord. Comme expliqué sur la page de discussion de Classicardinal, je ne pensais pas le provoquer mais bien le remercier et, aussi, je pensais que son animosité à mon encontre était passée. Quoiqu'il en soit, je compte limiter au stricte minimum mes intéractions avec lui, vu les insultes et autres attaques formulées à nouveau, et je vais éviter de contribuer là où il est. Je l'invite à faire pareil dans un souci d'apaisement et, évidemment, m'excuse encore si mon remerciements a été mal perçu. --Scoopfinder(d) 13:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Continue à te foutre de notre gueule. Tu m'as niqué mon nouveau compte WP, tu m'as fait bannir y'a pas 15 jours de WP, tu te fous de ma gueule avec tes remerciements de merde, et tu penses que mon animosité à ton encontre est passée? T'es vraiment ce que je pense, S...--Classiccardinal (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094: je vais faire le Scoopfinder: "le statut OTRS, c'était juste par politesse, vu que c'est affiché en lettre de 2 mètres de haut sur les PU de Scoopfinder, il doit y tenir". Et merci de m'apprendre qu'il en est pas à son coup d'essai. J'espère que la prochaine fois, on lui tirera l'oreille, vu qu'on peut visiblement pas s'en débarrasser, de l'agent OTRS Scoopfinder.--Classiccardinal (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Et PS: c'est quoi tes contributions, à part foutre la merde Scoopfinder?--Classiccardinal (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Classiccardinal posted non-public information on Scoopfinder's user talk page. I removed (per urgent request by a user) it and warned the user. Maybe a french speaker want to give a second look. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Request closure for Proposed ban for Jcb's use of the no source template

The proposal on the Village Pump has been open for 10 days, currently with 10 supports and 5 opposing, though with some opposing with a rationale that it would be better to be discussing a desysop. This was notified on this noticeboard on 18th October, Archive.

This is a request for an administrator to summarize discussion, close the vote and take responsibility for enforcing the community consensus.

Considering the nature of discussion, this may be a situation where one of our Bureaucrats may fulfil their required community role for showing leadership on difficult community issues. @99of9, AFBorchert, Dschwen, Ellin Beltz, and EugeneZelenko: @Jameslwoodward, JuTa, Kanonkas, Krd, and Odder: --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Village Pump is the best venue for that proposal, nor if we should close it separated from another issue raise later on, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Jcb's use of "..." on image pages (above on this page). If one asked me, I'd suggest to summarize both into a new discussion, possibly at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, and work on a solution of both aspects or any underlying issue, if any. --Krd 08:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest that Jcb use less of the template, but he is right a significant fraction of the time. I also note that none of the discussion takes into account the fact that Jcb does over 20% of all deletions done by our 238 Administrators (9,769 of 45,522 in the past 30 days). We all make mistakes, but given the volume of work that Jcb (and INC, who does double that), their error rates are very low. This is the issue that drove Fastily away -- that he was tremendously productive and had an error rate (as measured by successful UnDRs) that was much lower than the rest of us, but because his actual number of errors was high, he was constantly harassed. Without Jcb and INC we would be back in the days of several month backlogs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
While I partly agree with Jim's statement, I'd like to point out that it is mostly related to the content of the discussion, while this section IMO focuses on procedural aspects. I'd suggest not to open a third discussion thread here. --Krd 11:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Jameslwoodward: the word "Harrassment" is misplaced here. When multiple parties have correctly raised complaints about misuse of specific templates, not the facts of correctly deleting some files, then an administrator needs to see this as part of their fair accountability to the community for their actions. As with Fastily (who remains active on other projects), repeated defensive reactions including treating complainants as trolls or harassers in bad faith, and eventually carrying on with a disregard for established community consensus, rather than taking on-board the issues and attempting to adapt their approach, only escalates issues and sustains pointless drama. The large numbers you quote here are part of the problem. It is not reasonable to expect large mass actions of templating or deleting to be accurate, and we do not have the volume of volunteers, especially those with the necessary sysop rights, to double check this work and avoid public domain material being lost. This point has been made in several different ways, and is backed up by the statistics, which credibly show an unacceptable low level of accuracy. Please take on-board the governance issue of a form of the Super Mario effect, where anyone who was not a Commons administrator would be highly likely to have been subject to some form of enforced corrective action to change their behaviour.
Rather than re-hashing the Village Pump discussion in a second forum, I suggest you review it and either close it or keep it open and make your points there. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"Harassed" may be too strong a word -- let's say "repeatedly criticized". And I agree that Fastily did not always react well to criticisms. But, nonetheless he and Jcb were/are prolific contributors (or should I say "deleters") on Commons and their error rates, as measured by successful UnDRs are lower than average. When you are doing as many deletions as the next six Admins on the list put together, you will make more errors than any one of them. The point is that Jcb makes fewer errors than the ten put together.
As for the separate forum you're right, but I was invited to join a discussion here, so I did. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
My two cents:
  • In Jim’s own words, I also «agree that Fastily did not always react well to criticisms»… actually let me improve that statement: When challenged, Fastily would either ignore the matter, or say something along the lines of «Shut up or I’ll block you», or, when the complainant was another admin and his error blatantly evident, he’d grudgingly fix his mess without a word of apology or any change in his “technique”. Is Jcb’s behaviour any different?
  • Concerning error rates, it really depends on how they are measured, and I think the number or ratio of successful UDRs is a poor metric: A huge fraction of these deletions go undetected and interested parties are/were sometimes threatened of blocking upon complains after a deletion; only experienced users will file an UDR at all, let alone a sucessful one.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Tuválkin, I think many of the UnDRs are newbies -- I know that I add {{Unsigned3}} to many of the requests. I agree that it's a poor metric for assessing how we are doing as a whole, but I think it is fair to assume that more or less the same percentage of Jcb's deletions go there as anyone else's, so my comment that his accuracy rate is better than most of us has a good basis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this a guestimate or do you have any numbers to back up the claim that Jcb has a better accuracy rate than others? I'd be interested in those numbers. Basvb (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I personally will not be closing the Village Pump discussion as I very much disagree with this process of picking on a very small perceived "fault" and rather than helping out, by looking ahead at the next "no source" days to try to source the images... Instead of that, raise hours of work for everyone else with complaints. I have personally sourced a lot of images in the time that these discussions have taken been happening. I'd rather work on the project than nitpick about others. And I agree with Jameslwoodward - bringing this issue up in unconventional locations, in multiple locations simultaneously begins to cross the line of "comment" versus "harrassment". Not only for the complainant, but I am Assuming Good Faith on JCB's part as well. Therefore I have to assume that JCB is doing the best he is doing, and since he makes few mistakes, that assumption is valid. There are pathways for fixing individual errors. I would like to think that we here at Commons have this sign over all our desks. Now can we please all put our work gloves back on and get to work? This kind of unsubstantiated allegations of wrong doing (i.e. lack of COM:AGF not only hurts the person being poked at but it hurts the entire project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ellin, nobody has made "unsubstantiated allegations of wrong doing". If you believe I have, then please do the right thing and raise a separate thread and propose that I am blocked for making false unsubstantiated allegations. The proposal being discussed on the Village pump is based on the factual evidence and history available. However you look at the evidence, no reasonable community consensus should be swept under the carpet with those raising valid complaints ordered to "get back to work", rather than seeing reasonable action taken or at least an enforceable commitment to change in place. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Ellin, I see that on the Village Pump here you are alledging that personal attacks are being made. Could you please not do that unless you are prepared to take action and supply the evidence required? These sorts of vague allegations are disruptive and unhelpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I find this a very sad situation. I have tried the best I could to remain open for feedback and to improve my actions. I have spent a lot of time in discussions about my actions. Some users have been helpful in getting things better, e.g. finding good alternatives to the '...' as mentioned above. (Mainly with the valuable input of Basvb). From the moment the '...' was discussed above, I have not inserted it at a single place anymore. Then the 'no source' templates. Several users have given their opinion on the usage of that template and as you all may have noticed I have chosen regular DRs instead of 'no source' tags in most of the cases over the past few weeks. Almost all of them were delete-closed or fixed. But Fæ just won't stop. So about the "comment" versus "harrassment" question, yes, I do feel harrassed by Fæ. I hope I am not expected to involve myself more in this painful situation. If anybody has valuable feedback for me, please feel always free to leave a message at my user talk page. Jcb (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel harassed. The intention has always been to apply Administrators as written. Had you offered to cease mass applying the no source template until the issues raised been addressed, then there would be no proposal on the Village Pump to ensure you stopped. If you offer to hold off for six months, then that would be equivalent to the proposal the community has been expressing their views on and it would seem reasonable to see it closed on that basis. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see Jcb has used the input in both the village pump discussion as well as the discussion above to improve the quality of his work. A lot of the votes/opinions in the village pump were from before Jcb changed his working method. Because of that I find it reasonable to believe those opinions would be different given the current situation. Meaning that the ratio of votes can not be used to conclude this discussion. From the village pump the most useful suggestion which is still relevant is a general change in the direction of stopping with the use of no-source (and no-permission) templates for files which have been more than one (or 2 or 3) year on Commons. More work in that direction is welcome. Currently I do not see the need to further look at Jcb's specific behaviour concerning the no-source process. On the other hand the points made on harassment or a waste of time from the side of Fae are not helping the discussion. I believe that the issues raised, surrounding no-source, were both valid (and necessary) at the time (although the tone could've been better), but are now largely resolved. Basvb (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I previously accepted your point on tone, however this was in the light of Jcb's history of using their sysop tools, unexplained reverts, and bad faith assertions, in an apparent drive to make me go away without addressing the issues. Definitely we need to make efforts to be nice and civil, this applies as much, or probably more, to administrators than non-administrators. Thanks again. I suggest your thoughtful closure is put to the community on the village pump. :-) --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
As I've been heavily involved in the discussions surounding this issue I'd rather not close the discussion. I have to note that when writing my comment above I did not yet read the contributions to the village pump discussion after the 26th of October, for the point on different opinions (in my contribution above) I meant those from before the 21st. Basvb (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Logo of Ministry of Culture.svg Move to File:ROC Ministry of Culture Logo.svg

I requested twice following File renaming criterion #4, and I gave additional explanations, but two admins/filemovers denied and both said "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better; no need for harmonization => it's for templates only." The criterion #4 never mentioned that it's for templates only, so why did they replied this reason? Moreover, I requested NOT ONLY because the new name looks a bit better! Many countries set up ministries named in "Ministry of Culture", so how we can identify this file belonging to which country if you keep denying my request? Moreover, following the footnote of File renaming criterion #4, it said that "files that form parts of a whole should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists." This file is one of the seals, logos, and emblems of ROC central government, and my request will make them in a consistent naming format. That is, my request indeed comply the criterion. Please moveFile:Logo of Ministry of Culture.svg to File:ROC Ministry of Culture Logo.svg. Thanks. BTW, why it shows File renaming criterion #11 in my Contributions? Could any admin show me what this criterion is? Thank again. --Akira123 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Akira123: I agree with your reasoning, especially that "Logo of Ministry of Culture" IMO is ambiguous. However I have not renamed the file because I would like to hear others' opinion. Two file movers have rejected your request, so perhaps I am missing something. --jdx Re: 07:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done This conforms with criterion #4 To harmonize the file names of a set of images. The naming scheme is both less ambiguous and, looking at Special:Contributions/Akira123, consistently used with a significant number of files. lNeverCry 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Global autopatrol right

See meta:Wikimedia Forum#Global autopatrolled. Filemovers here replace usages of files with their own accounts and admins often do the same when processing duplicates. For trusted users there's really no need for these edits to be patrolled on other wikis. I personally have autopatrol on 16 different wikis. Anyone with rollback on 16 wikis would be an easy candidate for global rollback, and anyone with deletion tagging, etc, on half that many wikis would be a candidate for global sysop. Global autopatrol seems like a good idea for experienced Commons filemovers and active admins who do filemoves and/or process duplicates on a regular basis. lNeverCry 06:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaartnbds.jpg

I would like an independent admin to review my closing from a copyright point of view. At first I closed this DR referring to a comment made in another DR which explains that maps often don’t list an author. My wording was a bit unclear but I corrected this when I closed the DR for a second time. (Which is quite a common practice when someone opens a DR without providing new arguments.)

When it comes to old Dutch transit maps I have yet to encounter a map which lists the author instead of a company making most maps anonymous or pseudo anonymous under Dutch law. Also there was no reason to to doubt the age claim made at the file discription.

I am making this request since Jcb rather hits the rollback button leaving a hostile response at my talk page. An independent review seems like a better solution than the two of us bickering over a simple closing. Natuur12 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The map is still unsourced and it was really obvious that you where the wrong person to close the second DR. Not sure why you first redid your action before coming here. Jcb (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides the missing source, is there any other reason to doubt the copyright status of this file in your opinion? Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's unknown where it comes from. It could be e.g. the work of somebody in 1950 who was documenting the situation of 1915 for some kind of history overview. Jcb (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is quite an unlikely scenario since they had a different drawing style during that period. See this map for example. Natuur12 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff. In the light of some tangential comments made in the DR, it seems worth pointing out that this action was almost exactly 3 hours after Jcb posted "I do feel harrassed by Fæ" on this noticeboard. I guess it's nice to see he does not feel too harassed to make these rollbacks. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
This request has been handled by Jameslwoodward. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser's opinion needed.

I would like to block 5.228.0.0/16 for at least two weeks and I am looking for opinion of a checkuser as per COM:BP. A long term cross-wiki spammer (eg. [10]) uses this range. I have seen him on Commons at least for a month and I have already reported him here. Most of his contributions have been deleted as he usually creates talk pages. --jdx Re: 16:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a checkuser-specific board where this would be better placed? Not knowing if one exists, I left a talk message for one of our CUs, so even if this isn't the best place, you should get a response pretty quickly. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
There is COM:RFCU, but it is rather intended for reporting sock puppets. The advice on the top of the page is to ask here first and IMO this is indeed a better place. --jdx Re: 03:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: , @Krd: , @Magog the Ogre: Pinging a few CUs. Anyone care to check collateral for a rangeblock? lNeverCry 03:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this I don't think the range block would cause a lot of collateral damage – 13 non-deleted edits per year and only 7 of them seem to be reasonable. --jdx Re: 03:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't. If you're pretty sure the result of the rangeblock will be the stopping of spam, I'd say do the block and monitor for unblock requests (though many times spammers and sockmasters play around with unblock requests). If this guy only uses IPs you can do soft rangeblocks without much worry about collateral. lNeverCry 04:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: What is "soft rangeblock"? --jdx Re: 06:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: It means you allow account creation and editing from logged in users. You untick all the boxes basically. These can be effective, and can often be longer than harder blocks because good editors aren't prevented from creating accounts and editing. Many spammers, vandals, trolls, and sockmasters (like Jermboy27 or Wikinger, don't want to have to take the time to create sock accounts (especially if they're using slow open proxies like Wikinger often does).

If you do a soft block and you get sock creation, you can easily remove account creation from the rangeblock and do an RFCU to look for sleepers. A full hard block, where you're having problems with sleepers is something only a CU should usually put in place, because any sockmaster who's using sleeper accounts is usually a long term abuse (LTA) sockmaster using open proxies/VPNs, mobile ranges, dynamic ranges, etc. lNeverCry 07:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, this is exactly the kind of block I have been thinking of. Anyway, I will block the spammer next time when I spot him. --jdx Re: 12:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

More than 5,000 IPs within the range 5.228.0.0/16 have edited in the past several months. A narrower CIDR would be needed to get to unique users, but that's not necessary for our purposes: the only reasonable expectation is that there could be significant collateral with a /16 block. Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: 5k+ IPs on Commons only? I wonder why there is such a huge diffrence between checkuser's tool(s) and X!'s Tools. --jdx Re: 08:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, remember, X! Tools only shows edits made by IP users whereas the CU tool shows logged in edits (i.e., there could be several prolific editors with dynamic IPs in that that range). Alternatively, this may be partially due to filters. X! Tools only sees edits that actually post, whereas the CU log captures attempted edits that were blocked by a triggered filter. A heavy spam range could certainly suggest a log swamped with filter triggers. Given those potential explanations, the implications of which I hadn't fully considered previously, you're probably okay with a two week soft block. Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring (Vandalism?)

Removing category Slavic ancestors days. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Backlog on Commons:Categories for discussion

Hi all. Today I stumbled across Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/04/Category:Small images and saw this 4-year-old discussion was never closed... So I checked and saw there are even discussions from 2011 which are still open. What's the reason for this huge backlog? Simply not enough admins/experienced people to help clearing it? Or is there another reason? Trijnsteltalk 11:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not enough active admins. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There's not enough active editors in this area either (or perhaps not enough who have the time to address the needed changes and edits required to get a CFD closed). Most of what needs to be done at CFD is merging and renaming that can be done by regular editors. Even the cases where deletion is needed can be handled almost completely by regular editors. They can do whatever merging and renaming is necessary, request speedy deletion of cats that need to be deleted, wait for an admin to do the deletion, and then come back and close the CFD. But CFD is the dungeon along with the 1 million or more images in Category:Media needing categories... INeverCry (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Non-admin comment: it would also help if editors could be educated on situations that don't require discussion, such as merging duplicate cats and various situations that can be handled speedily. I try to mention that when I see them at cfd, but that's only a drop in the bucket. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In the past, I have tried to be active at CfD and assist with the backlog. Majority of the remaining old cases are quite complex, thought provoking and lacking community input. ~riley (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It may be a pragmatic option to encourage closure of old discussions as unresolved, say for discussions where nobody has contributed for 2 years. If any volunteer feels strongly, they can re-open and whip up interest. As a philosophical point, it's better for the stability of the project if the status quo stays by default, where discussions have lost all momentum. --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
That would be OK if the discussion had no consensus. Some of the older cases do have consensus, but just never got closed. Some are still open while they are implemented. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass-message request for WLM

Hi there! Could an administrator send this message out to the editors listed here via the mass-message tool? Let me know if there are any concerns. Here is the code to transclude, which includes a header, the body, my signature, and a timestamp: {{subst:Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2016_in_the_United_States/Messages/Results}} ~~~~~ Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I let myself to do a few minor technical changes in the message text. --jdx Re: 06:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: Awesome, thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Platalea minor.jpg

Please can an Admin delete my image uploads at 1:18 and 1:30 on November 2. The current image version has the maximum resolution version and the better image exposure. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --jdx Re: 05:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am new and do not understand very well

I am traying to upload a photo that I took with my camara in the hospital about art work made by patients and this apperas:

This action has been automatically identified as harmful (more info). Unconstructive edits will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked.

I want to know why it is harmful please.

Thanks.

--AllvearSAH (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You have to click on (more info) to find out why. If you click again upload (as instructed) the file will be uploaded. But please read COM:DW first, third party artwork might be copyrighted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Verify the license

Please, can somebody to verify the license of this file? Thanx, Palu (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Palu: Next time you upload a free video or screenshot from YouTube, you can use two templates together: {{YouTube CC-BY}} and {{LicenseReview}}. The latter will mark the file as needing review so you don't have to request it over here. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanx for this tip. --Palu (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by admin

ResolvedObviously nothing to do here. Yann (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The file File:Kompakte språklenker - så enkelt at selv en zombie klarer det.ogg. This file is madeby me. Please undelete and repost the links [11] ASAP. The more I look at this deletion, the more insane it seems to be… It would imply that you can't do a screen shoot of anything that runs on a windows box. Ever heard about fair use…? Any idea why fair use exist…? Jeblad (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See COM:FU. Also, user warned about comments on others' mental health and above failure of AGF. Эlcobbola talk 18:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I have already stopped contributing my own images several years ago. I can stop contributing videos also. I have marked the other questionable contributions so you can delete them. If content is deleted, why bother, COM:AGF obviously only works one way. Jeblad (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete poster?

ResolvedDo not start the same discussion everywhere. Yann (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Mid Autumn Festival.png" and "Full Mon Festival (small) .png" are posters drawn by me. Why delete they? Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume they were suspected to be copyvio, due to the watermark visible in the upper lefthand tree. You might talk to the deleting admin (User:Ellin Beltz) or file an undeletion-request at COM:UR. --Túrelio (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Illusory!!! Goodmorninghpvn (talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmorninghpvn (talk • contribs) 16:24, 03 November 2016 (UTC) Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the complaint!Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

File:21-253-0005_Oleksandrivka_Wooden_Church_RB.jpg QI promotion

As I see in Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_October_26_2016 file 21-253-0005_Oleksandrivka_Wooden_Church_RB.jpg is promoted as QI, but there is no section on file page that this image is QI. Could somebody explain me why the image is not marked as QI? Or maybe everything is correct? --Rbrechko (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on a bunch of the green-bordered images on that page, and it none after File:2014-09-12 - Vitali Klitschko - 9019.jpg appear to have been tagged by QICbot. @Dschwen? Storkk (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a failed QICBot run occurred a few days ago. I guess I should write a bot to fix this :-/. I just don;t have a lot of spare time right now. --Dschwen (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Stressful for me

Community recently coerced me too. Remove and put to vote by deleting some images I created. Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Goodmorninghpvn, your files were deleted because they were a derivative work of a non-free material. Any derivative of a non-free work is also non-free, and they are strictly not accepted here on Commons. Please see COM:L and COM:DW. If you want a very simple explanation, File:Licensing tutorial en.svg would guide you. There's no admin action to do in this issue. Thanks, ★ Poké95 07:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

!!!--Morning (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump (Copyright)

I request all the admins to look over the discussion at Village Pump (Copyright)ː A new copyright tag for files from the official websites of the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 10:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Szm2007

Just a heads up for fellow admins. This LTA sockmaster is still very active. I got lucky and found this one in recent changes before he could upload more than a dozen or so fake flags. lNeverCry 03:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

still?? Someone create a LTA page for that. Pyrusca (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

FlickreviewR 2 broken?

It looks like the bot User:FlickreviewR 2 is broken. It hasn't reviewed anything since reviewing my image File:Barack Obama in Kissimmee (30522638900).jpg at 07:57, 7 November 2016. There are now over 4600 images waiting for review by the bot. Someone want to figure out what's up. Elisfkc (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Working now. Elisfkc (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Uncyclopedia

Hello.Are not these files stolen from the internet and transferred to Commons?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is also cc-by-sa, so: Where's the problem? --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Reinhard Kraasch: All Uncyclopedia images taken from non-free sources --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Says who? Most of the files in Category:Uncyclopedia are variations of the "puzzle potato" that of course has somehow been derived from the Wikimedia puzzle ball. This might be a trade mark violation (which would have to be prosecuted by Wikimedia Foundation as tm owner), but I don't see a copyright problem in it. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Reinhard Kraasch: Well, thanks for the clarification --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Resolved --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User:LandkreisKassel

Der User kann entsperrt werden. Die Verifizierung liegt vor. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ResolvedHab ihn entsperrt. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

sv:Polisens grader i Israel, no:Israels politi, en:Israel Police

Hi, I`ve replaced all of the old jpeg ranks with high quality svg files. I need your help to delete all of the old files. Thanks, Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 17:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, some of the photos can be deleted from the automated page User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/SVG 744x1052px, Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 18:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Some mistakes and a request.

Hello !

  • Some mistakes : please see [12] : I'm agree with the deletion of the photos which I omitted to join the agreement of the authors ;
  • A request :
    • Please wait before deleting my derivative works [13], [14] & the Peter Lengyel's photo [15], which I ask to my sources to send directly their permissions to OTRS < [email protected] > ;
    • About my derivative works (those above and this other ones: [16], [17] [18]) please check that they are sufficiently different from data of my sources (mentionned in the image) and that this is not plagiarism or copyright infringement.

And do for the best, according with the rules. Thank you. --Julieta39 (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mis-categorized picture of Aurora (ship 1876)

Hi, Noted under Aurora (ship 1876) is a photo of a mid-twentieth century iron clad war ship - Probably an Aurora, but not SY Aurora built in Dundee in 1876. I am new to this so not quite sure how to move this to the right category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellweather83 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 09 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bellweather83: File:Aurora Battle Damage Manila 1905 - A.jpg is the en:Russian cruiser Aurora, moved to Category:Aurora (ship, 1900). Reventtalk 11:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The issue looks to be resolved. lNeverCry 20:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Stalking/harrassment by Fæ

As I have mentioned several times, Fæ has not stopped attacking me personally from the moment I closed this DR in September. Till now, this behaviour was ignored by most admins, because many thought that the Fæ attacks were actually not personal attack. Well, how obvious do you want to have it? Now he created User:Fæ/Jcb actions of note and started asking other users to contribute to his personal attacks. I think it's about time to make clear to Fæ that this behaviour is unacceptable at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Jcb, your claims of harassment and stalking are misplaced and undermine the serious nature of complaints when Wikimedians are subject to criminal stalking and harassment, such as my experience that became a police case as well as a matter of reviews with WMF legal.
If you really prefer it, I can maintain a log of significant actions off-wiki which will be invitation only. I have created this on wiki for your benefit, and because I believe in transparency of this type of analysis which gives you the opportunity to make corrections. If maintained off-wiki you will have no opportunity to do so unless it becomes germane to an on-wiki process.
By the way, I am assuming good faith with your edit comment diff, that "Fæl" was a typo rather than the joke at my expense it can be read as. Please avoid using it again unless you intend it as an insult. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fæ: that was most likely a usage of MediaWiki pipe trick ([[User:Example|]] gets automatically substituted with [[User:Example|Example]] when used in wikitext), not a joke or an insult. They do not get substituted properly in edit summaries --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. It's not my modus operandi to call users childish names. Jcb (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
There is not benefit for me or for the community to have such a list on-wiki or off-wiki. Just finally stop your personal vendetta. Jcb (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
In which case I shall maintain it off-wiki, invite only, as a courtesy. Please keep in mind that your edits and actions as an administrator can be analysed at any time by anyone. They are a matter of public record. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fae, this is rich coming from you. You are the person on Commons who by quite some margin most frequently gratuitously slurs others with false claims of stalking and harassment. I would most certainly be pleased if you never used either of those words again, except if you were genuinely afraid for your safety, had reported the user to WMF, and made a complaint to the police. A number of users have complained of your over-zealous investigation and attacks on Jcb since September. I'm not aware of an event, other than your badly reasoned deletion request, where Jcb has had cause to perform any admin interactions that directly concern you. While his actions are indeed in the public record, writing Python scripts to dig up the dirt and maintain a log of "actions of note", seems to step beyond COM:AGF, towards something negative and harmful. I suggest you not only take your log offline but delete it and find something else to do than picking on Jcb. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. Creating User:Fæ/Jcb actions of note is stalking and a bad thing. Maintaining such list offline on personal computer is also bad, don't do that. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think keeping a list of documentary evidence is either stalking or evidence of bad faith. Asking others for input does seem distasteful. While I certainly wouldn't want to be the subject of such a list, if I were, I would prefer it to remain online where I could see it and respond or prepare a response to it. Asking/telling someone not to maintain an offline list seems a little farcical. I maintain no such lists, but (while I'm not trying to import enwiki's behavioral norms here, especially regarding RfAs) a quick perusal of any enwiki RfA in the last few years will leave one with the distinct impression that many, many people do. Storkk (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Storkk, if you wouldn't want to be the subject of such a list, then lets agree not to maintain such lists on anyone. The main issue with it is that it is actively looking for ongoing faults and disagreements, and as such is against COM:AGF. He isn't balancing it with any record of good acts or wise decisions. Are we likely to see Fae going "Heh Jcb, thanks for deleting those copyright violations the other day. Shocking that we hosted them for seven years, and even more embarrasing that we published them on three Wikipedias. How can we expect professional photographers to donate images here, if we fail to respect copyright and don't actively locate and remove violations. Keep up the good work!". No, it's quite clear to everyone that Fae is maintaining a grudge. It's one thing, should a complaint be made, to gather evidence to support an argument: COM:AGF requires us to present evidence if claiming that someone is acting harmfully. It is quite another to actively seek out and maintain an unbalanced biased log of disagreements, questionable judgements, etc, with which to attack someone in the future. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
There's lots of things I wouldn't want to happen to me, but don't think should be forbidden. People have different interests and perspectives, and it is an unfortunate reality that when you have two hard-working people who also have strong personalities and opinions (and backbones), you will get heated arguments... should I have been shocked that you were the first major uninvolved responder in this thread on AN (I wasn't)? Not putting words in Fae's mouth, I'm pretty sure he sees Jcb as contributing a huge amount of positive to the project, he just seems to think that there is also a lot (perhaps even a net) of negative. The list would obviously be read as being "evidence against", indeed if Fae was claiming to maintain a balanced list of pro and con, I would be extremely suspicious. Necessitating praise before or during criticism seems perverse to me: we don't rely on an adversarial system of justice here, for good reasons... but requiring someone to either be disingenuous or to essentially fulfill the role of both "prosecutor" and "defender" if they wish to be critical is, I think, unrealistic. And I want to reiterate that I strongly believe that "looking for ongoing faults" is not against COM:AGF. Storkk (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting "Necessitating praise before or during criticism" nor that one person acts as "prosecutor" and "defender". Experience with statistics shows that if one goes looking for patterns that confirm one's prejudices in a large dataset (and Jcb certainly provides a large dataset) then one will find patterns that confirms one's prejudices. It's a flawed approach. And I have little faith that if Fae presented the "evidence against" as you put it, we'd have an appropriate defensive response before the torches and pitchforks and de-admin requests started. Plus the ongoing nature of it, and the fact that this special interest began in earnest after Jcb and Fae clashed in September. "If you, Lord, kept a record of sins/ Lord, who could stand?" Psalm 130. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
You specifically asked whether we were likely to see praise of Jcb from Fae, and concluded in the negative, using your conclusion as evidence of a grudge. I'm not sure what quoting Psalms is supposed to accomplish, I don't find it particularly edifying... go seven further and you find "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Ps 137:9). Anyway, I don't think this section has any potential to accomplish anything anymore, so I'll bow out. Storkk (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course I didn't use my conclusion as evidence of a grudge. I am capable of logic, you know. I think the above wilful misreading of "User:Fæ|" in the edit summary as "Fæl", and the good-faith explanation for the | is a pretty good evidence right here. In addition to the obvious issue being discussed: the maintenance of an ongoing list of sins of someone he clashed and has since repeatedly taken to AN. -- Colin (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fæ: I want to remind you that pointing out the mistakes of other users, including administrators, may be a good thing especially if done in the interest of the community. However some of your actions are clearly not in the interests of the community. Indeed this, moreover posted in a conversation where you are not invited, brings nothing in the resolution of the problem raised in the discussion pointed to by the link. This sounds like very close definition of trolling. A question then begins to arise, is your true goal to raise mistakes for a community-beneficial purpose or to be deliberately unpleasant against a specific user in order to provoke emotional reactions? By your actions it is ambiguous. Know that being deliberately unpleasant towards a person when there is clearly no other purpose than to be unpleasant is clearly prohibited in our community. I hope that if your goal is the interest of the community, you will find other ways to achieve this goal than to be unnecessarily and willfully unpleasant. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Raising criticism of Jcb is quite hard, when they use their sysop tools to "win" arguments by protecting pages so I cannot edit them and blocking my account, actions for which Jcb has yet to recognize that they made any mistake in doing. Yes Jcb's actions remain of interest due to the history of the past couple of years of complaints about their actions from many long term volunteers, and if we are going to be unable to openly discuss these on-going issues of incorrect interpretation of copyright, contentious reopening of DRs without discussion, or even openly analyse these on-wiki, or even link to the standard logs of admin actions, without being accused of harassment, then this will (and already does) happen on IRC and other places off-wiki. Concerned volunteers holding administrators to account is not stalking, trolling or harassment, no matter how often these words are used.
As a courtesy I blanked the log with one entry I started, and as a courtesy I created it openly so that Jcb was aware. That is evidence of being courteous, not wilfully unpleasant. Thanks for your comments. --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

False quotes

I ask that an administrator strike out the sarcastic quotation attributed to me above. This is a global project with a majority of contributors not having English as a first language. On AN it is advisable to stick to facts, rather than using parody and sarcasm which are likely to be misunderstood or even taken as literal quotations when I have written no such thing. By the way, I believe that the vast majority of Commons contributors would see this type of parody as actual trolling, or at least "willfully unpleasant". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If you refer to the hypothetical/counterfactual in Colin's response to me, I don't think it could genuinely be understood as actually quoting you, even by someone with poor English, and I don't think it's trolling or willfully unpleasant (or even sarcastic) or otherwise worth striking. Storkk (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It is in quotes and has my name against it. Once archived, these sarcastic parodies turn up in searches and are easily mistaken as evidence, especially when published on AN. As for "willfully unpleasant", as there is no way of how to measure it, perhaps we should describe it as "creating a hostile environment", per BP, as a character attack using deriding parody is precisely intended to do that. My request for an administrator to strike it from this noticeboard remains reasonable, as this is not a free forum for political posturing or a chat room. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Being in quotes and being in proximity to your name neither makes it a "quote" nor does it make it "attributed to [you]". Nor is it a parody, which would require me to imitate your style with exaggerated effect. The fact that a statement of good wishes towards another user being possibly "attributed" to you causes you offence, tells us all something. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Attack page deleted

The page was deleted after Fæ revert my request to speedy delete per Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User 3. Inappropriate use of user pages. The deleting admin marked it as (User requested deletion in own userspace) to protect his friend. Another marvelous move from Revent!!! Jee 17:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't create drama where none is needed. The page was intended as a log of actions, not an "attack page". If it were, then my account would have been blocked on sight. As for having friends, that's not forbidden by Commons policies yet, it's normally called working in collegiate way. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Meh. I deleted it because he asked me to, in his userspace. Pro forma. I wouldn't have kept an 'editorial' in the log even if I had deleted for the other reason anyhow. Quit being pointy. Reventtalk 17:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jkadavoor: please AGF with Revent, me I do really, I don't think he was deliberately acting in a wrong way. It is useless to fight for a question of principle now, as in the same way it was also widely useless for Fae to revert your speedy request, for to ask just after that, the page be deleted. Obviously not a climate of appeasement; nobody here is able of that? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Christian that Revent's action was ok, but also agree it was valid to delete it per Jee's #3 speedy deletion. -- Colin (talk)
Fae poked me, and asked me to delete a page in his userspace. I said, "Yeah, sure, whatever," and did so, as I typically do when people randomly poke me to do perfectly mundane things while I'm sitting here watching Hulu. Again, meh. If I'd deleted it for the other reason, I'd have used the dropdown reason anyhow, instead of whatever whoever wrote, as usual. I didn't even look at the page history until Jee complained. Reventtalk 19:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
....and I doubt many admins would, for such a mundane thing... Reventtalk 19:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this whole section should be closed. An appropriate degree of trout slapping has occurred. The only list we should be writing right now is the one to Santa. Have a great weekend folks! -- Colin (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion needing closure

Please could someone close Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07/Category:Famous dogs - it's been open since July, with no comments since the 13th of that month. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's too bad someone like Auntof6 isn't an admin. Most admins, myself included, are lost in the woods at CFD. INeverCry 07:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

high-profile accounts (not on Commons) were hacked

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins, see this announcement.

Just for the record and for increased attention: early this morning the hacker-group OurMine was able to hack/compromise the :en-account of no less than Jimbo himself[19], the :en-account of Asaf Bartov[20] and the WMF-account of Jdforrester[21]. Both cases have already been taken care of (en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Compromised). Though it's less likely that the same group will also hack Commons-accounts, we must reckon with it. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. Is there a Phabricator ticket for the investigation/analysis of possible vulnerabilities? Let's hope there are no knee-jerk quick changes to security as a result.
For any long term users who protect their anonymity and may be worried about getting targeted or even losing their password (I'd include all admin accounts in this), it is handy to make use of {{User committed identity}}. This means a steward can easily confirm who you are and reset your account password without having to know anything about your legal identity, or forcing you to use work or college email addresses. There's an example of what it looks like at the bottom of my user page and several free tools are around to generate the highly secure hashes, such as jsSHA. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Asaf Bartov, whose account had also been hacked, claims it to be "bruteforced, despite a fairly strong password".[22]
May be due to being saturday and still recovering from election-shock ;-) the public discussion at Jimbo talk hasn't gained momentum so far. --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a private ticket and it is being investigated. Matma Rex (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I never understood why Jimbo is a CU/OS/admin. I could maybe see admin, but OS and CU? I'd be out 20$ if he uses either more than once a year. lNeverCry 10:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: , it would be great if the analysis could be summarized publicly, even if low on detail. It's understandable that a potential security flaw would not be immediately made public. :-)
Yes, I skimmed the discussion. I believe that Asaf used a reasonable password, he's no fool. My security is probably best practice without going nuts about it. I use a unique 20+ character machine generated random string and rely on KeePassX to manage it (a free app I can run on any platform, including my mobile phone), so it's easy to change if anything odd happens. My SHA512 hash uses a nice plain English phrase showing that it's me, added to a 25+ character random string. In general, I'd say that it would be highly unlikely for anyone to invest the energy it would take to crack my password considering there is no direct financial gain to be had, and it can all be reset in a few minutes. No security set up can stop volunteers being hoaxed through social hacks or clever trojan sites, but if that becomes a reality, the WMF may have to invest in a few videos better to educate trusted users (admins, stewards, OTRS volunteers) on how to avoid being compromised, as no smart technical solution stops you from handing your password over by accident. --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Raised on Wikimedia-l, should anyone wish to chip in there. Post --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hell, the hacking is still on-going. Hacked just 1 hour ago: :enUser:Legoktm[23], now globally locked.
Even more: User:AlisonW[24], User:Angelo.romano[25], User:Ckoerner[26], User:Nirzardp[27], all have now been globally locked. --Túrelio (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ouch. Not good, especially over the weekend when WMF ops will have difficulty. Timing may be deliberate, and the problem may be more widespread than reported. --Fæ (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins, see en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two-Factor_Authentication_now_available_for_admins. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently it seems to require having a smartphone. Sadly, no smartphone, no 2FA. --Túrelio (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Túrelio: No, it does not... it only requires having a RFC 2368-compliant code generator. As mentioned at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Security_Team/Two-factor_Authentication_for_CentralAuth_wikis there are other ways to generate the codes... Microsoft Authenticator is the 'official' Windows client, and Google Authenticator is one for MacOS. There is also a Google Chrome addon (GAuth Authenticator). Reventtalk 20:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure? When clicking on "activate 2FA", in step 4 on the first page I'm asked for a code from an app. And the steward who notified :de about the 2FA also said it requires a mobile device.[28] --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Yes, the 'documentation' is less than ideal... they implemented TOTP, any RFC 2368-compliant 'code generator' will work, as long as it's clock is relatively synchronized. You have to generate, and enter, a valid code in order to turn it on. Logins then require username, password, and the generated code (which changes based on the time). This is actually the exact same process sites like Yahoo Mail use to generate the codes that you receive by text message (they just 'send you' the code). Reventtalk 21:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to make this perfectly certain, I just installed and tested the Google Chrome addon. When properly configured, it generates the exact same codes, changing in sync, as my TOTP device. Reventtalk 21:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What's more (and people should be aware of this, I think) the 'two-factor account name' and 'two-factor secret key', displayed on the same page as your 'scratch codes' (the confirmation page, when you turn on two-auth) can be used to configure multiple devices/programs to generate the codes. The codes produced by each device will be the same, and change synchronously. Reventtalk 21:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

See Google Authenticator. Wikitech wiki uses the same protocol. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

According to an edit on Jimbos talkpage, the hackergroup now claims "they stole a whole database".[29] Let's hope that's not true. --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be on the safe side, everybody should change their passwords. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC) P.S.: That would also explain why brute-forcing worked.
Yes, probably not true, however it seems like a good moment for everyone to change their passwords anyway. Just changed mine, making it an even longer machine generated string. Maybe someone should put some advice on the Village Pump to change passwords as a precaution? --Fæ (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
We should file a phab ticket to force every one to change their passwords ASAP. ★ Poké95 02:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
A new era has begun. Its time for Trump. ↔ User: Perhelion 06:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have raised Phab:T150605 asking for the analysis of the hack to be published, so that the community can be better informed. :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Your selfless contribution to measures designed to increase the community's level of information is, as always, impressive. It's certainly a better use of your time, in my opinion, than petty, bitter campaigns against admins you feel may have wronged you in some way. I'm heartened, and long may this trend continue. Do you think the Phab task would look nicer with a bigger, redder heading? -- Begoon 17:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do you write this? The bold heading had not been posted by Fae, but by Nick, and it was you who changed its color to red. --Túrelio (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
You're quite correct. I struck the part that confused you. -- Begoon 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please post to Phab:T150605 that there is an evidence that the attack continues [30] (Devs believed it ceased; I forgot how to post there :-). Materialscientist (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: Stews were aware within about 15 minutes, it's all locked and reverted. Reventtalk 01:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but I'm talking about Devs, not Stews, see Phab:T150605. Materialscientist (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(nods) Yeah, I just figured the Stews probably told them. I left a note on Phab tho. Reventtalk 01:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, devs found out the same time stews did. We are monitoring the situation closely. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Error while splitting File:Transmission icon.png

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T150702

I wanted to split this file, so I temporarily deleted it, restored "old" revisions, moved them to a new file name and deleted redirect. Now, when I try to restore "new" revisions, I get Error undeleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/6/6d/Transmission_icon.png" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends. Am I doing something wrong? --jdx Re: 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: It's not you, it's a bug... it's why splits and merges are backlogged, really. We are scared of permanently nuking stuff. Reventtalk 20:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The only real solution is to submit a task on phabricator, to ask somone with database access to fix it. Reventtalk 20:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
jdx Just as a note, if you 'move' from the 'confirmation page' after undeleting, it avoids the gadget and lets you not leave a redirect. Saves a step. Reventtalk
I managed to restore all page versions and all file versions except one. When I try to restore file version from 3rd April 2008, I get DBTransactionSizeError. Is there someone with access to the database who could restore this version "manually"? --jdx Re: 05:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Old version remove

I have uploaded this file. By mistake while I overwriting this file I upload a wrong version. Is any admin can remove the version as 12:28, 16 November 2016 of the same file.~Hunter17 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

File:25th Anniversary Celebration at New River Trail State Park (7211330496).jpg

Hello, I've accidentally overwritten this file by cropping. It was reverted by myself. Now I ask to remove the needless versions from the file history. Thanks. --GeorgHH • talk   20:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done lNeverCry 22:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Automatic archivization of Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests

Could a guru explain why automatic archivization doesn't work on this page? I think this is due to 4th level headers, but I'm not sure about it. --jdx Re: 01:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the first time I've ever seen that page...and the last... lNeverCry 04:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a high traffic page... unsure it if was ever actually set up for archiving. Most cases are handled via the template. Reventtalk 20:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Rehman tried to set up automatic archivization. --jdx Re: 20:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx, Rehman, and Revent: The archiving setup, as it is now, requires you to react faster than 31 days after request (and then every answer faster than 31 days), and you do not need to add the {{Section resolved}} template (you still can, of course), {{Done}} or similar is enough for showing the request is complied. Another method, where {{Section resolved}} is necessary, would use {{Autoarchive resolved section}}, but this knows only archiving by years as maximum. (I‘ve already thought of asking Euku, the SpBot owner, for enhancing syntax, e.g. for two-year or even five-year archives, but wasn’t enough in urge.) — Speravir – 22:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oooh, I did not look, when Rehman has inserted the instructions. They are obviously without effect in the moment. I assume, the template has to be moved below the first section title. I will do this in some seconds, and we will see. (BTW: In {{Autoarchive resolved section}} the section level can be set up.) — Speravir – 03:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of versions of a file

Hello, I was asked to help with this: could you please remove the two versions of File:Nagy László 1972.jpg dated 15:01 and 09:30 today, since the OTRS permission only allows "size under 300 px in both directions". Thanks in advance! Oliv0 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Such a restriction seems incompatible with the license to me. Jcb (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This has been a long-disputed point. We have allowed people to release low-res versions of pictures separately and interpreted it this way for basically forever, until Creative Commons came in and said that the CC license applies to the whole work, regardless of resolution. Have we ever decided which interpretation to use? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The license given in this case by the author of photographs printed in a series of annual books is not CC-BY-SA-3.0 but CC-BY-SA-3.0 with some restrictions: "exact citation (year of publication, picture number), and size under 300 px in both directions". Oliv0 (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
We don't allow licenses "with some restrictions". They have to agree with the license as is, or we have to delete the file. Jcb (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The restriction is moot, since we only have a 300 px file. I don't think we would reject a file where the author said "I license this under CC-BY-SA-3.0 only if 1 + 1 = 2." And they are allowed to specify the manner of attribution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Just one exemple. The licensing requirements of the image are specified in the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license "you are free to remix – to adapt the work". And what about if someone upscale our 300px version to 800px in order to use the image in his commercial website. Sorry but this is a restriction to the license, at least this look a bit too much to No Derivative. The file should be deleted, I agree with Jcb. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The legal code of the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence says: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." In other words, one cannot add further restrictions to a CC licence. As for credit/attribution, "The credit required by this Section [] may be implemented in any reasonable manner." So one can request a particular wording/location but cannot demand it. If our OTRS team are accepting ad hoc restrictions above those permitted by the licence, then they need to be educated on this issue before accepting more such works. I agree with KoH that CC clarified that the licence affects the "work of copyright" rather than "a 300px JPG" so would cover larger (or enlarged) versions, though it is terrible that CC/WMF for years encouraged artists to think otherwise. If the author is unhappy that they have been mislead by the OTRS team that their resolution restriction was valid, then I would support a courtesy deletion if they wish. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody explain the situation in Hungarian to Hungarikusz Firkász? This user has severe difficulties to understand English. I will nominate the file for deletion. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The situation is currently being discussed in Hungarian and explained to users Dencey and Hungarikusz Firkász on User talk:Dencey#Nagy László 1972.jpg, though the main discussion is in English on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagy László 1972.jpg. Oliv0 (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Separately from the deletion issue, User:Dencey, you did not upload "a new version of this file" but a completely different file that I assume you generated by scanning the book. If you do this, you must upload to a new filename, not merely replace the existing one. See COM:OVERWRITE. In my opinion also, your new version is inferior to the original small one in that the contrast is so high many details are lost that were present even in the small original. A further complication is that the original file had an OTRS permission ticket whereas yours does not. Therefore your new file should have been uploaded separately and with a separate claim of permission (that you believed the work was released under CC BY-SA). These issues are moot if the file is now deleted. -- Colin (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

...although CC strongly discourages the practice, CC cannot prevent licensors from attempting to impose restrictions through separate agreements on uses the license otherwise would allow. In that case, licensees may be contractually restricted from using the high-resolution copy, for example, even if the licensor has placed a CC license on the low-resolution copy.

— see Creative Commons, in: on https://creativecommons.org/faq/ by section "Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?" and on https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Fauvirt (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Fauvirt, previously this has been explained thus: Low resolution copy uploaded to Commons with CC licence. High resolution copy available on stock photo site upon purchase and under strict terms of use that the stock photo site demands (e.g. image can be only used for purpose agreed at time of purchase such as in company brochure with print-run < 1000 copies). This means the purchaser is of course bound by the conditions they accepted when they received the high-resolution copy, and can't ignore those terms by claiming the low-resolution copy is CC. What a creator can't do is offer an image with a CC licence while simultaneously imposing restrictions on that same work. See Modifying CC licenses which basically says you cannot use the CC licence name or logos if you create an ad-hoc licence either by modifying the text or adding restrictions. This rule applies to us here on Commons: we are breaking CC's terms if we have a file description page that uses CC name/logo and which isn't really a CC licence. That's why we must either remove the invalid restrictions, or delete the file. -- Colin (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: oh... I didn't know about this modification from April 2015... and I see, the permission is from June 2015... then it is really not valid in this case...
So it's good to know this (not so) novelty... But thank you to show it! Fauvirt (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said on the deletion request page, this "either ... or" should also include the third option usually used in the past for some old licences that were considered unsatisfactory: rephrase the licence according to the most probable intent of the owner of the rights, in this case not call it a CC license but a free license inspired by CC with an extra condition on scan size.
Anyway, there is still room for my initial request: whatever is the future decision to delete or not delete the file page, please remove at once all uploaded versions of File:Nagy László 1972.jpg that do not verify "size under 300 px in both directions", in accordance with the "official policy" COM:L "Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version". Oliv0 (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The deletion discussion has been closed and the file deleted by User:Jameslwoodward with the reason "This is black letter law -- you cannot restrict the size or specify the exact wording of the attribution". In this case of the "Balla Demeter license" (hu:Template:Balla Demeter-engedély), the requirement "exact citation (year of publication, picture number)" of the corresponding yearbook did not mean the attribution but only the description on the file page; and more importantly, the other requirement "size under 300 px in both directions" (which intends to limit quality and so refers to scan size and not to derivation to bigger sizes that do not improve quality) is allowed by the "official policy" COM:L: "Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version." So there is no en:black letter law ("legal rules that are no longer subject to reasonable dispute") but on the contrary, an official policy says that "the copyright holder's intentions" is to be followed by deleting the higher quality versions, which of course means not the lower quality versions, in accordance with the well established practice of replacing an old unsatisfactory (here, CC + low-res) licence with a better phrased (free but non-CC) licence that expresses "the copyright holder's intentions".

Admins are expected to make everybody follow official policies, so my request to admins here is still to reverse User:Jameslwoodward's deletion and remove only the versions that do not verify "size under 300 px in both directions", since this is the official policy as long as there is no conclusive community discussion (maybe an RFC) that would change COM:L. Oliv0 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think (and I don't hope) that you will find an admin who is prepared to wheelwar with Jim in order to undo the obvious conclusion of the deletion nomination. Jcb (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: The problem is that "no wheelwar" means we will delete hundreds of files with a "CC + low-res" license in total disrespect of our "official policy". I started a section Commons talk:Licensing#Free license only for lower quality version, but at the moment we should acknowledge that the change of official policy is not done yet. Oliv0 (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised at the "black letter law" remark, which sounds rather arrogant imo, because it seems quite clear the issue isn't fully clear, nor settled in law. User:Clindbert on the VPCopyright page is arguing that copyright owners can try to add restrictions to a CC licence and a judge might side with them, though CC could complain it is not a CC licence and breaches their trademarks. I am a bit surprised at the removal of all versions by User:Jameslwoodward. Is this because we object to breaking CC's trademarks on that page? Or because we regard a CC licence with restrictions on size/attribution to be "non-free". If the latter, then perhaps policy needs updating. Does that mean that all files on Commons that contain (either on the page or in some OTRS note) a restriction on size + CC licence are to be deleted? Colin -- 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The point for us is not whether CC would allow a derivative work of their license. The point is that the result in this case is incompatible with COM:L (a restriction to derivative work), so that we cannot host such a file at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said just above, "the copyright holder's intention" advocated by COM:L is not a restriction to derivative work but is "to limit quality and so refers to scan size and not to derivation to bigger sizes that do not improve quality". So now admins have to choose the lesser evil between:
  1. revert deletion and remove versions as in my initial request,
  2. start a policy of deleting "CC + low-res" files disregarding the "official policy" COM:L,
  3. change the "official policy" COM:L at once to justify this change of policy, in spite of the {{Policy}} warning "Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy."
Doing nothing is #2. Oliv0 (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about this file, the reason why I uploaded it here and asked for deletion of high-res versions is only that Hungarians with a bad command of English asked me to do so. What I care about is the notion often found at the Village Pump on the French and Hungarian Wikipedias that Commons is a dangerous place where unforeseen licensing problems loom at every corner, and in this context what is expected from admins is the rule of law, the enforcement of the official policy COM:L and not of a new ad hoc policy designed by self-proclaimed experts out of sight of most people. So the change of COM:L is to be discussed at Commons talk:Licensing#Free license only for lower quality version, anything you decide is fine for me but do decide what the policy is, and enforce it. Oliv0 (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

If there is no objection from admins, the consensus that a "CC + low-res" file is to be deleted, that seems to have been found here against my opinion, means that this paragraph from COM:L is no longer valid, so I will remove it when this section gets archived and mention this on its talk page, where it can be further discussed if necessary. Oliv0 (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oliv0 I have replied on the talk page of the policy. You misunderstand the reason why your file was deleted and why that text was added to COM:L. You also need to get Community consensus for a change in policy. The "admins" are not the community, and a lack of objection is not the same thing as agreement. Most folk have probably started ignoring this very old topic, so it really is not the place to propose policy changes. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Right, admins doing nothing to enforce a point of a policy is not a community consensus against it, even if admins are chosen by the community. So I will just keep an eye on Commons talk:Licensing#Free license only for lower quality version and recommend that admins participate in it. Oliv0 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A decision against a policy

So this matter needs a summary. The policy COM:L presently says (defining with a link just above a free license)

Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version.

meaning that (in accordance with CC) a free license that restricts quality has to be respected on Commons; and the deletion decision in question says

This is black letter law -- you cannot restrict the size or specify the exact wording of the attribution.

meaning that per "well-established technical legal rules that are no longer subject to reasonable dispute" (link on black letter law) files with such a licence are to be deleted.

User:Colin on the policy talk page thinks that the policy implicitly means "stricter terms to higher quality versions" are given on an external site, so that giving on Commons a free license with such stricter terms can still be forbidden. I think the policy explicitly says that "hosting only the lower quality version" is allowed, and that respecting a restriction made on an external site while forbidding the same restriction made explicitly on Commons makes no sense. Oliv0 (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oliv0, please continue/start this discussion on an appropriate noticeboard. There's no admin action required here, and discussing licence and policy is not the purpose of the admin noticeboard. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The admin action is, as I initially required, to enforce the policy: delete high-res versions and keep low-res. Oliv0 (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Can I have permission for my bot - User:Structor - please? The aim is non-trivial categorization. --Infovarius (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Infovarius: you have commented here and on Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, but not at Commons:Requests for rights#AutoWikiBrowser access. In order for the request to be archived correctly (and seen by the relevant subset of users investigating and commenting on rights grants), could you please do that, per the instructions at Commons:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Access? Storkk (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It was hard to find a right place to make a request :) --Infovarius (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Infovarius: No worries - like every wiki, there's so many nooks and crannies here that it can be tough to remember where to look. May I suggest that you clarify in your request how the current proposed usage is different from your 2014 request where it was decided you should request a bot flag? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
May I answer here? I've forgotten about that request :) Now, for example, I want to fill categories like Category:Nikolay (given name) by a filtrated list of categories found by search. I doubt that this can be done by standard commands of CommonsDelinker. And yes, bot flag is also desirable. --Infovarius (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Page specific bugs

Is there anybody we can contact if specific pages have a bug? I have made a list of some cases here. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

phabricator:? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done, see here - Jcb (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done for these specific pages (logs permalink). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
lol, interesting to see the past me failing in the deletion log, should have known better earlier --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

These images uploaded from November 12

Can an Admin with OTRS access please consider passing these images after reading the OTRS message? The flickr license is pd-mark.

I only marked this image. If I made a mistake, please revert me. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Roger Puta, photographer of thousands of good railroad images has died and left his images in the care of Mel Finzer and Marty Bernard. They have posted them on Flickr, all with the PDM. Fundamentally, Bernards's OTRS e-mail says:
"Mel and I agreed we want the maximum number of people to enjoy and learn from them without limitations. I see no reason we would change that. There is no way I'm going into flickr and change the copyright status on 10,000 or more photos. Out of courtesy we hope his photos will be attributed to him."
That isn't perfect, but my judgement is that the clear intent is that they are irrevocably PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

About editings of SteinsplitterBot

Why SteinsplitterBot removed links from description, author and source information of files? For example, see this [31]. Same editings were done on many other my uploads (Arvin2 is my ex-account). These files lost necessary information. --Arvin (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We do no longer use interwiki links, and e.g. [[jp:朝日新聞社|朝日新聞社]] is such a link. (It creates a link to the article in the left menu instead of in the description field). To link to a Japanese page in the text, use [[:jp:朝日新聞社|朝日新聞社]] instead (with ':' added at the beginning) - Jcb (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
But it shouldn't happen. Will fix it, thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: I have given a deep look into this, especially because the source has been removed and converted to a interwiki. Everything should be reverted now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Steinsplitter! I confirmed your fixings. --Arvin (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:D2

Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taivo&diff=prev&oldid=215676713 somebody with bot needed to delete 3200 files in category:D2. Taivo (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

An AdminBot for deletion? Well, only White Cat might get a bot approved for this. Without it, VFC should work --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3200 isn't much, thus it should be possible to do it with COM:VFC in a few minutes. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppets - how to proceed?

User:Giakhanghp and User:Mtcp1316 seem to be sockpuppets of each other, possibly inadvertently. (See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giakhanghp and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mtcp1316.) How to we best proceed in cases like this? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Mtcp1316 and asked User:Giakhanghp to stick to one account to avoid confusion. lNeverCry 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Strepsils-logo.png

The description page for File:Strepsils-logo.png exists but not the file itself. Error? --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. There was never a file under this name. Pinging @Fanofbfolders: who created the file description page. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion needing closure

Please could someone close Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07/Category:Famous dogs - it's been open since July, with no comments since the 13th of that month. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's too bad someone like Auntof6 isn't an admin. Most admins, myself included, are lost in the woods at CFD. INeverCry 07:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Restored from archive. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy, non-admins can close CfDs. That CfD seems fairly uncontroversial, so just enact it? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
True, Andy. Although I'm not an admin, I have closed a few CfDs. The only thing I can't do is delete, but many CfDs don't require that; for those that do, I can either ask an admin to do the closure, or use a speedy delete template. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I raised the issue, and am thus involved. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Two versions of Fabritius Goldfinch

File:FabritiusGoldfinch.jpg was overwritten with a different version. Please can someone split the page, so that both are available? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Done. We now have File:FabritiusGoldfinch.jpg and File:FabritiusGoldfinch 2012.jpg. Can you check these and see about any cleanup of source info, etc? lNeverCry 02:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Files of Zaphod 42

Hello.Are these files free and useful?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

They look ok to me from a copyright standpoint. From a COM:SCOPE point of view they appear to be pretty decent too. Consistent good quality and EXIF metadata. lNeverCry 07:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Rename requests for categories under Category: Maps of Strasbourg by century made

Background: I noticed that the grandchild categories under Category:Old maps of Strasbourg didn't have standard names. The ones for which century was shown had names like "16th-century maps of Strasbourg". However, that is the convention normally used to indicate when maps were made, not what time period they show. I moved these to names that match the naming conventions for corresponding categories for Paris. For example, I moved Category:15th-century maps of Strasbourg to Category: Maps of Strasbourg in the 15th century‎. I did the same for the 16th through 20th centuries.

So now I want to move the subcats under Category: Maps of Strasbourg by century made to more standard names. For example, I want to move Category: 16th-century made maps of Strasbourg‎ to Category: 16th-century maps of Strasbourg‎ (just removing the word "made"). However, I can't do these moves because the names they should use already exist. That's because they were the former names of the categories mentioned above, and the moves I already did left them as redirects.

So I'm asking for an admin to do the remaining moves. Here is a list of the categories that need to be moved:

I hope I've explained this well. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done lNeverCry 10:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! --Auntof6 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Auntof6 per consistency -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
PS OOOps ... Already done :->
My only suggestion now that the categories are done is for someone, perhaps Auntof6 would add explanation at top of each category explaining what should be put there without having to search or refer to this section. I personally really like category headers which are descriptive and/or exclusive for content; it helps a lot for less experienced catalogers to understand the structure without guessing. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on the English main page

Could a native English speaker look at this? It looks reasonable to me. --jdx Re: 17:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to me too. I am a native English speaker. A collection of images is a better description than what is there now. I concur that the change should be made.--FeralOink (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
FeralOink, User:Jdx, if you agree with the change -- as I do, please comment there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --jdx Re: 20:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Author

Hello, can you give me the name of the author of this file ? Indeed, there is OTRS request (#2016110210020791) and I want to check before eventually asking a undeletation. Cordially, --Gratus (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Idem for File:Babaud.JDC1.jpg (OTRS #2016110410007597) please. --Gratus (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Babaud.JDC1.jpg is a newspaper clipping from Journal du Centre. File:Affiche-peuple-des-ronces.jpg is a poster claimed to be from DUF (Philippe Dufour). Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yann : Thanks. In this case, can you undelete this file please ? --Gratus (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gratus: File:Affiche-peuple-des-ronces.jpg was a poster. The copyright holder is not immediately apparent from the poster itself (it is for "Un spectacle du Carambole", "Une pièce de Pascal Tedes", and "en collaboration avec Michel Benoit"). The file's description credited "DUF (Philippe Dufour)" as author. May I suggest you reply to the ticket asking why they claim to be the copyright holder (did they design it, etc?). Storkk (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

sprinkled throughout Wiki[media|pedia] are anchors purporting to go to subj's original files. all of these links relative to flags, seals, symbols, et cetera are not working and should be removed. moreover, since these many links are not working, somebody needs to check all the other links relating to subj in order to effectuate removal where appropriate.

of equal importance are parallel references to subj's claimed licensing that require removal since it is impossible to license a source that does not exist.

EXEMPLAR: PAGE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Alabama.svg

  • NOTE: the missing directory (if even "caught" by their web-server), infra, in '.../clipart//signs_and_symbols/...' is not pertinent (i.e. '.../clipart/' is itself a 404)

'Source http://openclipart.org/clipart//signs_and_symbols/flags/america/united_states/usa_alabama.svg'

'This file is from the Open Clip Art Library, which released it explicitly into the public domain (see here).'

'Original URL: http://openclipart.org/clipart//signs_and_symbols/flags/america/united_states/usa_alabama.svg' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonp (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a simple case of link rot. Luckily, openclipart.org's robots.txt did not prohibit archiving, meaning many or all of these links (see here for your example) should be salvageable. That the source did exist at one point and was correctly licensed is probably good enough. Storkk (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's good enough; linkrot for the source URL is never a good reason to delete if there aren't any other problems. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I must say that I doubt users will find any solace in the fact that some third-party archive (which most will have no idea how to find) exists for multiple bum links and an illegitimate license reference. and, 'other problems' will certainly include the fact that a site that is supposed/perceived to be somewhat authoritative fails to live up to its own standard. if it is "good enough" that something existed at one time it should also be "good enough" to note that the actual anchor now is bogus! otherwise, the far less amateurish and logical alternative is to actually do proper link maintenance like any quality site would do and delete or repair non-working anchors and any references thereto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonp (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You do realise that everyone here is an amateur, right? This site has the quality it has based on the effort you put into it. Nobody is stopping you from adding archive links if you want to. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
We have no way to prevent link rot on links to other sites. If they don't maintain URLs in perpetuity, the fault is theirs, not ours. We are a volunteer operation, so if you want to take on some kind of proactive approach to this, you are as welcome as anyone.
By the way, any time you need to make sure a page on an external site is archived, using https://www.webcitation.org/ at the time you make is a pretty good solution (assuming the site in question does not have settings to prevent such activity). However, that will archive only the single page, not images, so it is of limited use for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

yes, I realize that contributions rely upon individuals creating and updating material. all I am saying is that from the $5+ million IT budget for sysadmin efforts there should be a few cents allocated to periodic link checking. this would seem to be a very valuable effort to not only resolve the "link rot" herein discussed, but also to clean up after the many errors that must creep in from so much free-form creation and editing. obviously, running such an app from outside the IT bailiwick is never going to happen.

we all understand that documents disappear for a variety of reasons: deletion, site demise, site directory tree re-org, ... it is even more frustrating when large sites -- such as openclipart.org -- abrogate their responsibility to keep external links viable with internals that still reach doc's. yet, all of these "facts-of-life" only validate the need for some mechanism to "clean out" the chaff so that the user experience is all that more valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonp (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the $5+ million figure from. As far as I can tell, the Wikimedia Foundation has a $26 million budget for Engineering. But link maintenance is neither an IT nor an Engineering matter, it's a content curation matter, and I don't think the community would appreciate the WMF stepping in to do that. And if you disagree, this is the wrong place to complain. This page is for requesting assistance with actions requiring administrator privileges from community volunteers who have those privileges. Adding archive links to file descriptions does not require administrative privileges. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

BUDGET: the final approved 2016-2017 total is $61,360,000 and of this $14,184,169 is for the Technology Department. my figure quoted, supra, was an extrapolation more focused on the cap-/op-exp for the two (2) datacenters. actually, according to the foundation's plan, both the Product and Technology Departments share goals relative to data "cleanliness" and enhancing users' experiences.

all of this is available here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final

it is probably correct to surmise that my ramblings in this section is the wrong place for this discussion. I did believe that this section actually reached "staff" administrators as well as volunteers, but this may well be a poor assumption solely on my part.

what is a very valid foundation and community assumption is demonstrated by the "number one" pick of the top ten action items jointly selected for 2016: cleaning up dead links! although some preliminary efforts have been expended tuning up some demo bots to operate in English, Spanish, and Swedish; the time-line projection has not been fully updated since early 2016 and the presentation data gives few clues as to how that effort presently is proceeding ... if at all. I am under no misconception re the major work that must be done to complete the initial work. the nice part is that once the job goes into maintenance mode it becomes a low-resource-utilization background app that keeps things tidy and measurably more useful.

I thank the contributors here for prodding me into delving deeper into research than my original effort that brought me here. the link maintenance project is available here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Migrate_dead_external_links_to_archives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonp (talk • contribs) 22:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:The_Photographer#Generosity_Crowdfunding_Campaign

Fifty-one of us have received a request to give money to User:The Photographer. If you didn't get one, see User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Generosity_Crowdfunding_Campaign_for_User:The_Photographer.

I think that solicitation of gifts from colleagues here is a bad idea. We all have many desires for money for good causes. I actively support several charities and solicit my friends for donations, as they do me. That is all good, and expected. I think it is quite another thing if WMF editors start asking each other for money, especially for their own use. All of us have things we would like to buy that would help our work here -- faster computers, better cameras, lenses, or accessories, trips to interesting places. If we allow this, we will open a floodgate of similar requests. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially as this was previously posted to the Village pump (already stretching the bounds of propriety IMO). If "spamming most of the day with no results" produced fewer results than expected, the next step is absolutely definitely not to post it to numerous individual talk pages. Storkk (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Two people need to chill. This doesn't happen often. The Photographer is a pretty unusual case. His current equipment is donated by a Commons user and is getting old/faulty. He has created scores of featured pictures and hundreds of quality images. More quality content that all the "Wiki Loves". We have a combination here of obvious financial need (unlike 90% of us who manage quite nicely) and obvious photographic talent and obvious track record of generously giving his time and images to Commons. In such a case, Crowdfunding for equipment that will obviously directly benefit Commons, and in an area of the world where we lack images, seems entirely appropriate for Commons community to do. I think there's a serious First World attitude problem with these two comments, and a "slippery slope" fallacy. Seriously, creating an AN and threatening an RFC because of one talk page post. Honest, haven't you all got "Category UploadWizard" removal stuff to be getting on with. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It is possible to simultaneously hope that this fundraiser goes as high as possible and also emphatically disapprove of unsolicited requests for money for any reason on user talk pages. I know this is possible, because this is actually my position: I sincerely hope that Wilfredo exceeds his stretch goals, but I have a visceral negative reaction to unsolicited talk page requests for money. I do not think this is irrational, and I'd be surprised if this was not a majority position among community members. Storkk (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Well it's five hours since Jim posted his complaint, and we already knew you were unhappy so no surprise at you turning up. By the standards of an AN notice, this an irrelevance to the community. 21 people have donated, almost all of them personally invited by a message on their talk page that I sent yesterday. I have received many messages thanking me for the campaign and the notices. Far more positive and encouraging reactions than the negative and mean spirited reaction from you two. The response from the photographers, who actually create material for Commons, rather than just move JPGs around the internet, has been great. Big thank-you to them.
And Storkk, you've now several times said you want to say nothing more about it and would like to mark the topic as closed. So, em, do that. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
If there are multiple discussions regarding facets of an event, the closing of one of them does not preclude a continuation of another. Storkk (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Storkk, for expressing my feelings perfectly -- I also hope that Wilfredo raises a lot of money and can fill out his camera bag as needed to continue to do great work for Commons. At the same time, though, I don't like his method. And, by the way, since he used WMF's web site and mailing list to raise the money, he might consider donating 10% to WMF. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Broken community

You know this whole sad complaint just confirms my impressions that the non-photographers (i.e, those whose main purpose on Commons is not to contribute images of their own) have a broken community. When this crowdfunding campaign started on the 20th, I posted messages to the VP and a couple of community talk pages. Two days later, we still had only two donations and it seemed the campaign would fail. The Village Pump message was no longer current, having been replaced on people's watchlist by another topic within two hours [this is a serious problem for the VP: notices do not get noticed unless they generate discussion]. So on the 22nd, at lunchtime, I sent a bunch of messages to people I know on the Featured Picture Candidates forum and to a few others I knew well on Commons. And I got a good response and lots of thank-yous and lots of donations. This first batch of messages transformed the fundraiser from having only two donations to having over a dozen and from being a long way from achieving its first goal to making progress on the second goal. I sent a bunch more messages in the evening and by morning of the 23rd the campaign had surpassed the second goal and raised over $1000. I suggested to The Photographer that he could contact some of his friends who I either new less well or some of whom didn't like me much. He sent more messages than I expected and perhaps that was a fault. But the response to that batch of messages was underwhelming to say the least, and the above two hostile reactions was very discouraging. Now, there are several variables at play, and hard to compare the responses since by the 23rd the campaign was surpassing two goals, though my experience with previous such campaigns suggests that it is possible to keep exceeding modest goals for some time. But the main difference in the messages from 22nd to 23rd was that The Photographer mostly sent messages to the non-photographers on Commons.

The Featured Picture forum has a community. It isn't perfect but it exists and functions. There are people there I have known for many years, some I know very well and some less so. The Photographer has been on Commons longer than me but I recall this Featured Picture Candidate from 2012 where he explained the difficulty he had taking high-quality pictures of his home Venezuela with the little compact camera he could afford. IIRC this resulted in a donation by a Commons user of their own quality DSLR and lens. In fact, this user went out and bought two more lenses to donate to ensure it was a decent kit. Since then we have had scores of featured pictures and many hundreds of other quality images from him. So that's been a very worthwhile community donation, and a better return-on-investment than many other activities here. Throughout that time, The Photographer and I have not always got along well, but we respect each others as photographers and since we belong to a small community, we have to get over our differences and move on. We have both seen each other develop as photographers and to try new techniques. One of those, which is quite popular, is to create high-resolution images by stitching frames together in software. When I had just a 14MP entry-level DSLR, it helped me compete with the "big boys" who had fancy professional DSLRs. For The Photographer, with his ageing 12MP D300, there is the same attraction. In May last year, User:Code asked his friends for advise on panoramic heads and lenses to use to create such images. He got advice from our community and went on to create some fantastic images (see his user page) and win awards for them. The Photographer has tried to create these images hand-held and struggled with all the problems and unsatisfactory results. I voted Oppose on some of his recent FP candidates and suggested he really needs the proper equipment and crowdfunding would be a way to raise the funds. I fully expected the Feature Picture Community to be that crowd. And it has. [*I know there are donations from others too, but it's mostly FP folk]

I am very sad to see Jim suggest that The Photographer should donate 10% of his crowdfunding fee to WMF. As I noted earlier, I think there's a real First World attitude problem here. The Photographer donates his time, his creative talents and his extensive image library to Commons. Yet some here think those images are worth $0, that time is worth $0 and his talent is worth $0. I do wonder sometimes, if those who mainly/only upload other people's work value the creative artists behind them, or just see a JPG and a CC logo and think nothing beyond that. Far from asking for a 10% commission, WMF have approached The Photographer to suggest applying for a grant to upgrade his camera (which is 8 years old) to a new model.

Nobody wants to be spammed with unsolicited money requests from strangers. And nobody wants to see our talk pages loaded with junk mail from faceless corporations and unknown people. But everyone at FP knows The Photographer, and he is not a stranger to us: he's our friend or our neighbour. My feeling is the negative reaction above has been because The Photographer made the mistake of sending a message to people who did not view him as part of their small community. The comments elsewhere by Storkk about how The Photographer needed to personalise his request demonstrate to me how he views him as a stranger: for nobody at FP needs any personal introduction to The Photographer and what he has contributed to Commons. Why was one of the best photographers on Commons, and greatest donors of personally created images to Commons, treated like a stranger?

I have wondered before if the non-photographic users on Commons lack a goodwill forum to encourage and praise each other. The photographers have the chance to earn gold stars at FP or their work labelled "quality image" and the Photo Challenge is a place where only positive comments and votes are permitted and which attracts new photographers to Commons with the chance of winning a little fun competition. What do the non-photographers have? The Village Pump is neutral, mostly a place to post news or ask for specific help, but not a place where the community encourages each other regularly, or offers praise. All the other forums are negative. Admin action please! Block this user now! Delete these copyright violations! They are places of conflict where people go to complain and remove. This is a serious suggestion: find a way to praise and encourage each other.

Commons is a community project to create a great repository of educational media. It is crowdfunding for JPGs. As such, I have absolutely no problem with highly established and highly regarded members of this community requesting crowdfunding to create more such JPGs. I'm very much looking forward to see what The Photographer uploads with his new kit in 2017 and very glad many in this community have made that possible. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Just three points in response... precisely how successful each stage of the campaign was, is a red herring. Many campaigns (of all types) use distasteful methods and succeed. Their success should not be an endorsement of their methods, if anything it should be cause for examining whether those methods should be used in the future.
You state Nobody wants to be spammed with unsolicited money requests from strangers. I'm glad you recognize that, but frankly, I don't want to be spammed with unsolicited money requests from anybody, and your focusing on whether I view a FPC member as a "friend" or "neighbour" is a red herring.
My suggestion regarding the personalization of the message, as I explicitly stated at the time, would not have made the message OK. Just that when asking for money, the least you can do is spend 5 minutes on every single request. Not doing that, and failing to replace one's own username with the word "me" in phrases such as "the potential for <USERNAME> to create", seem to demonstrate an appalling lack of respect for the people you are messaging. Storkk (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I was away for a few days; just noticed all these discussions now. As a beneficiary of an early crowd-funding program, I would like to share some of my experience. 1. Public notification: My campaign was also promoted by the well-wishers. I was away for the first few days due to some personal matters. If I remember well, there was a neutral post by Odder in Village Pump. His attempt to post in the wm-list was rejected by a list moderator. After one week, Signpost mention about the campaign and consider it as a successful program. 2. Private notification: As I was not sure about how the community will consider it, I had no confidence to post at COM:FPC or COM:QIC talk. So I sent some personal mails to whom I know very well. The response was good. Only one person let me know that such mails are not encouraged.

So I can understand what Jim and Storkk meant here. It is not good to send mails or talk page notifications if we are that much "friends". The Wikimedia chapters in most developed countries have rich technology pools and many Commoners are enjoying to make benefit from them. But Commons need great media from other places of the world too. I'm thankful to the community members who make this new campaign another success. Jee 10:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

One further comment. I had in the back of my mind that this behavior was explicitly prohibited when I made my first talk page comment to Wilfredor. I remembered last night where it is -- WMF's overall Terms of Use, https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities, includes as prohibited activities "Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users." Both Wilfredor himself and Colin have used the word "spam" to describe this activity. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You know, Jim, you're reaction here is like some jobsworth official who wants to close down the cake stall at the village fete because there isn't a health-and-safety certificate and those running it lack hygiene diplomas, and there's no sink to wash hands. And your outrageous 10% commission suggestion is like asking for the cake stall to divert a portion funds to the local council, who cut the grass the stall is on. We both get it that the two of you are grumpy about this. But you are very much alone in finding this "distasteful". Cut a little slack and you might find you gain a friend to or two. Show a little community spirit, which you seriously seem to be lacking. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Two people explicitly speaking out does not equate to two people feeling affronted. Storkk (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The ethical issue

Not wishing to beat a dead horse, but I am still struggling with the ethical disconnect here. For those who think this was originally at most pecadillo not worth bothering about, could you please explain to me what you see as the ethical difference here? For the record, I think posting the following on people's talk pages would be reprehensible, and would not do it, but for the same reasons as I think the original request was wrong. What if someone took the list of donors to the campaign and posted the following to their talk pages:

Hi <NAME>. You've already demonstrated amazing generosity in helping support free art from a severely underrepresented part of the world, thank you so much! I was hoping you would reach a bit further and consider Deworm the World, where for $0.50 per person per year, you can treat and protect Kenyan, Indians, Ethiopians, and Vietnamese from devastating worm infections, with concrete, proven results. Additionally, there are people in poverty stricken countries who need simple and effective medical treatments that they are too destitute to afford, please consider: Maria from Guatemala, whose mother cannot lactate. Fortunately, there is an easy procedure to fix this, and the treatment is almost fully funded! Gift from Tanzania, who needs another $500 to pay for burn repair surgery after having a seizure near a fire. Noch from Cambodia needs to raise only another $500 for a myringoplasty to alleviate constant pain and hearing loss. I know this time of year is tight for everyone and you may have already given, but a small amount more can make a real difference.

You may say that the difference is that we are a community based on free art... but we are all people too, who occasionally have health issues. I really would like to know what you see as the ethical difference here. Storkk (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Community is what makes all the difference. Colin has expressed it very well above. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the moral implications of that would be extremely hard to defend. But if that is the general consensus, I can accept that consensus while disagreeing with it. Storkk (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Your advert is nothing to do with Commons. There's really no excuse for posting that request on someone's page here other than using their talk page as a virtual post box for junk mail, no matter how worthy the cause. Commons mission is "making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content" and while yes we are all humans, we need to remain focused on that mission otherwise spend your time helping a different charity or organisation. I think there are some key factors about the campaign and messages
  • It is a worthy cause. A campaign to buy me a new lens would not be so worthy. I'm quite able to to buy one myself.
  • The recipient has an excellent track record of using donated equipment and the talent to create great images for Commons. It isn't going to sit in a cupboard unused, or badly used by someone incompetent, or sold on ebay.
  • The message was (meant to be) targeted at wiki friends and so was a request friend to friend. Perhaps the messages got sent to too wide a group, where it didn't resonate as something friendly and community focused. Those it did resonate with were very happy to get the message.
  • The cause we were crowdfunding for (creation of images for Commons) is exactly the cause many of us (especially the photographers) are here for. We are the crowd and this is our project together.

-- Colin (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that is mostly clear. I don't think the cause's worthiness (your first bullet) is particularly relevant either - as you seem to acknowledge in your second sentence. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but the crux of the matter appears to be how closely related the cause is to the community, as Yann summarized. I do concede that that does appear reasonable, and I can accept it... but I disagree with it. Storkk (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Wrt the first bullet, it is relevant to the "All of us have things we would like to buy that would help our work here -- faster computers, better cameras, lenses, or accessories, trips to interesting places. If we allow this, we will open a floodgate of similar requests" slipperly-slope fallacious argument made by Jim. I don't think the community would be appreciative if well-off people used such campaigns as a way to get a free gadget for their hobby, nor do I think it at all likely that such requests would be made. -- Colin (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_60&oldid=264578434"