Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 76

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

Please review those files

Please review the license of those files. Thanks!

File:陳家駒於終審法院前2019.jpg File:陳家駒於砵典乍街2019.jpg File:梁兆玉浸大學生會會室.jpg File:梁兆玉浸大.jpg

--31.14.74.66 10:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

We have over 20,000 files waiting for license review. There is no need for admin intervention to prioritize these specific files.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Category is undeleted. We can argue about the exact terms of speedy deletion for categories elsewhere. (Most either are obvious errors, or have an explicit reason stated in the speedy template.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Undelete category

Could you please undelete Category:Miroslav Nenutil? It's not empty now. Thanks — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Because it was empty at that time. "Empty category" is one of standard reasons for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What’s the purpose of deleting categories that are obviously in scope and are reasonably expected to be filled soon? I can see great advantages in ignoring (and even over in overthrowing) that «standard reasons», and I see no good reason to abide by it at all. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) It used to be in 2014. Nowadays empty cats are not allowed to be speedy deleted unconditionally. The exact wording is: "If a category is empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used, it may be speedily deleted. Don't apply if the page is marked with an explanation of why it should be kept or if the deletion can be controversial, the category was recently unconsensually emptied etc. Consider redirecting or renaming the category rather than deleting it.". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I know... Imagine me working me in speedy deletion requests and somebody puts a category there: delete it, it's empty! How do I know, was it recently unconsensually emptied? Taivo (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The more important question you should ask yourself is: "Is it obviously unusable, can it ever be useful"? Especially categories that have existed for quite a bit are often better handled with a redirect. Otherwise, converting a speedy deletion request to a regular DR is always an option if in doubt. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, the nominator should state a better reason than "empty cat" for deleting. Was it moved? (Use a cat redirect.) Is it misspelled? Is the cat structure different now? Otherwise, I think it's perfectly find to just remove the speedy deletion template. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: Category:Other speedy deletions has at moment 15 empty categories. Please take decision for everyone of them. Tomorrow I will look, what happened. Taivo (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
No. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request ipbe for MartialLEAVES (talk · contribs)

See [1]. Thanks. --Catherine Laurence (discussion) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Catherine Laurence: The range is globally blocked. Probably, going for GIPBE would be a better choice? Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: Local ipbe can also bypass the global ban; Regards. --Catherine Laurence (discussion) 09:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence: Yeah! I know. Local IPBE can also bypass the global block (global ban and global block is two different thing), but my point was that GIPBE will save time. For instance: if they wanna edit other projects then they have to ask IPBE time and again locally. Asking GIPBE can solve the matter at once. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: This person's cross wiki activity is not much, and does not show the willingness to GIPBE. So at the moment the local ipbe is the best. Catherine Laurence (discussion) 12:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Granted for a year. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hide file revision

Could you please hide the first version of the file File:Kandidáti na prezidenta České republiky 2018.png? It contains the file File:Kulhanek.jpg, which has been deleted due to lack of the authorship information. Thanks in advance — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 21:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filter for fair use?

I have decided to immediately violate my "ban" from these noticeboards, because. I will await my punishment. This suggestion primarily concerns admins and requires input from those with access to the AF configuration.

I'm not sure exactly how often this happens (generally these file pages will have been deleted), but at least multiple users seem to be falling into this trap. Would it be sensible to create an abuse filter for the text "It is believed that the use of.*low-resolution" and show the user a message that links to [2]? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You were not banned from what I'm reading. You were "suggested". A ban would probably require community consensus to implement regardless. In any case, I wouldn't mind throwing something together if that is what people want. By the way there are 22 images with that text. --Majora (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well, it felt like a "wikt:dwingend advies". (forced advice) I just looked at some of my fair use uploads like w:File:DuckTales 2017 Scrooge Donald Huey Dewey Louie.jpg and the exact wording may differ slightly, but "It is believed that the use of.*low-resolution" should generally match this. The files that are currently here also need a look. Some are PD-textlogo (some uncleaned imports from enwiki), File:Swan Lake by Veronica Ruiz de Velasco.jpg needs a license review (which may fail), some should be deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Might be worth adding any other common phrases as well. Even a warning for "fair use" (but exempting a few things like {{FoP-China}}) might be worthwhile. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably best not to read too far into things unless they are explicitly said, Alexis. Doing so can only lead to problems. If an admin wants to ban you they are going to explicitly say it. Let me make a new filter and turn on logging only to see what happens. If it results in too many false positives it can be tweaked. --Majora (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Mkay. I'll keep an eye on it to see if it hits anything. Was trying to think how narrow I wanted to make it while still keeping it broad enough to catch things so any suggestions as to changes would be welcome. I'm also assuming that most, if not all, of these are simple misunderstandings as to Commons licensing policy. So I don't want to be too aggressive if we end up turning on "warn". The "fair use" in the {{FoP-China}} template shouldn't cause a hit since it is reading wikitext and not expanding templates to see what is inside of them. --Majora (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Two hits already: File:Coke Studio Pakistan Season 12 Logo.png and File:MiddlesexUni.png. Guess we should also investigate these 25 images. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I added "non-free content policy" as a matchable string to the filter. It appears to be working as intended. I want to give it a week of runtime before deciding how to proceed with warning, etc. --Majora (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I'd up the edit count to 100 or 200. I doubt that would result in many false positives, but it may catch an odd false negative. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue with making the edit count limit higher is less about the false positives/negatives and more about the performance of the filter itself. The way filters work is that it works down the list of conditions until it hits a "false" result and then abandons the rest. That is why the actual checking of the text is last. You want to screen out as much as possible higher up the list to keep performance at maximum. I upped it to 100 but I don't want to go too much further than that. Also, by 100 edits here you should know at least some of our rules (at least you would hope). --Majora (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think about that, that makes sense. 25 edits could be exceeded by repeat offenders, but 100 is quite unlikely. After some time, the actual results could be evaluated to get the most optimal number. I wonder if this also means checking for the autopatrol flag first would improve performance, because that's a binary. (but now I realize it's an additional check for any user that isn't autopatrolled.. so..hmm) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah...and I would imagine there would be more people screened out with edit count < 100 than autopatrolled since there are only about 6,000 of them and I would imagine all of them have more than 100 edits. That's the problem with filters. They are super powerful and can do a lot of things but you have to balance that with actually wanting to make your site work (which some days is a harder desire to have than others). --Majora (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for speedy deletion

Hello, I uploaded some files on Commons that were later uploaded on local Wikisource. Now the duplicate files are creating an issue in the prrofreading contest we are running. Can i please request the following files to be deleted as soon as possible:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilover90 (talk • contribs) 5. Oct 2019, 08:53‎ (UTC)

✓ Deleted per COM:CSD#G7. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Note to Wikilover90: Please mention your another account (User:Wikilover (WIR)) on your userpage. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Block Milatini9 (talk · contribs)

Continue to upload copyvio files after being warned. Catherine Laurence (discussion) 14:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Fitindia. --Túrelio (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Reupload or not

Please verify whether this photo is same to this one. ~Cybularny Speak? 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cybularny: They're the same. --Majora (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

File:MOONYAN3 - Copy.jpeg

We've received permission for File:MOONYAN3 - Copy.jpeg. However, I'm doubtful since there are 3 other files in the history of the file, and, as far I understand, it contents lot of personal information. Is it valid a file like this? With name, email address, phone number... write in the same file? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think, it is useful. Photo is a drawing, and they have edited and attached other copyrighted photos as well in it. Plus, It looks like promotional image to me. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 Delete Self-claimed inventor of antigravitation-based spacecrafts? Out of scope. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Duplicates

A1Cafel uploaded a large number of duplicates which are sitting waiting to be processed. Instead of processing these as duplicates is it safe to delete them as F8? Otherwise someone is going to have to process each and every one, one at a time Gbawden (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say so and since they are new we don't really need to worry about redirect. But I would check whether any of these files is in use and use the regular duplicates process in that case. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Could someone close the DR for File:02018 0505 Solina-Stausee cropped.jpg please? Being controversial and in use for articles like Antisemitic canard on the English Wikipedia, does not obviate the need to apply our copyright requirements.

The file was originally marked for speedy deletion in May 2019 because the parent file it was cropped from, File:02018 0505 Solina-Stausee.jpg was deleted on copyright grounds (CSD F3) by Racconish (talk · contribs). That decision should either be reversed, or this DR should now be closed for the same reasons.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done — Racconish 💬 09:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Don't miss closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:02018 0505 Solina-Stausee cropped.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Faebot analysed duplicates ready for review

I am re-running this automatic duplicate help script. Faebot adds lots of helpful information to a duplicate notice, including suggesting which unique categories could be added to the version to be kept. These are not "digitally identical" duplicates, and the script can find duplicate images which are different resolutions as well as images which only vary by EXIF data.

The scope is limited to US DOD images, though the underpinning use of image hashes to identify possible duplicates could be extended to other collections. --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo deletion request (reason: protection of a invertebrate specie)

Hello,

When I uploaded the first version of this file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austropotamobius_bihariensis_2.jpg I completely missed the information held in metadata, that reveal sensitive information for the protection of the species. I edited metadata and uploaded the current version. Could one of administrators please review and completely delete the version uploaded at 08:15, 28 September 2019?

Also, if the deletion request motives are valid (hope so), please review this deletion request https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austropotamobius_bihariensis.jpg

Thank you! Oloriel79

Thank you for the help @Srittau:

@Oloriel79: ✓ Done I version deleted the old image versions of File:Austropotamobius_bihariensis_2.jpg. Please double-check that I found the correct ones. Commons Administrators can still view the original files, but this is a very limited group of people. I also deleted File:Austropotamobius_bihariensis.jpg. Please note that Creative Commons licenses are not revocable. In this case the author did obviously not understand the implications of the license fully, which is why we usually require works uploaded on behalf of other to be certified using our OTRS process. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Error in file upgrade

In the process of upgrading a few of my older pictures I came accross a batch of files that had a systematic error in the filename at the time of the original uploading, which meant that I uploaded a new version, rather than an updated version. The new filename would be the correct one. I am unsure if a simple redirect would do, or if the other file needs deleting so I come here.

I would very much appreciate an admin to sort this out, and sorry for the inconvinience. Careerfromhome (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Processed as duplicate. Thank you for the cool photographs. Keep contributing! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers

Hello. There's a bit of a backlog left by filemovers over there. Would an admin please be so kind to check the commands left and move it to the /commands page so the bot can pick 'em up and start working on them? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Resolved by Didym. We will keep an eagle eye on the page. Thank you for letting us know. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Vinci84 sockpuppeting again

Vinci84 (talk · contribs) is disruptively sockpuppeting again, when he was previously blocked a week for the very same thing. This time, the sockpuppet account in question is Covlo (talk · contribs). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please Change!

See: [3]. Bwag (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 11:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Flickr blacklisting instructions

Please add an edit notice to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors and Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users with the following or something like it: {{warning|Do not edit this list directly! Use the [[Template:Dashboard/Widgets/Add blacklist user|widget]] on [[Commons:Questionable Flickr images]]! If you are removing a user, make sure to remove them from both [[User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors]] and [[Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users]]!}}

We really gotta update stuff some day to learn those damn machines to read Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users instead of the "machine readable" list.

@Natuur12: [4] - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem? I used the widget, as I always do. Natuur12 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Natuur12: In that case the widget is broken. Your entry is above the "notes" section, not in the table. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A contribution has been deleted? (that, or database error?)

Category:To do

I KNOW this category was empty yesterday. Now, File:2012. 12 '탑 헬리건'을 향한 무한질주, 육군항공 사격대회 현장을 가다 (15) (8245164927).jpg is in it. Completely random. It's a Russavia upload, so yeah, I probably put it in To do on 9 May 2019, I probably did. And it was removed from To do again. I know it was.

So either a contribution of mine has been deleted (probably mine.. in a few cases other people removed files from To do), or something horrific is happening/about to happen to the database. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it maybe linked to phab:T235188? --Thibaut (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: you don't see any deleted contributions? Are we going for the "horrific" option? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any deleted contributions in the file. --Thibaut (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Anomie on Phabricator: "Seems unlikely. More likely is that the updating of the links tables to actually add it to the category listing didn't happen back in March when you made this edit, so it never showed up there in the first place. That situation persisted until a template used on that file page was edited, which triggered a reparse which finally did make it start showing up in the category."
That would be a relief. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi there - not sure this is the best place to post this (don't know if there's an edit request template), but I was browsing the upcoming FPs and there's a typo in one of their captions that I can't fix since it's edit protected. See File:Monumento de Guerra, Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 03.jpg In the English caption it reads "...lcoated...", which should read "located". Thanks! 206.211.157.54 20:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for letting us know! Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The section's work is finished. No further comment is required. Let's move on. Kind regards,   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Good image overwritten by copyvio, again

Please see the history of File:Adrienne Lau (cropped).jpg and its parent image; and:

  • delete the copyvio image from the history
  • protect the page (this is not the first time the image; or the one it is derived from, has been overwritten by this copyvio)
  • protect the parent image's page
  • review the uploader of that copyvio's other contributions
  • block the editor concerned.

Thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a bit overkill? Administrators don't use blocks as punitive but educative and don't block users with only one copyvio moreover if they haven't been warned before. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Not overkill at all. As the warning which you wrongly left on my talk page says (emboldening in original) Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.. Unlike your inappropriate templating, on both my talk page and the image page (the latter already undone by me) the above constitutes an appropriate and proportionate respone to the issue at hand. Since you have declared on my talk page that you are "not responsible" for your own actions, perhaps an uninvolved admin would like to review your use of the gadget concerned? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Feel free to submit a report. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing and Patrick Rogel: Hey friends, please take it easy. Copyvio file is now deleted. Everything is sorted. Regarding the warning, It is automated. Patrick tags many files daily, and It just happens. I hereby request you, Andy please forgive this. Let's enjoy contributing and make Jimmy Wales' imaginary world a reality! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 11:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Tulsi Bhagat: . That's what I've tried to explain the user the automated thing... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean me? You've explainsed nothing of the kind; you've simply denied responsibility for your inappropriate actions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
[ec] "Everything" is not sorted. The person who left an inappropriate threat on my talk page is insisting that they have no responsibility for doing so. To prevent them from causing damage to the project - damage which prevents others from enjoying contributing - they need to be educated to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Ah, I understand. Let's sort everything. Patrick has corrected their words and this is what he wanted to tell but missed it. I wanna tell you, Andy that It just happened (warning things: It's automated in process). I am sure, Patrick's intention wasn't to dishearten your lovely heart. We have a lot to do. Buddy, please forgive. Let's move on. I wish you have a good day ahead! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
He's doubled down on his defence; that's all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Copyvio deleted, user blocked (second block), files watched (not protected). 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Just letting you know, Tabascowing uploaded the same content but account was created before the block on Tommy860119. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits by 203.145.95.129 added the same caption as Tabascowing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ем Детей (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I think such name ("I eat children" in English translation) is inappropriate and user should be indefinitely blocked. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support-- Its absolutely distasteful and inappropriate. I support this user to be indefinitely blocked. FitIndia Talk Mail 15:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it beyond doubt that's what it means? Google says it means "Eat kids", which could also be interpreted as "Eat, kids, there's enough for everyone". But I don't know Russian and Eugene does, I can't tell if the "I" is actually in there or not. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I was bold and have blocked the account. I think based on the username being already blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for the same reason, there is just cause. I don't think its a good use of our time to get into a debate about translations (I'll trust Eugene on it). This user was just here to upload images to use on the Russian Wikipedia, so a matched block is appropriate - if they decide on Russian Wikipedia later that the username was good faith based or should be unblocked, we can do the same. ~riley (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Noting that it's not that I don't trust Eugene on this, but language can be ambiguous, perhaps a dialect or whatever. It seems that "I eat children" should be "Я ем Детей". (note the я) Perhaps "Eat children" is less ambiguous in Russian than it is in English, but I really can't know that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: You blocked the user for having an inappropriate user name and also disabled account creation. COM:BLOCK: "Account creation should be prevented in most cases, but may be allowed when blocking an inappropriate user name to allow creation of a different name." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: As said, I directly matched the Russian Wikipedia block. I will note that this is a common restriction for inappropriate usernames that are suspected to be made in bad-faith. It requires them to make an unblock request/appeal and the blocking admin can work with them to request an appropriate rename, rather than letting them go make another account with a bad username. This user, as all others, has options of recourse if the precautions we have made are wrong. ~riley (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless it's really obvious to be bad faith, I personally don't think blocking account creation is the best approach. However, as it's matching the ruwiki block in this case it's fine with me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I am late to the party, but just to confirm that the username indeed means "I eat kids" (or "I eat children").--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Interesting, out of curiosity, is the subject pronoun part of the verb in Russian? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
No, but the form of the verb implies "I" in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Now I get it. So while in English (and various other languages) you can say I eat, you eat, they eat and we eat there are more distinctive verb forms in Russian for eat. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. For example, in Italian, I can say "sono contento", and it would be unusual to add the personal pronoun to say "io sono contento", the personal pronoun "io" is implied. In Russian, both forms, with the personal pronoun and without it, are in principle fine, though one of them could be preferable in various contexts.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Licensing

I am newbie, I have many files to share, how to indicate that they are public domain when uploading? FreesWares (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@FreesWares: If you are using Special:UploadWizard, when you get to the "Release Rights" step, select "This file is my own work" or "This file is not my own work". If the file is your own work, you may select "use a different license" to find CC0, a more robust license that is very similar to the public domain. If it is not, you will find a number of options such as "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" and "This work was made by the United States government". You simply need to select the one that accurately describes the particular image you are uploading. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File talk:מכתב הבדצ.jpg

התמונה מועתקת מהכתבה, הפרת זכויות יוצרים. יגילו במלכם (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@יגילו במלכם: Deleted. Thanks for letting us know. Next time, you can use the {{Copyvio}} template to mark things that are copyright violations. --Majora (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked on Spanish Wikipedia???

Dear admins,

I've just realized that someone has blocked me on es.Wikipedia, citing alleged account abuse and vandalism. I've not even edited on Wikipedia, so I do not observe any reason to have an indefinite block.

Wish you answer as soon as possible, CacodelCacao (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@CacodelCacao: I see nothing blockable here. I went to the es.wiki Admin's Talk page but it's semi-protected and I cannot ask him myself. That's unhelpful. Neither is my Spanish good enough to ask at their Help Desk/Admin Board. I'll see if we have anyone from es.wiki here who can do this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Thank you for your empathy and interest in helping users like myself. Wish you have luck, CacodelCacao (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This is strange. @Rastrojo, Poco a poco, and Platonides: Can you tell us something about this case? De728631 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: It's as simple as my first post comments. And not much more. Regards, CacodelCacao (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I asked the admin who applied the block, User:Montgomery. Anyhow, there are 3 kind of evidences that could guide to a block: normal contributions (something that everybody can check), edit filter (something that admins can check) and a checkuser investigation (something than only checkusers know). I haven't seen anything in the first two, but I cannot check the third one since I don't have the checkuser flag. Only 5 users on es.wp does have it, and Montgomery is coincidentally one of them. Poco2 07:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
They have not edited any project since 20:27, 12 Oct 2019 (UTC), now 11h31m ago.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: Thank you for your empathy, too. Regards, CacodelCacao (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I got feedback from the admin in the Spanish Wikipedia. This account belongs to a net of sockpuppets that have been vandalizing for months with a strong far right bias. Poco2 16:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Me??? A sock puppeter??? What are you talking about??? I'd never do such a thing! Please unblock me, I am innocent. CacodelCacao (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Socking question

Resolved

Hi, Just wondering:
Lets say an editor socks and has socked using 5 accounts ... and on 2 of those they've uploaded images here
Should their images on the sock accounts be deleted ? (but their images on their first ever account should/would remain),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there copyright issues or other problems with the images uploaded by the socks? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Commons has no en:WP:G5 deletion criteria as the English Wikipedia has. For better or worse, files uploaded here would need to be retained or deleted based on their own merits, without regard for the status of the uploader. GMGtalk 21:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:GreenMeansGo, Ah I didn't think there was anything similar to EN, Unfortunately it relates to this guy who's made it his mission to sock and upload his images,
There really ought to be some sort of policy on this but we won't go there, Many thanks for your help anyway,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course @Davey2010: that is assuming that the user themselves is not known for uploading clever copyright violations, in which case the status of the user would very much be relevant to the deletion of the media they've uploaded. GMGtalk 22:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:GreenMeansGo, Unfortunately not - All images are theirs unfortunately :(, Kinda wished they were all copyvios as it would've made things a lot easier lol, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Source/author based of EXIF-data?

Do we need the OTRS-permission here (File:Quds,jerusalem.jpeg), or EXIF-data is sufficient to proof the authorship?--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Big file with EXIF ... You can google the image and if other versions are not found, then that's OK for me. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Colleagues, in the past there have been a lot of DRs with a given rationale "Because it is Other" or the like. That is caused by a poor design of the Android app that provides a menue of predefined reasons (I already requested that to be changed). In fact some of these DRs are nonsense, some require AGF, so we should not treat it automatically being disruptive but have a closer look. --Achim (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Yesterday I spotted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thou-FR-45-monument aux morts-a2.jpg and could not decide, how to close it. Taivo (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi all--I need some help from a good-natured admin. With the photographer's permission, I uploaded a series of photos (starting with File:Capel 1 Vue générale du Jebel Mudawwar depuis le sud-ouest.jpg). I have sent an email with that permission and a list of the files to OTRS, and so far all I got in response was an email saying "the photographer should send us this". Well, the photographer lives somewhere in North Africa and may have spotty internet access, and is completely unaware of the technicalities of our permissions procedures. In the meantime, I am awaiting approval for these images so I can get the two associated articles on the front page of en-wiki (pinging BlueMoonset, who's waiting on me). For whoever picks this up, I have the email from the photographer identifying files and licenses and giving permission; she did this in August already. Please, help us out--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: - Ticket:2019090610007243
@Drmies: Assuming we could reach a good faith settlement to accept the forwarded message, which we normally wouldn't necessarily do for any random person online, we would at the very least still need the author to indicate a specific license, and she doesn't seem to do so explicitly. I realize internet isn't great in some places, and licensing can be frustrating even if it is, but it would be enough for her to simply reply all with permissions copied and say "I agree to the CCBYSA 4.0 license". GMGtalk 19:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: , @Drmies: : We never received answer to the ticket. Besides, the photographer can sign permission (printed or hand writting) and send a photo, a jpg or a pdf. I disagree with the idea of accept a forwarded message, more if we think we didn't verify the files, but if you agree, I'm not oppose to you finish the ticket. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Having read the OTRS ticket, personally I'd accept a forwarded permission in this instance. Years ago, forwarded permissions were occasionally allowed. In this case, Drmies is a highly respected, well-established admin at en-wiki.  JGHowes  talk 21:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC) ("good-natured admin")
Still need her to specify a particular license. We can't chose for her between something like CC0 and CCBYSA 4.0. Long after she is dead, her estate could come back and sue someone over the difference. GMGtalk 22:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
They could, I suppose, but really, I'm wondering if we don't think a bit too highly of our importance. OK, I will email her again. Neither she nor I know the difference between these licenses, so I'd appreciate if someone could just tell me which one to ask her to pick. Thanks. JGHowes, I appreciate the kind words--thank you. I might come knocking on your door again, since you're an admin and you speak French; Dr. Capel might benefit from that. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: CC-BY-SA 4.0 is the default license recommended by the Upload Wizard and is probably what she should use. It allows anyone to freely use the pictures, but requires them to credit her as the author and share any modifications they make under the same license. By contrast, CC0 is much more permissive and allows anyone to use the pictures without even crediting the author. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for our self-importance Drmies, but a lot of people who have spent time on OTRS have seen a message or two from someone who is actually being sued. But yes, CCBYSA 4.0 is probably her best bet as a widely used, widely recognized license that retains maximum rights under a free license. GMGtalk 00:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Today's MOTD

File:Aerial View of The Vessel at Hudson Yards, New York City.webm is likely a copyright infringement as FOP-USA does not allow for sculptures. I am hesitant to remove it from MOTD or to wait until tomorrow to nominate it for deletion. Other opinions? — Racconish 💬 09:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Being MOTD means that the project is promoting reuse and encouraging retweeting today, making action urgent and meaningful today not tomorrow. It is a clear copyvio, and COM:L must apply without special favour just because it's awkward to those that support MOTD to have this removed from the page immediately.
Due to page protection it is not even possible to create a deletion request to ensure correct discussion of the copyright problem this represents. Please remove the protection, it should never be used to avoid the normal required compliance with COM:L. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Immediately swap it with another video and DR please.--Roy17 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done — Racconish 💬 11:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I don't know the object, but looking at its pictures I would more likely see it as a work of architecture. In the English Wikipedia article it is indeed described as a building and/or structure and categories are only building-related. However, its creator is described as a sculptor, too. So I am unsure, but if it's really a sculpture, then not only the MOTD but most of the Category:Vessel (structure) should be RfD'ed. --A.Savin 11:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of process, we may benefit from a wider discussion about how copyright is reviewed for media that makes it on to the main page of Wikimedia Commons. The featured video vote had 4 participants if counting the uploader/proposer, and copyright was not considered as a potential issue.

More generically Commons:Featured_video_candidates#Guidelines_for_nominators includes a basic checklist for the vote, but copyright is not mentioned as a consideration apart from a link outside of the checklist, effectively making copyright the nominator's responsibility alone. --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier at the DR, please read paragraph 3 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vessel_(structure)#Critical_reception -- Eatcha (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The only problem I can think of with this file is, it breaks anti-drone law of New York. --Eatcha (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Okay, read Point 8 of https://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/discover/vessel/terms-conditions and reinstate the motd and close the erroneous deletion request. Best, Eatcha (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Evidence can be presented at the deletion discussion. Responding to sec. 8 there shortly. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing MediaWiki:Lang subpages

The subpages of MediaWiki:Lang are an important part of making Commons multilingual. There are a number of missing subpages for languages that are supported by the software, so they should all be created by an administrator. The content of the page should just be the language code. I believe you could just copypaste {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} into every one of them to create them correctly.

All subpages should be:

List of all subpages that should be created for MediaWiki:Lang.
* MediaWiki:Lang/abs

Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} was not the solution (would result in i.e. Lang/abs rather than abs), but these edit requests have been fulfilled. ~riley (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:Zone time is User:WPK~commonswiki once again abusing multiple accounts. --Paranaja (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please make a proper report at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/WPK~commonswiki. We can't just take someone's word with no evidence and indef block a user. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I had noticed the page you linked but I thought that it was archived completely. Thanks for enlightening me. --Paranaja (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requested

Reason: per author request. --Zerabat (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Túrelio. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Mass "no permission" tagging of TwinofSedona's files

Resolved

User talk:TwinofSedona#File tagging File:Javelina Family in Sedona, Arizona.jpg

User talk:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2#No permission tagging

To challenge the no permission tag, I'd have to start a mass DR. I don't want to do that for the same reason these files shouldn't have been mass-tagged in the first place: they are too diverse. Even a file with OTRS permission was tagged, so there has been no selection whatsoever. I suggest removal of the "no permission" tag from all files, and ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 can start one or more DRs with rationales for selections of these files.

If you think I should start that mass DR (only to have it declined because it's not selective), I will, but I think my proposed method is cleaner. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: What should I do? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest we wait on an administrators' review but I'm inclined to agree with a mass removal or else someone will have to review these again in person in a week and waste their own time then. Yes, more explanation is required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
What a chaos. There's too much equipment used, scans are most likely from several family albums without indication who the photographers are. This can only be resolved by OTRS permission. There's no way that one single person used all the cameras involved. Nobody uses a 60D and an iPhone 5 on the same day within a short time period; just one example of inconsistency. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: 13:20 to 15:07 is almost two hours. Could have left the 60D in the car, a protective bag for safekeeping or even at home if they live nearby, so the first photo could just be a quick shot. And I don't think there's "too much equipment", at least not obviously. In 2010 they had a different camera.. Color me surprised. The iPhone 6 has been exchanged for an iPhone 7, like many people did. Several files may have issues, but bluntly deleting everything isn't right I think. If I bluntly marked all of someone's uploads as "no permission" because a part of them may have problems, I'd be slapped in the face. And rightfully so. By the way, OTRS permission was just added to one file. I don't know if there's more in the queue. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I have removed the {{No permission since}} templates, since they are clearly misused. The files I checked were tagged {{Own}} and had valid licenses. Unfortunately {{No permission since}} abuse is widespread. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
+1 how Srittau handled this. Recommend ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 review our deletion policy and open DRs where necessary. ~riley (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I won't fight that; in the end I'd rather have the photographs on Commons, and risking a DMCA takedown notice. We can always delete later, if necessary. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Proper DRs would be fine, of course, to discuss these images. But the {{No permission since}} is clearly bogus, since these files do have a permission. If someone thinks, they are copyright violations (i.e. the {{Own}} claim and therefore the permission is bogus), a proper DR is the way to go, since they are not obvious copyright violations. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Astronomy cartoons

Hello Common Admin,

I have a kind request. If you could take a look and check out my contribution pages (4 cartoons) that have been tagged since July 22, 2019 for Deletion. Please review my comments (arguments) to "not" delete them. >

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Namronpb

I'm not sure why this particular Wiki User P199 nominated all four of them for Deletion. His reason(s) he gave are absolutely wrong and contrary to why I created the cartoons in the first place. > 1. Unused personal images 2. No educational value 3. Out of scope

These cartoons have already been published in several different media sources and have become popular and appreciated on the internet thanks to their presence in Wikimedia Commons. Because of thier tongue-in-cheek humor, uniqueness and originality...It would be sad loss to the cartoon world if they were deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Please take a look at them and hopefully you'll agree with me to "not" delete them.

Thanks again and much appreciation in advance...

Namronpb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namronpb (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Namronpb: Pi.1415926535 has been quick to delete the files. I was able to find two elsewhere on the web. Very strictly speaking, they're not educational. However, they could work very well as supporting material, a little something to get the reader interested. I could imagine a project like Wikibooks using them. As you are an active contributor (I think, we haven't clearly defined that term), you could request undeletion at COM:REFUND, tag them {{User page image}} and add them to your user page, either here or on Wikipedia. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I deleted them because they're not within a country mile of being in scope. User page images are intended to be a small number of personal files (a photo of you, or your cat, etc); using Commons to effectively host your personal webcomic is prohibited by COM:WEBHOST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
If a Wikibook would use them to get the attention of the reader, they'd automatically be in scope. And if an image of your cat (assuming it's taken in such a way that it would otherwise be out of scope) is acceptable, why not an image that resulted from your hobby, drawing webcomics? I found some of them at http://www.telescopenerd.com/astro-cartoon-of-the-month.htm btw, luckily they're not gone from the web entirely. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tony Ricca Deletion Requests

Just a heads up: Since last month, a bunch of Australian IPs try to get files of the wrestler "Tony Ricca" deleted (example, but see also my talk page). I closed all DRs as "keep" now, but they are quite persistent and something to keep an eye out for. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I watchlisted everything from Category:Tony Ricca, including the category itself.
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Need an LR ASAP - Please

Hi admins,

I remember when I uploaded File:Buddha_-_Kontekst_(No_Copyright_Music).ogg it had a CC license on youtube but now it's not there, but they didn't remove(or they forgot, maybe) the CC from https://soundcloud.com/kontekstmusic/buddha . But I guess they are working to remove CC license from all of their sounds(it's irrevocable but still they are doing it). -- Eatcha (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Passed LR. ~riley (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
MOVED TO:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close some discussions/proposals on COM:VPP

Village pump (proposal) page is getting bigger day by day. There are some proposals that are even more than 2 months old. I've closed some proposals, but others still needs to be closed. On English wikipedia, a discussion usually takes place for minimum seven days. I ask administrators/experienced editors to close proposals that

  1. have clear consensus. or
  2. seems net-positive for the project. or
  3. or have many opposes or support.
The closing admin/experienced editor should be uninvolved. Note that closures should be made by consensus, not purely by votes. Lastly for tech related proposals, phabricator tasks should be created if appropriate. Thanks. Masum Reza📞 00:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussion on VPP don't need to be closed. When there is consensus for a proposal, it can be enacted. Also, admins have no special rights or privileges on VPP. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: How do we determine there is consensus? (when it's not overly obvious) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, if it isn't "overly obvious" then there's no consensus, and you need clear consensus for a change... That's not supposed to be a "smug" remark, by the way, just a reminder that you don't need consensus against a change, a lack of clear consensus for it is enough to indicate it should not go ahead on the basis of that discussion. I don't think there's any harm in experienced users closing discussions along those lines, when input seems to have dried up, but I also don't think it's essential, or requires an admin. Archiving discussions that have obviously run their course sounds fine too. -- Begoon 07:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: There'll always be some borderline case, no matter where you draw the line. We don't even have a definition of "consensus". If we were going for "true" consensus, nothing would ever be passed because there's always someone who disagrees. VPP isn't even about consensus (depending the definition used), once proposed, a proposal will rarely be adjusted. (because everyone has to vote for it again if it's changed) Sometimes, proposals are clearly passed but nobody closes them and as a result, they're not implemented. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I know that admins don't have any special privileges on COM:VPP. I just didn't know where to post this thread. We have pretty much consensus on some proposals, they just need closing. I am involved in some discussions, which is why I don't want to close them (It is a practice on English Wikipedia that proposals and discussions are generally closed by an uninvolved, and experienced editors). Also some of the proposals require a clear admin (or at least IA admin closure). For example, proposals involving gadgets and things that are not within the capability of non-admins. Masum Reza📞 08:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This is not English Wikipedia, we don't need to "officially close" discussions. Please make edit requests on pages you can't edit with a reference to the discussion when you think there is consensus. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead, closed a bunch and created Phabricator tickets. Staying away from everything one is involved in seems unworkable here, everyone who cares typically votes. And withholding a vote in order to be able to close a discussion is just silly. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I need Help from a Translation Admin

Hi,

I know that to translate wikipage(s) a translator admin has to mark that page for translation, Commons:Featured video candidates and Commons:Featured videos needs some translation work/job can any translation adminstrator mark it for translation ? Best, Eatcha (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: I don't know if there's any request page for translation administration, if there's anything specific for that please feel free to move it there.

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

Tubman photo

Isn't this File:Statue of Harriet Tubman Ypsilanti Michigan.JPG a FOP/fair use violation? Seven Pandas (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Per this, it seems OK to me unless you want to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Seems like an odd situation but ok. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

LTA error warning

I've made more than 36,000 edits on Wikimedia Commons over a period of more than 10 years. I work with geological photos on Wikimedia Commons e.g. adding and changing categories, expanding descriptions, and adding latitude and longitude locations to photos (I hope in accordance with Commons:Geocoding). At 14:19 on 26 October 2019, I tried to add an accurate "object location" to a photo File:EspadaFormation.jpg with this syntax: Object location|34.5749|-120.4146|source:Google Earth Street View (enclosed in template curly brackets), but my attempt generated this error message: "Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: LTA vandal"'. I believe my action was constructive not harmful and I do not like to receive messages that include the words "abuse" or "vandal". Why did I receive this message? GeoWriter (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem would seem to be that you did something (however innocently) that was like the actions of a recognisable and recognised vandal. After all, this sort of geocoding change is the type of error which is (fortunately) amenable to automatic detection. Now if you'd mis-typed and moved New York City to the middle of the Atlantic, I'd expect this was a valid positive detection and the sort of thing which needs a human to then can the report (clearly you're not the vandal, even if we had such a vandal with just such a habit). But as it is, I think this is simpler and cruder - it's just a mis-coded edit filter which is now broken.
I tried it myself (and I agree your co-ords, although I can't imagine how you found it) and had the same response. So I reported it here: Commons_talk:Abuse_filter#Report_by_Andy_Dingley. Hopefully someone will be along to fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, thanks for your reply and thanks for also notifying the team who may be able to fix the filter. This error is listed in the abuse filter log of my account. I'm concerned that this incorrect triggering of the filter could continue as an unjustified stain on my record, even if the bugs in the the abuse filter are eventually fixed. Can this incorrectly alleged abuse be removed from my account's abuse filter log? GeoWriter (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, but I would tend to doubt it. These error logs are automatic, and universally recognised as such. No one would judge editors on their basis, at least not without also some human filtering. As such I doubt that anyone has needed to build any mechanism for reverting them. It's actually quite useful as it is: it's a useful metric for their developers to know "How many totally innocent edits are getting logged falsely?" Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@GeoWriter and Andy Dingley: My apologies to both of you. This is my filter and I track hits on it frequently. When I saw that a recent change to it caused false positives I immediately undid the change. This vandal has been quite prolific and every time they find a way around the filter I have to tweak it to try to catch them again (like a very unfun game of cat and mouse). Obviously my last tweak wasn't good enough. Again, my apologies. It has been undone and I'll find a different way. As for removing the log, Andy is correct. I don't believe there is a way to remove it. However, these types of filters are known to have false positives some times so no one is going to say anything without further investigation. --Majora (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems to be working now and I've added the tag. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, turns out I forgot a pair of parentheses. Which was causing a bug in the logic. Should never have hit to you two in the first place as there should have been restrictions on such things. Again, my apologies and thank you for reporting it. --Majora (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad that the filter bug has been fixed now and that the photo has been successfully geotagged. Thanks to both of you for your help. GeoWriter (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Illegal closures and false accusations - admin should be sanctioned

I regret to advise that an admin on the WikiCommons has made false accusations against me and this is the only way I can respond.

1. The admin Srittau blocked my IP range for three days for "abusing multiple accounts". This is a false accusation. I have only ever edited on the 2001 IPv6 range and on no other. If required I am happy to affirm an Affidavit to this effect. Assertions made by User TLPG on my unblock request are untrue as well and he had no right to decline as he is not an admin by his own admission.

2. The following content should have been deleted as it does not follow the rules of the WikiCommons (the Scope);

When I nominated each of these for deletion (plus one that was in fact deleted) I stated; "This file was for an article on Wikipedia that was deleted via AfD there and has no other use. Uploader has been blocked from WP for socking and was suspected of a conflict of interest"

A conflict of interest is self promotional, which the scope prohibits. Indeed another user agreed that the user concerned is at least an agent of the subject of the pictures if not the subject himself as one of the other IP's observed. I wouldn't go that far and I said so as well. Now consequently it was brought to my attention that the scope also prohibits images that have no educational value. The admin concerned claimed that the subject is a former contracted wrestler with WWE. This is a false claim. The admin has believed the hyped embellishment by the subject through his agent (the user Georgivac). Embellishment such as this is common in professional wrestling. The so called proof was not enough to protect the article at Wikipedia (FWIW). The reality is that this person and his agent is using WikiCommons for self promotion. That is reason enough to delete the images. And yet in a fit of pique the admin Srittau arbitrarily kept them. His decision has been biased and his adminship should be reviewed. The user Georgivac should be blocked indefinitely for spamming (that is what self promotion is) and these images deleted and salted.

I would have uploaded images of Australian wrestlers as I told the admin but it requires me to create an account which I won't do.

I request this action be taken for the reasons given. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:A97E:69D:5EBE:BC25 00:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Improperly undoing a closure on a DR is a really bad way to get your way. That isn't how we do things here. You can't just undo something and expect it to go well. If you want to restart a DR you can do so the normal way. Not by using the undo button. And you being able to post here at all means the block is over and you can create an account if you wish. Srittau's actions were consistent with administrative discretion. There is nothing more to do here. --Majora (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes there is because you're wrong. Srittau was totally out of line closing the requests and should be punished. That's why my reversions were right. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:A97E:69D:5EBE:BC25 01:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Well that was incredibly unwise. Now you are blocked for a week this time. --Majora (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Majora If I am not wrong is this an upscaled version of https://www.facebook.com/notes/tony-ricca/tony-ricca/2004779956421086/ . Maybe copyright violation. I doubt their uploads, but I maybe wrong. Best, Eatcha (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I am sure something is 🐟 y , see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Ricca -- Eatcha (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Ping@User:Prefall -- Eatcha (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
More interesting fact at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Georgivac/Archive -- Eatcha (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Quite a few of their other uploads in this set are OTRS confirmed. So I doubt it is a true copyright violation. Certainly not blatant in this circumstance. If you want to ask for permission please tag it as such. The SPI on enwiki is totally irrelevant. If they wanted to reopen the DR they had every right to do so. They do not have the right to simply undo a closure. DRs, as you should know, don't work like that. All that does is mess with archives. I told them they can restart the DR if they wish, the proper way. They continued to act disruptively instead. Calling the close "illegal" certainly didn't help nor does calling for sanctions against Srittau. I blocked to stop this disruption. You too, are welcome to restart the DR the proper way if you wish. --Majora (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now protected all images I question. Against your advise, I will also revert all new DRs started by those Australian IPs, since it's by now obvious that we are dealing with a case of socking and vandalism. See the multiple other threads on the admin boards, the DRs in question, and my talk page. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Srittau on this. Starting a new DR without any new arguments or a clear misunderstanding by the closing admin (which is not the case here) is unhelpful. And I don't care if those other IP addresses were sockpuppets or meatpuppets. They were ducks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Could someone please give our colleagues User:Giantflightlessbirds and User:Andrawaag autopatrolled status? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Andy: The correct place for requesting rights would be COM:RFR. Masum Reza📞 11:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done VIGNERON (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Block Suwarode (talk · contribs)

Upload unfree files after warning. --Catherine Laurence discussion 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 3 days. -- FitIndia Talk Mail 16:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

please delete Commons:Deletion requests/File:Getting submarines talking to airplanes, finally.webm

Request open since June 2019. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No hurry. There are open DRs from May 2019. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why user Bauty Aguirre is still blocked?

Hi. I'm a mentor from Es.Wikipedia. As it, a user called User:Bauty Aguirre, ask me why he is still blocked. I search for his situation and found that he was blocked for three months by User talk:Yann, on 20 June 2019. Here it is the block log. Time passed, but Bauti Aguirre acount is still blocked. ¿Can you solve this problem? In advance, thank you very much.--Roblespepe (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: The account is globally locked by Alaa. See meta:Special:CentralAuth/Bauty Aguirre. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 14:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons Delinker Q

Aloha! Has anybody else problems approving the request on the Delinker talk page? After I click approve the msg box display you sure... and after clicking OK the page refreshes and nothing has been changed. Sometimes the request on the talk page disappears, still no move command in the Delinker command area. Same trouble with move commands in Category:Requested moves (all). Ten out 11 times the move command isn't saved. Very annoying behavior. :[]">>:[] --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Works for me AFAICT. How exactly do you reproduce the issue? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done probably. ☀ --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Block Leopirlonzio (talk · contribs)

Upload unfree files after warnings. --Catherine Laurence discussion 05:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked - 1 week. ~riley (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Ivissonfigure8

I bumped with this user at the pt.WP when I was patrolling new articles. As I, usually, do when an article has an image I checked it here on Commons to see if everything is right. In this case, I found out that the images were (in my view) violating copyrights and I nominated them for speedy deletion. I decided to dig deeper, and I found a serious case. This user has been uploading several images in the last few days which they took from Instagram accounts and journalistic articles. I kindly ask for some experienced admin to check this user contribution and, eventually, delete these images (if the admin may feel it fits), because I think it would be counterproductive to nominated all these images, one by one, for speedy deletion. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ DoneI have deleted all their uploads and warned the user. Thanks for alerting us Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks for you quick action.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Cleaning up after creation of CAT: namespace redirect

After the creation of the CAT: namespace redirect for categories (phab:T236352), some conflicts resulted. These are pages that started with CAT: but the category for it already existed. For example, Category:AP already existed so CAT:AP (a redirect to Category:Copyright violations) couldn't be moved there. In case you're wondering: "15:59, 29 January 2007 Bryan 38 bytes +38 (←Redirecting to Category:Against policy)".

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Category%3AFIXME&namespace=0

Haven't checked all yet. I use [5] to check for them, unless someone has a better idea. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: what is the point of deleting the above-mentioned categories? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I suppose you could leave them, but they are useless. Category:FIXMED was originally a shortcut in gallery namespace located at CAT:D. Because Category:D already exists, the CAT:D shortcut became a FIXME. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I fully understand you. I'd rather just leave them. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me try again, Alexis Jazz. You mean that Category:FIXMED has been created only a few days ago. It was previously called CAT:D, but was moved to CAT:FIXMED by a sysadmin (Urbanecm) several days ago. But are there any tracks/marks or footprints for these automatic moves? Their history pages don't show anything. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Yes, exactly, you get it! Here are the tracks.. sort of

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha fixed most of those but there are still some protected pages left. Can an admin change the CAT: on those to :CAT:? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Template editor ? Can they create Edit-notice ?

I got :

while trying to create an EditNotice. On en-wiki template-editors can create EditNotice, on commons is it reserved for administrators? Or is it just the old warning template/ --- Eatcha (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a title blacklist. I can change it, but should I? There was no indication of why it became restricted. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
On all wikis I've seen, Template:editnotices is in title blacklist so there will be little or no vandalism/disruptive editing in editnotices. Only users with tboverride right can create and/or edit editnotices, this right is currently given to all administrators and template editors in Commons (see Special:ListGroupRights). Ahmadtalk 13:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to change that, I will run for template editor rights. Giving every body the right to create edit-notice is not appealing IMHO.

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Eatcha (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands

I'm relatively "new" to Commons so I apologise if this is the wrong place to request this. I think User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands needs more administrator's attention. I found it very confusing and hard to use. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack Lynch Image

Hi! I'm currently trying to get a better picture for the Jack Lynch article on Wikipedia. I have found the following image which is covered by Cork City Council copyright. Would this be sufficient for me to upload the article to Commons OR Wikipedia and use it on the article, or should I send an email requesting permission to use the image? Eolais (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose. Commercial use and derivative works must be both allowed. Here permission is given only for personal use and nothing is said about derivative works. Taivo (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Review file rename

Hello. Could you please review if the rename performed at File:Kgpg old.svg is okay? It was requested by an obvious vandal, and actioned afterwards, but maybe the request was legit and the name had to be changed after all. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 12:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masum Ibn Musa: as renamer. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Just so you know, I reverted to the original version because somebody uploaded a totally invalid version. I can't believe it was there for 9 years. Masum Reza📞 06:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy and paste request - FastCCI update

Hi, Administrators

I updated the FastCCI to support Commons:Featured videos, but MediaWiki:Gadget-fastcci.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-fastcci.css are protected due to obvious reasons. I don't have the user rights required to update the code, can any admin please copy the code from User:Eatcha/CCI.js and User:Eatcha/common.css and paste it over there.

Best, Eatcha (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ping@Jean-Frédéric -- Eatcha (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Ping me if anything is unexpected --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the errors. -- Eatcha (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Eatcha (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Interface admin needed for urgent fix

Would an interface admin please take a look at the request on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-editDropdown.js and perform the necessary changes? The error is breaking critical scripts when Vector skin is used and a fix would be greatly appreciated. For more information please see User talk:Majora/LicenseReview.js#Still working?. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Zhuyifei1999 also brought it up on phab:T237097#5626867. He might take a look. Masum Reza📞 16:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks as if User:Zhuyifei1999 has just ✓ Done this in Special:Diff/372845506. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Serial disruptive sockpuppeter is back it again

User Vinci84 (talk · contribs)/Julyaaana (talk · contribs)/Covlo (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting disruptively, is back at it again with a new sockpuppet account, Andreaklanza (talk · contribs). Recommend indefinite block and prevention of any new user accounts. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Taivo . -- FitIndia Talk Mail 10:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Serial disruptive sockpuppeter is back it again, part II

User Vinci84 (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting disruptively on multiple accounts, is back at it yet again with a new sockpuppet account, Rubybis (talk · contribs). Recommend indefinite block and prevention of any new user accounts. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --jdx Re: 04:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Quorn Railway Station, Leicestershire - geograph.org.uk - 1568899.jpg

Can an admin please change the name of this file. It is Rothley Railway Station, not Quorn. Explanatory notes can be found in my changes to the above file's page as of today. Using the word 'Quorn' in the files name is confusing and has resulted in the photograph being placed in the wrong category. Thanks. --2A00:23C6:3B83:EC00:E809:EA8B:5946:78F7 05:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Thomas smiling.jpg

I find it highly unlikely that this image (File:Thomas smiling.jpg) is the uploader's "own work" and also have issue with their captions/edit summaries in relation to this. If I am incorrect, please do let me know. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - found with google image search and deleted. Feel free to tag photos like this as a copyvio next time Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: You can use QuickDelete to assist you in marking copyvios, which also notifies the uploader. It needs to be enabled in your Preferences settings under Gadgets. 1989 (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@1989: Just enabled it. Thanks for the recommendation! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Template_talk:Building_address#Edit_request:_suburb - German administrator required

Hi,

I am trying to close the template edit requests that are open without any response. I don't understand the request properly. If possible please close the request after addressing the issue.

Regards, // Eatcha (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Commented there. --Krd 12:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Eatcha (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested file name swap

User talk:Masum Ibn Musa#File name swap

An Errant Knight has requested a file name swap. Note that I haven't looked into any details of that request, this notice is not an endorsement. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Based on File:Map of Aurora County, South Dakota - compiled and drawn from a special survey and official records LOC 2012592514.jpg, they are right. Storla: box 35 of (R.63W., T.105N.); CENTER [in Big capital letters]: (R.65W., T.101N.) 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrator input required on a strategic proposal

I don't know if all admins are watching that page, the discussion is at Commons:Village_pump#May_I_start_a_proposal_to_add_an_inbuilt_MP4_to_the_Webm-ogv_converter_in_the_upload_wizard?. It's about transcoding MP4 files on WMF servers, and not about allowing MP4 files. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not an admin role to keep discussions on topic. The thread is already too long. If you are going to attempt a proposal, you may want to ensure there are separate discussion sections to keep tangential stuff on its own.
As one of the few people uploading thousands of videos files to this project, my sense of our situation is that Commons has become wilfully bad at receiving and hosting video media. The media box is bad enough to look two decades out of date, if you follow a video link you find yourself playing the video, with no obvious way of navigating back to the commons page about the video (you can, but it's crazy), and as you already know, there's no facility to handle or archive an original mp4 even when any transcoding of it will be inferior. The many bugs and bad video media "features" make Commons one of the worst public hosts available for video archives; and there is zero indication that this is taken seriously as an issue to be fixed for the open knowledge mission of the WMF, in particular there are no funded plans for improvement.
Disheartening. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Faebot/Sandbox1

Hello, just for information, I notice to you that I deleted the page quoted above as I think it was inappropriate to keep it (see deletion log). Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This deletion is very surprising, it does not fit with the definitions we have for the use of the undiscussed speedy deletions.
@Christian Ferrer: please undelete and raise a deletion request per policy if you wish.
The page had a couple of reports from the wiki database that were entirely neutral, they were specifically about examining @1989: 's actions as an administrator as part of the community's fair and appropriate scrutiny of an Oversight request. There was nothing in the reports that were not public data, there was nothing in the reports that were defamatory or could be read as defamatory or maligning, there was zero potentially biased analysis as the facts of the reports were literally the data from sysop related actions. In terms of fairness, the reports were limited to sysop actions taken in 2019, nothing else.
All those with sysop tools accept fair scrutiny and questions based on their actions using these tools per COM:Administrators. Deleting these minor reports on a page that only has interest to those reviewing the Oversight request actually has the potential to raise suspicions that the reports contained something problematic that needed to be hidden. That is not the case, there were relatively technical issues with the use of sysop tools but no private information, nor even the equivalent of trade secrets, just issues that should be subject to fair and fact-based questioning. Deleting the facts is unhelpful if our objective with fair scruitiny is to ensure questions remain non-subjective and we are not reduced to handing out trusted user status based only on community popularity rather than evidence.
--Fæ (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
As you likely noticed I never said that it was "defamatory or maligning", otherwise 1/it would have been quoted in the log and 2/ you would have been warned. I said that it is inappropriate to keep such a page targeting one specific user, especially since the request is now off. There is no need to keep it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be misusing speedy deletions. The claim in the deletion log that "Inappropriate use of user pages" is false, this is an entirely appropriate report to reference.
There has been no speedy deletion rationale based on the facts of what the page contained. Please undelete and create a deletion request per our community agreed policy which constrains your use of the delete tools, just as they constrain everyone else.
If aggressive deletion is the approach to reporting and analysis of sysop actions, especially in the context of fair scruitiny to support granting of advanced rights like Oversight or Check user privalages, then this will drive the same reports to be hosted off-wiki, or for the community to be fearful of asking questions without being anonymous. This project should not be seen to be circling the wagons when it comes to very simple and basic facts and analysis of sysop actions. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I will not. If several administrors thinks it's relevant to restore it, then very fine, they undeletes it if they want. But I don't see a single reason, other than "by principle", to restore it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
You are making up new procedures to avoid complying with existing policies. An exclusive "vote of administrators" is not how deletion requests are done. Please reflect on your behaviour and what COM:Administrators actually says. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I followed the policies as far my understanding of those policies have allowed it to me. 1/the page was inappropriate (a BOT targetting the contributions about only one user/administrator?? about all administrators ok, but why only about one or about a very few selected user (and furthermore selected by who?)). Oh, and is this an appropriate behavior for a BOT? 2/ it is obvious to me that is is inappropriate, therefore a justified use of sppedy deletion tool. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Clearly policy as stated has literally not been followed. Arguments being raised are post-hoc rationalization not based on the facts of what the page contained. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As discussion here is increasingly defensive and not based facts, Commons:Village_pump#Use_of_userspace_pages_to_host_unbiased_reports_of_sysop_actions encourages community views for this use of speedy deletion, including views of non-administrators.

The deletion request, that should have been raised instead of speedy deletion, is

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Faebot/Sandbox1.

--Fæ (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO, there was no violation of any policies on this page. If 1898 is seeing it as potentially libelous content, they are free to nominate the page for regular deletion, but an out-of-process deletion is inappropriate anyway -- not by themselves and not by any other admin. --A.Savin 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer: I have undeleted the page in question as Fae has taken it to Commons:Deletion requests - a deletion request cannot be fairly considered with only admins being able to see the content. At this time, I am not going to comment on if it was an in or out of process deletion, but let's ensure that from here on, we are following the deletion process with this page. ~riley (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • OK fine, let's go for a regular DR. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Interface admin request

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this request or not - if not, please move this to the appropriate venue! For the next version of the {{Wikidata Infobox}} I want to introduce an image switcher, so we can display multiple images while taking up less screen space. This requires some Javascript code, which is at User:Mike Peel/common.js - it is based on the code used on enwp for location map switching. The sandbox version of the infobox is coded up to use this, and you can see see Category:Presumed portrait of Guillaume Filastre for a demo. Would an interface admin be willing to install that Javascript code in the appropriate place that it is loaded for all users/readers, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to make the page still as raedable without JS, eg. by putting the images in a box that could scroll, or putting a separate column than the info. Some people will have JS disabled, because of old browser (mw:Compatibility#Basic_(Grade_C)), mobile (which loads a separate set of scripts than desktop), or being paranoid about security.
That said, we already have a Gadget / Template that provides this functionality --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: If Javascript is disabled then all of the images are shown within the infobox, which makes the infobox somewhat longer but it still looks OK. On mobile, the infobox only shows the most important content, which doesn't include any images, so this shouldn't be an issue there - but I need more people to test this on different devices and provide feedback! Gadgets are great for registered users, but this needs to be displayed for readers, hence this request for it to be added site-wise. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
My second statement, that we already provide this functionality, still stands --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And yes that Gadget is enabled site-wide, loaded conditionally by Common.js --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: You could also consider to request IA rights for yourself for the technical implementation. (Which doesn't mean that a review shouldn't happen, I think for such an important change it will be advisable to have at least another person check the code. A thing I sadly cannot offer myself.) --Krd 19:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Krd: Thanks, but this is the first time I've found a need to modify the default interface, and I don't expect to need to do so often enough to request access to the extra tools! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, this went differently than I expected. I've now posted a request for IA rights at Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Interface_admin_access_request. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the interface admins in the hope that one can help here!: @-revi, 4nn1l2, Didym, Ebrahim, FDMS4, Guanaco, Hedwig in Washington, Jean-Frédéric, Kaldari, and Krd: @Kwj2772, Lucas Werkmeister, Magog the Ogre, Multichill, Perhelion, Putnik, RP88, Srittau, Steinsplitter, and Thibaut120094: @Ymblanter and Zhuyifei1999: . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a gadget to me. Should be made into one so people who want can enable it. Multichill (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Personally, I would never want to see multiple images in a Commons category infobox as they are already crufty enough (and we seem to be moving category pages further and further from their intended purpose). Speaking of, is there a gadget or userscript to turn off category infoboxes entirely? Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
+1 Might be interesting for others, I don't really need this functionality. Sorry. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
A gadget doesn't work here, as those are only available for logged in users! Hence this request to add it to the main javascript, so that it is available to users and readers alike. It actually reduces the amount of space that the infoboxes take up, as they already display multiple images. There is info about how to hide the infobox at Template:Wikidata Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Have you even tried? Template --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I ... don't know what to say. Looking at that template led me to MediaWiki:Common.js, where the main javascript file seems to auto-include various gadgets??? Mike Peel (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. Also note that default gadgets are loaded for anons. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: OK, so could you copy the contents of User:Mike Peel/common.js to a gadget page, say MediaWiki:Gadget-Infobox.js, and add that to MediaWiki:Common.js please? The reason for using this system rather than Imagestack is that it's the same as used in en:Template:Location map, which is on quite a few different wikis already, so that will help to keep the infobox in sync across different wikis. It looks like Imagestack is only installed on this wiki. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Gadgets are defined in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and can be enabled by default in that location, this shouldn't be done in MediaWiki:Common.js. Steps to be taken:
  1. Create the gadget for example at MediaWiki:Gadget-Infobox.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-Infobox (see for example MediaWiki:Gadget-ZoomViewer.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-ZoomViewer)
  2. Add it to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition so people can play around with it
  3. Fix some bugs and improve the code
  4. Get consensus to enable it by default
  5. If we get consensus, update MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition to enable it by default.
Example of a default gadget in action: On File:M104 ngc4594 sombrero galaxy hi-res.jpg you can see the zoomviewer link under the image even when logged out. Multichill (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Except to do steps 1 + 2 you need to be able to edit the interface, which I can't do as I'm not an interface admin. The code is linked to above, perhaps you could copy it to the correct place? Step 3 is already done by my userspace testing, unless anyone finds any new issues. I can prepare another proposal at Commons:Village Pump/Proposals to do step #4 when 1+2 are done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a description for MediaWiki:Gadget-Infobox? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I can edit MediaWiki:Gadget-Infobox, so I've created that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999 and Multichill: Thank you! I've now posted a proposal as per step #4 at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Displaying_multiple_images_in_the_Wikidata_Infobox_using_Javascript. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ensuring that administrator actions have comments that provide a meaningful rationale

Having raised this as a concern for the actions of one administrator, it seemed unfair to not test the issue of correct use of comment text more generally to understand that sysop tools are being used consistently against policies. Hence posting this generic untargeted report about block and revdel actions taken this year to date, by all current administrators. Administrators may want to comment, or privately take some time to assess as to whether there were good, bad or accidental reasons for comments to be blank.

The good news is that it appears to be relatively rare for there to be no comment.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting feedback below, nice to see the information being used to adjust the log. I have put example SQL up at Quarry:query/39937 if anyone wants to play around with it. I would be happy to create separate reports on quarry so they can be refreshed on request and easily linked to for reference. --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 block actions with no comment in the log

Report 
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Sysop                | Blocked account                         |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 4nn1l2               | Basesdoily1                             |
| 4nn1l2               | 58.233.233.179                          |
| Achim55              | 168.91.34.8                             |
| Achim55              | Gmhservices                             |
| Achim55              | 37.152.163.35                           |
| Didym                | PcGuel                                  |
| Gbawden              | Kdashtipour                             |
| Green Giant          | Enchantedlandscapes                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Scorpion_28                             |
| Hedwig in Washington | Lolamelody123456                        |
| Hedwig in Washington | EasyLiveTrade_software                  |
| Jameslwoodward       | PayFast_haiti                           |
| Jon Kolbert          | Tylervsmith                             |
| Krd                  | Bibhasbiswas87                          |
| Magog the Ogre       | Raphodon                                |
| Mhhossein            | Astronauta152                           |
| Rodhullandemu        | HKMOs_PeloSK                            |
| Taivo                | Shogun_Blue                             |
| Taivo                | 2A00:23C4:7116:D500:2DE5:1A53:9D47:EC76 |
| Taivo                | Elmar_Baxşəliyev                        |
| Taivo                | 180.183.101.46                          |
| Taivo                | 175.176.74.0/24                         |
| Túrelio              | João_Victor_LMSSS                       |
| Yann                 | Aqsaislam12                             |
| Yann                 | Sayan_764                               |
| Yann                 | Vellyjd                                 |
| ~riley               | Aztegdude                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------+

2019 revdel actions with no comment in the log

Report 
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sysop                | Page title                                                                                                                                |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1989                 | Deletion_requests/File:Rockystatue.png                                                                                                    |
| 1989                 | Doppelganger                                                                                                                              |
| 1989                 | Kgpg_new.svg                                                                                                                              |
| 1989                 | Tango_apps_kgpg.svg                                                                                                                       |
| 1989                 | 30_октября_1934_года._Работа_на_дороге_от_Энгельса_до_школы_(II).jpg                                                                      |
| 1989                 | 30_октября_1934_года._Работа_на_дороге_от_Энгельса_до_школы_(II).jpg                                                                      |
| 1989                 | 30_октября_1934_года._Работа_на_дороге_от_Энгельса_до_школы_(II).jpg                                                                      |
| 1989                 | 30_октября_1934_года._Работа_на_дороге_от_Энгельса_до_школы_(II).jpg                                                                      |
| 1989                 | Ellin_Beltz                                                                                                                               |
| 1989                 | Wiki_Loves_Pride_2019                                                                                                                     |
| 1989                 | CambridgeBayWeather                                                                                                                       |
| 1989                 | Oshwah                                                                                                                                    |
| 1989                 | RazorTheDJ                                                                                                                                |
| 1989                 | Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_74                                                                                                    |
| 1989                 | Achim55                                                                                                                                   |
| 1989                 | Achim55                                                                                                                                   |
| 1Veertje             | Mr._J._L._Bouma_1923.jpg                                                                                                                  |
| 1Veertje             | Fridolin_Marinus_Knobel_1913.jpg                                                                                                          |
| 1Veertje             | Mr._J._L._Bouma_1923.jpg                                                                                                                  |
| 4nn1l2               | Isaac_Gracie_DWDD_optreden.webm                                                                                                           |
| 4nn1l2               | Yuri_Honing_Acoustic_Quartet_optreden_DWDD_2017.webm                                                                                      |
| 4nn1l2               | Al-Ma'un.svg                                                                                                                              |
| Benoit Rochon        | Toronto_Skyline_2009_-_WikiClub_banner.jpg                                                                                                |
| Benoit Rochon        | Toronto_Skyline_2009_-_WikiClub_banner.jpg                                                                                                |
| Benoit Rochon        | Toronto_Skyline_2009_-_WikiClub_banner.jpg                                                                                                |
| Benoit Rochon        | Toronto_Skyline_2009_-_WikiClub_banner.jpg                                                                                                |
| Benoit Rochon        | Toronto_Skyline_2009_-_WikiClub_banner.jpg                                                                                                |
| Blackcat             | Oxyman                                                                                                                                    |
| DarwIn               | Monument_to_the_Conquerors_of_Space,_Moscow,_Russia,_2016_05.jpg                                                                          |
| DarwIn               | Памятники_Покорителям_Космоса,_м.ВДНХ,_Москва,_Россия._-_panoramio_-_Oleg_Yu.Novikov_(9).jpg                                              |
| DarwIn               | Памятники_Покорителям_Космоса,_м.ВДНХ,_Москва,_Россия._-_panoramio_-_Oleg_Yu.Novikov_(19).jpg                                             |
| DarwIn               | Памятники_Покорителям_Космоса,_м.ВДНХ,_Москва,_Россия._-_panoramio_-_Oleg_Yu.Novikov_(13).jpg                                             |
| DarwIn               | Skylight_roof_of_the_subterranean_Museum_of_Cosmonautics_in_Moscow.jpg                                                                    |
| DarwIn               | Небо-The_cold_sky_-_panoramio.jpg                                                                                                         |
| DarwIn               | Музей_космонавтики,_ракета.jpg                                                                                                            |
| DarwIn               | Музей_космонавтики_в_Москве.png                                                                                                           |
| DarwIn               | Monument_to_the_Conquerors_of_Space,_Moscow,_Russia,_2016_05.jpg                                                                          |
| DarwIn               | Монумент_«Покорителям_космоса»_(14006733426).jpg                                                                                          |
| DarwIn               | Monument_to_the_Conquerors_of_Space,_Moscow,_Russia,_2016_17.jpg                                                                          |
| DarwIn               | Monument_to_the_Conquerors_of_Space,_Moscow,_Russia,_2016_18.jpg                                                                          |
| DarwIn               | Ostankinsky_District,_Moscow,_Russia_-_panoramio_(459).jpg                                                                                |
| DarwIn               | Cosmos_Hotel,_Moscow,_Russia,_2016_38.jpg                                                                                                 |
| DarwIn               | Ostankinsky_District,_Moscow,_Russia_-_panoramio_(386).jpg                                                                                |
| DarwIn               | Monument_to_the_Conquest_of_Space..._Up_up_and_away_-_panoramio.jpg                                                                       |
| DarwIn               | Ostankinsky_District,_Moscow,_Russia_-_panoramio_(315).jpg                                                                                |
| Hedwig in Washington | Tufor                                                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Deletion_requests/File:Indo-Iranic_languages_chart.jpg                                                                                    |
| Hedwig in Washington | Map_Greece_expansion_1832-1947-en.svg                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Map_Greece_expansion_1832-1947-en.svg                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Frank_Farian.jpeg                                                                                                                         |
| Hedwig in Washington | Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Tufor                                                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Wostr                                                                                                                                     |
| Hedwig in Washington | Nedops                                                                                                                                    |
| Hedwig in Washington | Shubham7878                                                                                                                               |
| Hedwig in Washington | Shubham7878                                                                                                                               |
| Hedwig in Washington | Nedops                                                                                                                                    |
| Hedwig in Washington | Tufor                                                                                                                                     |
| Jon Kolbert          | Renamed_user_EPgiXc0zK4m0gk8j                                                                                                             |
| JuTa                 | Lagoa_de_Cima.jpg                                                                                                                         |
| Majora               | Samantha_Smith_(45671429942).jpg                                                                                                          |
| Morgankevinj         | Featured_picture_candidates/File:Underwater_slope_in_Gullmarn_fjord_2.jpg                                                                 |
| Steinsplitter        | Fæ                                                                                                                                        |
| ~riley               | Jacob_G_Swartz_was_born_on_October_4,_2006.jpg                                                                                            |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Some, if not most, may just be accidental. I was a little surprised to see myself here as I always strive to justify my admin actions with rationales and when I went to go look at the log in question I saw that it was indeed an accident and the log was corrected after the fact. --Majora (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Taking the number of deletions into account that happen every day, I'd expected a much longer list. Mistakes can happen , and I don't really see any pattern here. E.g., without having looked into actual details, I can accept that related revdels at Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism can happen and only the first of them is commented, as, although comments shall happen every time, it is not the intention of the rule to feed a troll by being required to comment every time of the same incident. --Krd 06:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly that is an understandable scenario, which may be usefully added to the guideline if it is to be an accepted norm. That is not the case for all the above, and is not a scenario that applies to account blocks, especially considering that in some of these no-comment cases the blocked user received a standard notice saying that the explanation for the block is given in the block log...
As indicated the "error level" on this is low, but perhaps an improvement might be to build in an extra "are you sure" prompt for sysop actions where there should be a comment. --Fæ (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to write a patch against upstream MediaWiki core, so we won't be the only wiki to benefit from this. Besides, edit summery check is in MediaWiki core, so I'd imagine a similar logic could be written for block / protect / delete / etc. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: I appreciate that this is pointed out, and even if the error rate is low everybody shall feel responsible to reduce it further, which I personally do. Regarding the additinal confirmation button, I strongly oppose that. Admin must be equipped with tools that meet their requirement, and speaking for myself, I often need tools that I can use quickly. I see no reason for technical measures if the problem is small and there are other approaches left, i.e. addressing it to the few who actually make some mistakes (including myself). --Krd 07:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised to see myself in the list, but then I remembered: couple of times I accidentally forgot to add a reason, discovered it immediately and then decided, that if I leave a proper blocking message with reason to user talkpage, then block log is not so important and it is not worth to change the block only for adding a reason. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Its good to highlight stuff like this - If we know about it we can make sure we learn from our mistakes and try not to repeat it. If we don't know about it we can't fix it Gbawden (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I also thank User:Fæ for this useful report. I see my username 5 times:

  1. Blocking Basesdoily1 (self-apparent, no need to feed the troll)
  2. Blocking 58.233.233.179 (self-corrected shortly)
  3. Revdeling File:Isaac_Gracie_DWDD_optreden.webm (fixed now)
  4. Revdeling File:Yuri_Honing_Acoustic_Quartet_optreden_DWDD_2017.webm (fixed now)
  5. Revdeing File:Al-Ma'un.svg (fixed now)

With 8,669 admin actions in 2019 so far (including 417 revdels and 236 (re)/(un)/blocks), 5 missed edit summaries are relatively fair, I think/hope. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

For Isaac_Gracie and Yuri_Honing, the upload comment of the overwrite already said "muted", was performed by the uploader (me), the title makes it clear the file contained music ("optreden" = "performance") and I had categorized the file into Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions myself. Even without revdel comment, it's obvious that this was not controversial. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
And for File:Al-Ma'un.svg (uploaded by me), this file is a part of the bigger collection Category:Surah SVGs with 115 files, all were unacceptable derivative works (I didn't know much about copyright rules then). I know the reason must be provided, but I think the reason for this specific revdel was somehow provided indirectly. Ahmadtalk 15:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T9557
  • I fully support a patch that allows enabling "Prompt me when entering a blank deletion or block summary", no different than for an edit summary. This would be beneficial across Wikimedia. 16,784 admin actions for me in 2019 with 2 missed summaries is a low threshold, but ideally those 2 could be prevented. ~riley (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Interface admin request: create missing mediawiki:lang/code pages

Based on redlinks in Module:Languages there is several missing local langcode mediawiki pages and they could be created (example: MediaWiki:Lang/fi)

--Zache (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Multichill (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Just for future reference, any admin can edit the mediawiki namespace and create pages there. The only thing we cannot do is edit pages that end in .js or .css. Those require intadmin rights. --Majora (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --Zache (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Image deletion

Would an admin please look at File:Brown Dog on plinth - Battersea Park - 2008-04-09.jpg and let me know why it was deleted? The photograph was taken by Tagishsimon, who uploaded it on 9 April 2008 and (as I recall) released it as cc-by-sa. It was being used in a featured article. On 30 November 2018 Jcb deleted it, saying there was no OTRS permission, but he didn't explain why an additional OTRS release was needed. I've just asked him, but I see he hasn't edited recently. Can someone else help? SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The image was inappropriately deleted. I'm assuming due to the {{OTRS received}} template being quite old. Generally, this means that proper permission was never received. However, the template was added as an automated process by a bot and the ticket had nothing to do with permission but was asking about reuse. I have restored it. I don't see any copyright issues with this as it is FoP-UK. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Majora, thank you for doing that, it's much appreciated. SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A small edit request

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Vaibhavafro 💬 10:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone add eng.mil.ru to Template:Mil.ru. Doing this is necessary for this upload.— Vaibhavafro 💬 09:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: I don't understand your request. Eng.mil.ru is a subdomain of mil.ru, so it is already covered by the template.
Furthermore, edit request should be made at template talk pages using {{Edit request}} to draw the attention of an admin/template editor. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok sorry. I didn't know what subdomains are.— Vaibhavafro 💬 10:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/11/13

Hassan Ehap (talk · contribs) has seem to have nominated over 100 times for deletion in error. It seems that they were attempting to nominate images for deletion, but nominated their own talk page instead. The reason I'm messaging here is because, it's causing havoc with the loading and readability of the DR page. I'm wondering if this could be somehow sorted. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Hassan Ehap: . --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Fixed [6] [7] [8]. Ideally, Commons:Deletion requests/User talk:Hassan Ehap should be moved to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hassan Ehap, but the current situation is good enough. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Thanks for your hard work. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 23:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Issue

Can we get this deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Llewelynpritchard2 reopened so it can be resubmitted properly or can an admin re-nominate for deletion? --KKKNL1488 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@KKKNL1488: You can re-submit/re-open the deletion request yourself following the instructions on Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. ~riley (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Granted & reopened, pinging New Orleans. --Achim (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
And closed again, I've been too slow. Follow up Commons:Deletion requests/Llewelynpritchard2 (2nd nomination). --Achim (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of personal information

I was wondering if there was an administrator that I could contact regarding removing some personal information.

I can get into more details with the administrator in question, but I would rather not have the discussion be on this noticeboard. I would feel more comfortable talking about it on the administrator's talk page. I need to give some clarification for my request to make sense, but (again) I would rather not do it here if possible. Tharthan (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tharthan. Good day. If personal/private information is involved I'd advice you to contact Commons:Oversighters via their mailing list at oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 12:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tharthan: are you talking about wikitext or removal of something from an image, like blurring a license plate? I'm no admin, but I can help with blurring. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Thank you, Mr. Aurelio. I will attempt to do that.
@Alexis Jazz: I appreciate the offer, but what I am talking about is not contained within the file itself. I think that Oversight is indeed the proper area for me to contact. I am not familiar with Wikimedia Commons policies. I am a Wiktionarian and (less often these days) Wikipedian, and use Wikimedia Commons for uploading files for usage on the two projects. Tharthan (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Swift question: how long does it usually take for the e-mail to be approved, so that it can actually be sent out? I received a message in my inbox on my e-mail account saying that, because I am not part of the group, my message will need to be approved first. Tharthan (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The approval thing is misleading. All oversighters get a notification that a message is waiting for them. That is the message you get whenever you send any message to a closed mailing list. Most oversight requests I've sent in have been dealt with within 24-48 hours. Please note, all of our oversighters are somewhere in Europe so it is the middle of the night there right now. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

File Transfer of File:Арена_Рига_-_panoramio.jpg to german wikipedia

Please, could you temporarily undelete and transfer File:Арена_Рига_-_panoramio.jpg to the german wikipedia. There it can be stored due to FOP in Germany and "Schutzlandprinzip". Thanks. Xgeorg (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xgeorg: I can undelete the file but I am not comfortable uploading it to the German Wikipedia. If you would do it yourself, please let me know, I can undelete it for one or two days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: That would be grat. I will do the upload myself. Xgeorg (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Xgeorg: I restored the file, please let me know when you have completed the transfer.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thanks a lot; File is transferred. Xgeorg (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I deleted the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

DR backlog

I want to preemptively say that this is not criticism of Commons sysops. However, I'm a little concerned with the number of open Commons:Deletion requests, esp, those eligible for closure. I was curious, are there any Commons sysops taking care of observing and closing DRs atm? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 05:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

150+ DRs are created everyday. We need 100+ more admins. – Kwj2772 (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't doubt it, however, there are 217 sysops on Commons--ideally, if one sysop closed one DR per day, we'd eventually clear this backlog. But that's just wishful thinking. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
What we need is rather more admins who actually use the tools... --Herby talk thyme 16:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Only 64 admins made more than 30 admin actions in the last 30 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
(indent added for readability --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC))

That's a little troubling. However, I'm assuming that the counter doesn't include actions that don't require the use of tools (such as closing a discussion with no action required)? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • A lot of people do maintenance works, and would certainly be good administrators, and however do not wish to be candidate (why?). Perhaps we should abolish the compulsory acceptance of candidates when they are nominated by others... a solution a bit extreme to recruit new administrators, but not so terrible IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting conscription? I've come across individuals who threaten to leave the project if you give them autopatrol and you want to conscript people to administrator? That seems...incredibly unwise considering giving them the mop doesn't force them to use it but can cause a host of other issues. --Majora (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    I would rather suggest a sort of spring cleaning type thing, a sort of campaign to get current sysops more involved and with the sole task of clearing the backlog. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a perennial issue and not one solved easily. In the absence of a spring clean or a surge of new admins, I would suggest we revisit the premise of closing DRs after seven days. The files are nominated for discussion but such discussions can extend well over the seven day limit. Perhaps it is time to move to a limit of keeping DRs open for longer e.g. 30 days? That would be more in line with the time limits given for OTRS-tagged files. It would also immediately reduce the DR backlog (albeit semantically). Green Giant (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    There are already exemptions to the seven day rule, if I'm not mistaken. The problem is that there are a good number of DRs that are obvious closes, but have yet to be. ––Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 02:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree there are many DRs which should be closed quickly. However, one of the reasons for the backlog is our adherence to the seven day limit. As far as I am aware, the seven day limit was set arbitrarily in 2004. There is no reason we cannot change it to 30 days and immediately eliminate some of the unnecessary pressure. Green Giant (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Might there be a legal reason why 7 days was chosen? Thinking about WMF's safe harbor etc. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
There was a legal reason for the copyright violations but I don’t think it would apply to the less controversial material listed in DRs. Quite often we delete DR files for being out of scope or lacking educational uses and similar policies which are less urgent than the copy vios or the media with no license. -Green Giant (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it was a copy and paste from English Wikipedia's deletion policy? Seven days is also the limit set there. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 03:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was a copy and paste job, similar to a lot of the structure of Commons back then. The question we should be asking is “can we change our 15-year old rules?" Obviously apart from legal reasons (as suggested by Josve05a above), there is no reason we cannot change rules if the community agrees or at least the majority agrees. -Green Giant (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
What exactly would changing the time to 30 days do? We will still have the same number of files nominated for deletion, thus the same number of DRs per day requiring the same amount of admin effort as current. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
As I work from the oldest requests regardless, changing the time to 30 days will do nothing more than make us feel "better" by artificially reducing the backlog. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535 and Majora, the pressure we place on admins to close DRs is artificially inflated because it is an artificial backlog based on a time limit, arbitrarily decided by User:Eloquence in 2004. There was never a community discussion (as far as I’m aware) in which we decided DRs should be closed in seven days. That system worked fine when there were far fewer files to consider. Now we are 15 years older, with literally thousands of files nominated for deletion (and a gradually decreasing number of admins, let alone active admins), there is no sensible reason to keep it at 7 days. Imagine if we changed policy to close DRs in one day instead. It wouldn’t change the number of DRs but it would artificially expand the backlog by adding another six days of DRs to that backlog. One of the reasons users occasionally highlight the size of the backlog is because they look at the number of days in the list at the foot of COM:DR or (less likely) the number of files in Category:Deletion requests. At the moment COM:DR lists 41 days of DRs which are past our time limit, another 8 waiting at the bottom, and a further 80 days worth hidden away at Commons:Deletion requests/Older discussions. What if those 80 days were also listed at the foot of COM:DR? It would become a depressingly long backlog. However, let’s say we changed it to a minimum of 30 days. The backlog would be reduced by 23 days, leaving only 18 listed openly as past the time limit. It would not seem such an obstacle to less active admins and might encourage more admins to close a DR or two. Why induce concerns about the backlog when we could reduce it artificially in one stroke? I’m not against other solutions but as I see it we are pointing at a mountain, when it could be a molehill. -Green Giant (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My two cents.. DR Clerks.. Experienced users, that are not administrators, are trusted and encouraged to close discussions. If the discussion requires admin action (i.e. deletion), they close as delete and add a category (i.e. Category:Deletion requests pending deletion after closure). This would allow many of our copyright savvy users, who are either not ready for the permissions, not interested in the mop, etc, to help. ~riley (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    You took words right out of my mind. I was going to propose the same. But who are we going to choose as clerks? Masum Reza📞 06:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    There's a reason that enwiki, which you linked to to exhibit the idea of clerks, only allows non-admins to close articles for deletion discussions as keep. Admins are wholly responsible for the use of their tools. No admin would ever just delete a file because it just happened to be in a "pending deletion" category. They would have to look at the DR anyways and come to their own decisions. I would hope that they would check it themselves. This just leads to a shifting of the backlog from COM:DR to whatever category these files reside in. It doesn't reduce the backlog to allow non-admins to close DRs as delete. It just won't. Non-admins can already close DRs as keep. That has been in the COM:DR#Closing discussions instructions for quite some time. --Majora (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    Alternative: We could create an admin bot. Give trusted users access to the bot using a web interface. Then they could indirectly use the delete right. And their username would be added to the summary in deletion log. Masum Reza📞 06:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    That is little different to those users having the delete right directly --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    My opinion is considerably different than yours, Majora. If non-admins can already close DRs as keep, why am I closing DRs that are nearly six months old as keep? COM:DR#Closing discussions is by no means inviting. It would considerably reduce the backlog to allow non-admins to close DRs as delete - it would reduce the time needed for admins to close discussions, and it would increase consensus. Nobody is implying that admins wouldn't check or verify a request for deletion, that step would still be necessary. The two big problems that we have at DR is lack of participation from established users (no consensus established, closing only based on the deletion nomination) and users making the deletion process complicated (messy DRs involving several files with long threads). Everybody is motivated by title, rank, responsibility, authority etc (call it what you want), allowing clerks would increase involvement and activity at COM:DR and give us a hands-on opportunity to train and coach future admins. If you still disagree with the concept of clerks closing DRs as delete, let's take a step back and consider clerks recommending deletion (i.e. Clerk Note: Clerk recommending deletion per COM:SCOPE) ~riley (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    It might be worth trying (Off-topic: This is giving me flashbacks to my most recent job as Elections Canada poll clerk, where I did the job of my DRO, the Info Officer, and the Reg. Officer, and was constantly troubleshooting problems of the neighbouring poll station for 15 hours straight, but only got paid for the one position and less than the DRO). But I do get Majora's point about it not really dealing with the backlog and only shifting/delaying it. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 07:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict) You are correct. We do appear to have very opposing views here. Why are you closing nearly six month old DRs as keep when non-admins could do that? Probably two reasons. One, the same reason the LR backlog is in the tens of thousands. You can't force people to do things and two, whenever non-admins try to close DRs they inevitably get yelled at by someone. Either by other admins or by non-admins who believe the close is invalid because of who closed it. Why would they put themselves through that trouble? If we want to sanction clerks to close DRs as keep to avoid issue #2 I'd be ok with that. Issue #1 isn't solvable. As for the lack of participation at DR, making clerks won't change that (see issue #1 being unsolvable). The people who are already active at DR are going to remain so and those people would be the obvious choice for clerks which, in turn, won't increase activity any noticeable degree. As for your idea that everyone is motivated by title, rank, etc. If people are motivated by what "hats" they have I, frankly, don't want them. Hat collecting is a serious problem, not something that should be encouraged. --Majora (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Hence my idea of removing acceptance about rights, which has the direct result of the attribution of the rights in relation to the wish (need) of the community and not to the wish of the person. Although unfeasible in reality, and also probably the source of other problems as you said it well. I grant you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat (talk • contribs) 08:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a "clerks" idea is worth thinking about, but we should it do properly: Create a new role that has the MediaWiki right to delete files and the community right to close DRs with either keep or delete decisions. I wouldn't want a role that is only allowed to "keep" files, but can not delete files. This will only double the work needed for closing deletions, because now two people will have to look at those DRs that need deletions. And those are the vast majority of files. I'd support a role for experienced editors that can delete files, but has no other admin right (look at deleted files, restore those, lock pages, or block users.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd support too a right, for a new user group, to delete/keep files and close DRs. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a note the delete right isn't coded to be namespace specific so granting it will allow deletions anywhere. As for granting it there would be a lot of variables that need to be settled on. Is this a simple COM:RfR request? If so I would oppose that. Deletion is far too sensitive to be put into a forum that doesn't require any input from the community. Do we go the middle ground between RfR and RfA type requests such as we do with LRR? What are the parameters in which we grant this ability? Is there a threshold of support? What restrictions do we want to impose? Should we only allow this for "non-controversial" closes like we do already for keep closures? If people want to go down this route they should create a detailed proposal and bring it up at VPP. As a note though, this has been brought up many times before and always didn't go anywhere. Whether that was because the proposal was too broad, or just wasn't fully hashed out beforehand, who knows. But whoever wants to draw this up might want to take a walk down VPP archive lane. --Majora (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes of course a right to delete every where... as for the request, be careful to not to reproduce the Rfas and recurring problems attached to it, e.g. the users who comes to oppose just because they can or just because they don't like the candidate, please not. I'd be rather be for RfR with specific rules, e.g. " no oppose votes counted, but a minimum of 5 supports from administrators". Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Other than a spring cleaning campaign (which may or may not work because we can't force people to do thing/exercise tools that they have but don't use), more sysops (same probs.), clerks (and others in the convo I may have missed), what other possible solutions do we have? ––Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 07:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Temporary administrator? Users can be nominated for temporary admin for a period of 3 months as a trial period. The the bar (the standard) of experience for temp. admin should be lower, however, the standard of trust is just as high. Come 3 months, the temp admin either reconfirms through another RFA for permanent administrator or the right expires. ~riley (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
41/5000
Lower the number of supports needed in a Rfa from 75% to 50%? Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
NO WAY - we have indifferent admins as it is. If someone has 49% oppose there is probably a good reason for it. It's not quantity that's needed it quality.
As to clerks - not a bad idea but with the DR scripting closing them is so easy. --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I second Herbythyme. Don't think lower the benchmark for supports needed to 50% is good. What if there is an even number of votes and S/O is 50/50? 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 10:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I am supportive of the idea of temp admins generally. I’m not sure about lowering the bar, unless perhaps it went down to 66%. We have a small group of highly trusted users (see Category:Commons reviewers) who I think would be ideal candidates for such a role. -Green Giant (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To make a Rfa for a temporary period of 3 month is quite ridiculous IMO. At most I can understand temporary admins for 2 or 3 month but without Rfa, and as requirement the sponsorship/support of at least 3 administrators, like that ok. But if there is Rfa... so there is Rfa, and if successfull then the user is administrator as the others... But the most relevant questions might be this ones: how many times did we have this discussion? how many times by the year 2030 will we have the same concern? how many time will we try nothing simply because 1, 2 or 3 users comes with a "stong oppose because..."? Sorry to be a little cynical. Good luck. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of talking about this for days, lets start with a simple notice to all admins that their help would be appreciated in dealing with the DR backlog. ✓ Done. Notice created and posted to watchlists of sysops. This is what was done before as recently as July 2018. Then we can move from there. --Majora (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Now my thoughts. Lowering pass threshold in RfA is a bad idea, as pointed out. Lengthening regular request length is pointless, administrators usually do not close requests before the time has run out and we will end with the same number of overdue DR-s, simply the community waits 30 days and not 7 days, before somebody will start to do anything. Creating clerks does not help: if we trust somebody enough to give him deletion button, why not let him go through RfA and give him all administrator's buttons? Yesterday I found a DR with two keep votes from experienced users (potential clerks?) and I deleted the file anyway. Now, what helps? At first, yesterday I closed 53 DR-s. At second, think about experienced users and ask them, maybe they want to become administrators. Taivo (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of a location map

Yesterday Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg has been deleted and a delinker bot removed this file from the Wikipedias. But this wasn't a typical picture, it was a map or satellite image (I just can guess) which was used in location map templates in several Wikipedias. These templates still exist and are in use but don't work now, e.g. in de:A1GP-Saison 2005/06. It is important for the Wikipedia communities to have a chance to repair this damage before it happens. No one knows how many Wikipedias and how many articles are affected by this deletion. In some bigger communities it has been fixed now ([9]) but in most smaller communities there is no one who has got these templates on his/her watchlist. A deletion of a location map template file has to be dealt differently than a deletion of some "normal" file. NNW 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a general problem that was discussed before. It would be good to have a bot that notifies Wikipedia and other projects when a file gets filed as a DR. This DR was opened at the end of June, so there would have been enough time to find a solution, but I figure no one on the affected Wikipedias knew about this DR. I don't think any non-automated solution would work. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
If I had known anything about this DR I would have tried to find an alternative. I guess this was a satellite image and I think there would have been a NASA image to replace it. I don't know if there is a solution for all files with a DR but I would like to request all administrators to have an extra eye to DRs like this and inform at least someone who is involved in location map templates. These DRs won't happen very often but the damage afterwards has to be prevented. NNW 09:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polska-ww1-nation.png

A file was recently renominated for deletion without new arguments based on policy. The comment I left on the DR was the following:

We don't usually reopen deletion requests (DR) on Commons, unless new arguments based on policy are introduced. It was  kept because it is an image that is within our scope and in use on Wikimedia projects; as policy states, "if it is in use, that is enough." As stated in the previous DR, if a user disagrees with the content, it should be sorted out through discussion and consensus on the other projects. Only once it is no longer use, the we can consider its deletion based on Project scope.

— in: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polska-ww1-nation.png

I wondering if a sysop can take a gander and, if possible, close the discussion early based on the fact that there's no rationale for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Campaign:wsc-pt is showing contest as closed

Hi, our campaign should be running from 15 November to 15 December, but the upload campaign is showing a message that the competitions is over [10]. I am not sure where the configuration file is, but please someone change it. It might explain why we don't have any submission yet. GoEThe (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Self requested block

Please block me for 2 weeks. Thank you. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 03:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Let us know if you change your mind. ~riley (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Recruiting new admins

Following on from the DR backlog discussion, I think we need to recruit some admins to help us keep this backlog down and keep up with the other admin tasks. There are a couple of people I would nominate but they have bumped heads with other users and that would likely put them off if not derail their noms. Should we call for volunteers or just suggest to certain users that they put their name forward? Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It depends. Obviously you cannot give more information without revealing the users and under such vague circumstances nobody can give good advice. I can say only: 1) self-nomination is weaker than nomination by administrator, 2) sometimes you can consult with user who maybe wants to oppose, because maybe he does not want to oppose, 3) nobody wants drama magnets here. Taivo (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Gbawden. A solution could be just to ask if the users you have in mind if they would like to be nominated for a RfA, and if they answer in the affirmative, nominate them. That way it may eliminate the cons of a self-nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 13:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
If I am on the list (which wouldn't be that strange considering User talk:Alexis Jazz/Archives/2019/October#License review, User talk:Alexis Jazz/Archives/2019/October#A syllogism for you to consider, User talk:Alexis Jazz#Congratulations, dear license reviewer and User talk:Alexis Jazz#License Reviewer. yeah, it's kinda getting out of hand but what you gonna do), I'll just state here that I'm not overexcited for such an opportunity. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you are definitely on my those-who-probably-should-get-more-rights-so-I-get-bugged-less-often list. Heh --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on something behind the scenes to make DRs more manageable. That will hopefully result in DRs that are easier to rule on and more comments on DRs in general, which should also help. Obviously, input is welcome. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Sadly my RfA on Beta doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Testing any sort of new gadget would probably better be done there instead of here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone monitors the VP on beta, so if you request for permissions it would be much better if it's made on a noticeboard here, which also provides confirmation that the user on beta is legitimate and not 'have a user name that resembles someone on main wiki'. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is a noticeboard.. Admin and interface admin for AJ, please. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Celette

Celette has announced on the French village pump that this account is shared by 5 different people since the inception of the account. I've blocked the account for a week here, and would like to have your views on the next step. My take is banishment. Pleclown (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a global ban discussion on meta? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 12:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps. But before that they need to meet the criteria for global ban. It doesn't look like they are indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. Masum Reza📞 08:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
On :fr the account is blocked for personal attacks, not for the account-sharing. Strange. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the french WP we are talking about... it's a strange place :) (The admins are discussing sanctions on fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2019/Semaine_47) Pleclown (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this a Terms of Use violation? If so, they are eligible for a WMF ban. Masum Reza📞 09:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
What might be more important for the Commons' community is, how we deal with their own-claimed uploads (which are quite a number and of good quality)? Can we come to a copyright/legally sound solution or do we need to involve WMF legal? --Túrelio (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Look at her editing historic... It's easy to find that she's seen like having an abusive behavior in regard's to copyvio, but not exclusivly an exemple--Idéalités (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see much copyvios in her history, a few FoP problems at best (or worst). Besides it seems she used to shoot with the same camera. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It's is an interpretation ("I don't see much copyvios") ... But fact stay : an account must be link to a single person : Commons:Role account Here, it's a real abuse. --Idéalités (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
There actually appears to be use of two cameras as opposed to one - with concurrent usage. There is also a large amount of files lacking EXIF data which is odd if the other files have EXIF. ~riley (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
~riley true, and since there is 5 people behind this account (according to the account itself) this is not really unexpected. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about a ban but an indefinite block seems the least that need to be applied. For the uploads, I guess even if we don't know who the author is, it can be kept as collective work (like we do for many files). For me the problem is not so much the account sharing (which in itself is a reason enough, listed on Commons:Blocking policy) but the lying about it which is not in line neither with the terms of use nor with the spirit of a collaborative project. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The main page is broken, because a motd was withdrawn few hours before the...

Please add any new media to today's motd page. If you are unsure maybe File:Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Camp Eyes Big Gains in Local Elections.webm would be great. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 03:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing village pump proposals

Could someone have a look at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Adding_the_Wikidata_Infobox_to_Taxon_categories and close it one way or the other, please? Last discussion was 10 days ago, the original proposal was over a month ago, and it wasn't 100% one way or the other so I'd like a proper closure of it please. There are also proposals on the page that are quite old now, and perhaps could do with closing as well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone please protect the page

Commons:Quality images candidates/stopBOT full protection required to avoid disruption on qic. The bot was off for 5 days. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Regasterios (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please undelete File:Australian fires at sunset from ISS (edited).jpeg.jpg

The picture was not a copyright infringement but I just did not know that there is a template for the ESA. The admin I contacted, but he did not answer. --Killarnee (T•R•P) 18:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Killarnee (T•R•P) 21:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Clearly not done (at the time of writing). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I checked out the underlying source for the image, and there is no evidence it is released under the claimed {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}} license. ESA images cannot be assumed as such, as they are by-default All Rights Reserved upon creation. So far, only a small number of them have been released under a free license, and they must be explicitly marked that way. (fyi Killarnee) — Huntster (t @ c) 14:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
http://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Copyright_Notice_Images --Killarnee (T•R•P) 17:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Killarnee, to quote, "Images or videos released by ESA under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) Licence /// Where expressly so stated, images or videos are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) licence, ESA being an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO), as defined by the CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO licence."
The first section of that page means that images are publicly released and are free to use by outside entities. It does not mean they are freely licensed. Unrestricted commercial use is a requirement for Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
At the very end of the description on the underlying source, it has “© ESA/NASA-L.Parmitano”. So sadly it isn’t released under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO. Bidgee (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Killarnee reuploaded it under File:Australian fires at sunset (edited).jpg, I have tagged it for speedy deletion (copyvio) per above. Bidgee (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
But the picture was made by an ESA astronaut, so you can reuse it according to [11]. --Killarnee (T•R•P) 19:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Killarnee, how is it relevant that an astronaut took the photo? As I explained to you, the first section of that page is not releasing images under a free license, it is simply laying out acceptable uses of their images. The second section is about the CC-by-sa-3.0-igo license. No where on the image page does it say that it was released under that Creative Commons license. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Killarnee, looking at your recent uploads, it is apparent that you do not understand copyright with regard to ESA media. I must ask that you cease uploading ESA material until you get a better understanding of what you're working with. None of the last several items you've uploaded that I reviewed were actually released under CC-by-sa-3.0-igo, yet you uploaded them as such anyway. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Not done "The admin I contacted, but he did not answer [...]" within seven hours, so you proceeded to cross-post the request and then after another 3 hours of waiting re-upload the file circumventing the undeletion process. @Killarnee: While I appreciate your good-intentions, I encourage you in the future to take a step back and follow proper procedures in the future. This file was deleted as it had no license tag on the file for over 7 days. If a file is deleted, you can either contact the deleting admin or request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. It is highly encouraged that you be patient and respect processes and not circumvent them because it does not fit your timeline. The file has been tagged for speedy deletion and I have deleted it as I do not see evidence to suggest that it is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO because it is not "[...] expressly so stated" on the source image. If you wish to request undeletion, you can do so at Commons:Undeletion requests - please do not re-upload this file. ~riley (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean there are two licenses because the ESA wants to take a free license, but there are pictures of others on the website which are not under a free license. That's why there is the second non-creative commons license. Since the photographer ESA astronaut is the picture but under the ESA preferred creative commons license. @~riley: You have deleted a picture without leaving me a message. And that I asked again after seven hours is because I saw that you were active but did not pay attention to my message. Because of the missing license tag, the picture was one of my first pictures, I did not know that there was a separate tag for the ESA. --Killarnee (T•R•P) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Killarnee, no. That. is. not. how. it. works. ESA works are not released under a free license unless and only unless they have been specifically tagged as being CC-by-sa-3.0-igo. I honestly do not know how else to get this point across to you. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes excuse me. I already understood and I'll take care of it from now on. But I have to say that it would have been nice if someone had told me that before. For example, ~riley wrote "[...] There was no license template anywhere on the page for over 7 days, that is why it was deleted. I see you have gone around the undeletion process and re-uploaded with an actual template; as it appears, you no longer need my assistance.", so I thought that I'm doing everything right. And can not one still create a template for the images of the ESA with the other license? --Killarnee (T•R•P) 23:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Killarnee, I'm sorry if there is a language issue causing misunderstandings. I'm not sure what you mean by "a template for the images of the ESA with the other license". There is no other ESA license that is valid on Commons, aside from {{ESA}} and some derivatives like {{ESA-Hubble}}, {{ESA-Rosetta-NavCam}}, and {{ESA-Rosetta-OSIRIS}}. The first paragraph on the copyright page is not a valid license statement on Commons, so there would not be a template. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Aromanticism category likely to be vulnerable to vandalism

A few months ago, I reached out about the asexuality category being removed from the LGBT category despite evidence that it belonged there; the category was eventually protected due to excessive vandalism. Looks like our new category on Category:Aromanticism is going to be subject to the same issue. (I have sources for this one as well.) Would you please keep an eye on it? Have a nice day. MissLunaRose12 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It is being watched. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:LGBT says it's for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender topics. Would you please explain which of those includes asexuality or aromanticism? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Because Category:LGBT is taken to be a shorthand for LGBTQIAAAF…, usually styled as LGBT+, maybe? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
That would mean we have to assume that the definition specified is incorrect or incomplete. I also would have a little trouble with a definition that basically means "everything that's not CIS": it's not good to define a category based on what isn't included, or what the name is taken to mean. I know that's how it's often used, but I think the definitions here should be more explicit. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, LGBT means LGBT+ in common English usage. Alternatives like "queer identified" have their own issues, and "LGBT" does not translate very well to some non-English languages even though it is understood. A definition which is exclusive like "non-cis het" would be problematic as there are some cis het people who would still be considered of LGBT or queer interest sufficient to be in this category or those people might be at LGBT+ events.
I suggest leaving it as no longer description is likely to have a credible consensus, or raising it for wider discussion at m:LGBT+ for an "official" recommendation from the User Group at some point. --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Messaging 37 accounts about their transclusion count problem

I am messaging 37 accounts where the main user talk page has exceeded the template transclusion limit. Example. As the content is information about a possible fix to their account transclusion problem, I have gone ahead following BOLD. Though I am not using any standard mass messaging tools, this is effectively an unsolicited mass message, so raising it here for feedback as to whether I am breaking any norms or rules that might concern folks. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: list? Has anyone on the list passed away? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
List. Have not checked if any have 'deceased' type categories, so it's likely that this might be the reason that some talk pages are so long. Whether it's okay to use a bot to trim templates for those accounts is something that would need a better consensus.
Potentially banned and long term indef blocked accounts with high contribution counts and/or long user talk pages might be usefully added even if they have not broken the transclusion limit, as they will not be maintaining their own talk pages and are unable to positively opt-in. --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
An example of this is Jcpag2012, who is globally locked. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't seem any harm in not asking. If someone is globally locked or indef here, just do it. We could use the archive bot as a second option. I do prefer the TP shrinker, no information is lost on the talk page. Should all hell break loose, there's always rollback. 3:D The edits made by the Shrinker are less intrusive than the Welcome-Bot notice or other automated communication. @Fæ: Great idea, this bot; it should be promoted so more folks can use it. Maybe it could run on labs? C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)  
It is running on toollabs (since yesterday) as well as on my Pi (a homemade doorcam); mainly because I no longer have a desktop just my 8 year old laptop which sometimes overheats.
I'll think about running a VP thread to establish a consensus based on specific criteria like (long talk page) && (banned || blocked and no talk page edits by the account for > 6m || known to be a deceased user). Having the VP thread will also promote the tool for anyone else that fancies opting-in. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 30 November

→ Commons:Village_pump#Allowing_bot_task_talk_page_trimmer_to_run_by_default_for_wiki_breaking_pages_or_banned_users --Fæ (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

[Request] Deletion of user page

Hi there, sorry if this isn't the right page to ask for this. Could someone please help delete my user page? Previous revisions contain personal information and I don't want that to be in public view anymore. Thanks.Paul HK (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Paul HK: you can add {{SD|U1}} to your user page. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done@Paul HK: . Strakhov (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Paul HK: now that it's deleted, you might want to create a global user page instead, which will also automatically show on Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Who is actively watching abusefilters?

Just a general question to fellow administrators to see who is currently active in watching abusefilters? I can say that I haven't been particularly active in that space. I have just turned off special:Abusefilter/205 as it has been hammering away collecting 800k+ hits in 17 months for what would be be near clear apparent value. Apart form adding cycles that are not necessary, it obliterates the view of other filters.

So before I start prodding at things, I would appreciate those who are active to guide me away from things that are being managed. [I am claiming no expertise in this space, just enough of a practised hand to be able to have a look and a bit of a play.] @Majora: I can see you editing filters, so you have no need to tell me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Note, I have also turned off special:Abusefilter/207 which was also particularly ugly—1.8M hits in 16 months. If we need tags on uploads, then it is my understanding that the apps developers have the ability to build in special tags so that they can be tagged with use, rather than the ugly and resource intensive means to do them through abusefilters. @MusikAnimal (WMF): can you add to my (our?) understanding on tagging directly rather than via use of an abusefilter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I can try to keep an eye on some of the other ones. I've really only paid attention to the ones I've created and those are rather small. An LTA filter and one that watches for possible fair use rationales. If there is a way to do tags on the backend instead of using the filters that would obviously be preferable. --Majora (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you you both! #wikimedia-commons-abuse-log is much more useful now :) Indeed, applications should be able to apply tags when they edit. A while back I created this issue for flickr2commons. The only filter I watch here is Special:AbuseFilter/212 but I don't think it is needed anymore, if you want to disable it. — MusikAnimal talk 05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm regularly watching some filters. For example this combination (in addition to SBL) gets the vast majority of spammers. Of course this way there are false positives that have to be sorted out but it fits best when fighting spam. --Achim (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Achim55: That is pretty ugly and duplicative. This search shows quite a high level of duplication, with little action that just makes for hard work. Maybe you could look at what you are seeing and we can turn off some of the duplication.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
billinghurst, you are right, but I'm fine with that because on the other hand: If one edit triggers #85, 113, 131, 193 simultaneously that'd be a first class candidate for autoblock functionality. --Achim (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI

There's a new scam of our spamming friends. They show up on Special:AbuseFilter/85 but the creation of user pages is not prevented. An account and a user page is created that contains just 3...5 questions one of which contains a web link. These accounts can be indeffed on sight per 'bot created pattern account'. The web link itself doesn't play any role as it points to a page that points to a page that... ending up on a casino page. First occurrences I noticed some weeks ago but today there have been about 20 hits by now. --Achim (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Are there frequent false positives, Achim55? I just looked through the log history and indef'ed a couple of accounts and it appears to be working as intended. If so perhaps turning on disallow would be prudent. Some days I wish we would turn on the ability for the abuse filter to block as well. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed it too. Not only on Commons but also on other projects. They are targeting small wikis, it seems. Masum Reza📞 21:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment @Achim55: thanks for the ping. I have imported a useful simple filter to special:abusefilter/224 that we have had working at meta, and modified specifically to manage user namespace. For the spambots there are numbers of global filters that we have in place, that function neatly, though they are predominantly known that English spam at other language wikis is fairly self-evident. I have just set the filter to challenge, as that can often be enough with spambots. I also think something more targeted that AF/85 is probably wiser.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I have also imported special:abusefilter/225 though set to monitor as it watches for where there are redirecting urls in place. We can adapt it for where the spambots are looking to try automated profile strings like /auto/profile.php?id=816387. I will pay a little more attention to some of the local spam as it hasn't been drawing my attention recently, and happy for someone to point me to specific hits that may need some better defence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Created special:abusefilter/226 in testing (and development), and once I am comfortable that it is not problematic, then I will turn on the edit challenge filter. I would recommend that we do not make AF/85 do more than log, as it has a higher false p+ve rate than I feel is valuable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is totally off topic, but it would be really useful if we could get someone to upload a video tutorial on how to make and manage edit filters. GMGtalk 22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Oversight (second attempt)

I previously requested assistance in removing some personal information back on the thirteenth of November. It was requested that I send out an e-mail to the Wikimedia Commons' Oversighters' mailing list ([email protected]), which I promptly did (shortly before 9 AM that day, in my time zone).

After sending the e-mail, I swiftly received a message saying that my e-mail would be sitting in limbo until it was approved by a moderator.

I have yet to receive any more contact about the matter, so I again wish to enquire as to whether an Oversighter can help me with this matter. Tharthan (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have now done just that, sir. I await your response in my inbox. Tharthan (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

ongoing removing of still active DR

Can someone have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nils Kröger.jpg and close it, if kept or deleted. The DR on the file page got removed multiple times and now an IP marked the DR as closed. Thanks! --GPSLeo (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected file for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done done I closed the DR and left a warning on the talkpage. C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erica C Barnett.png

Can a non-involved Commons administrator, bureaucrat, or other functionary with the necessary privileges assess the consensus at this FfD discussion and appropriately close?

Separately, there seems to be an inordinately long backlog on the Commons relative to Wikipedia for closing such issues. It seems like the Commons could use additional administrators. Do you need to be an administrator on the main Wikipedia in order to be a Commons administrator and, if not, what sort of privileges might you have—that is, is there a lower-level user permission that can be added which permits deletions but which still keeps the Commons editor as an editor (i.e., like page mover permissions at Wikipedia)?

At any rate, it seems like somewhat of a thankless, yeoman's job—that of a Commons administrator—that few want to undertake. I'd be interested in volunteering, either for an administrator position or appropriate user permission(s) in order to help clear the backlog, but would prefer not to self-nominate myself.

Cheers,
--Dmehus (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The deletion discussions normally last seven days, we are not there yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter Thanks, as always. I had thought that the deletion had been more than a week, though? If I looked at the wrong date, I apologize. --Dmehus (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter Ah, sorry, I see we're 2-3 days shy of a week. I had thought maybe this had been outstanding since 27 October 2019. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Dmehus (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Do not nominate yourself for administrator: you will fail. Your account is created 3 months ago, you have so far uploaded 2 images, you have not participated in maintenance work, you do not know Commons policies and practices. For example, regular deletion process lasts at least 7 days. The request in question is 5 days old, it cannot be closed before 2 more days passes and you still want to assess us the consensus? Bytheway, consensus cannot trump copyright law. At moment I cannot find a deletion request, where 30 votes were for keeping and 1 vote was for delete – and the file was deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: Don't worry, I wasn't going to. What's the best way to start on maintenance work, as a patroller, and is there different types of patrolling work one can do on the Commons? Does the Commons have a special page which identifies certain scripts (like on English Wikipedia) to aid with such work? Dmehus (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I'm not sure but I think this is the answer you are looking for: if you want to help with the DR backlog, reply to deletion requests, especially those that nobody has replied to yet. And provide some information in that reply, like " Delete Appears to be a scan of a magazine" or " Keep covered by COM:FOP Netherlands". This makes it a bit easier for administrators as they will already know what to look for and don't have to analyze everything from scratch. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey Dmehus. Both local communities and (as far as I remember) the Wikimedia Foundation have rejected the unbundling of the delete ability from the admin toolkit. We do need more administrators, and more active users, and more everything, as all project always do. I'm glad you seem to be interested in becoming more active on Commons, and if you ever need anything, feel free to stop by my talk page or consider asking at the Help Desk or the Village Pump. Commons can take a little getting used to, but there are normally no shortage of people willing to help out if you have a question or need assistance. GMGtalk 23:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, I noticed your name as being fairly active and involved in the Commons project. Thank you for your warm welcome and offer to help...that's reassuring. I was worried, when I saw your name, that you might not be receptive to my volunteering due to our disagreement in a portal MfD deletion discussion. It's wonderful when editors can disagree on one thing, and then be completely collegial in another area! Do you know why the Commons has a more stringent licensing requirement with respect to non-free licenses? That is, I've noticed Wikipedia accepts non-free images under certain conditions, but the Commons appears to not and it makes me wonder, why not just use the Wikipedia File: namespace then? --Dmehus (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus: As a technical matter, the prohibition of fair use on the Commons is a foundation mandate. The "Conudrum" section of this Dispatch offers some explanation of the underlying philosophy of why encyclopedia projects (e.g., en.wiki) are given more latitude than a mere media archive (Commons). Эlcobbola talk 16:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Hey Dmehus. No worries. If we all agreed on everything it's be a pretty boring place.
As to your question, local projects vary substantially regarding their image policies. The English Wikipedia is fairly liberal with theirs. Some don't allow local images at all (English Wikiquote). Some don't allow fair use at all (German Wikipedia). Some do under limited circumstances (French Wikipedia). The way English Wikipedia has worked out is that it's policies mainly care about US law. Other projects are different in that regard too. The German Wikipedia mainly cares about German, Austrian, and Swiss law. But en.wiki enjoys the fact that US law is extremely liberal when it comes to fair use, while other jurisdictions are not, and some do not have fair use protection at all.
Since the goal of Commons is to be a repository for all sister projects, as well as to the global general public, Commons tends to take the most restrictive view and accept only images that are the "most free", including under US law as well as the law in the jurisdiction where the work was created. That can lead to some really complex arguments about the interactions between copyright laws, but it helps to ensure that Commons is a more valuable resource for all projects, and not just those concerned about particular jurisdictions. Moreover, we want to transfer as many free files to Commons as possible, so that they may be used on as many projects as possible, and not just confined to one. GMGtalk 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Edgar181 (admin) banned indef blocked on enwiki

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.
Blocked and desysopped. 1989 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Local admin Edgar181 was blocked on english Wikipedia for abuse of multiple accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.158.200 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the info. While we don't block for sockpuppet abuse on English WP, only for sockpuppet abuse on Commons, I think of course that this user is not anymore trustworthy enough to keep admin rights on Commons. They are to be speedily desysopped. --A.Savin 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Hang on. Trust here is given by the community. It should only be taken away by the community. Please start a desysop request in the usual way. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Admin socking? oh... Though, the incidents I linked <- are socking abuses happing at Commons; do we know if Edgar181 has socked here? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, while doing a quick review of these accounts, I did not find any misuse of them in Commons. So I see no need to block or for any urgent action. However, more eyes on their contribution are welcome. And I think that misuse of multiple accounts on enwiki makes desysop discussion justified, if they do not resign. We may decide that we do not trust them any longer. Ankry (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove admin bit and block. No need for any drama. Regards, Ed (Edgar181) 22:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Edgar181, thank you very much for the unbureaucratic offer. It may be a bit too informal; would you mind making a request at meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests/Edgar181 (de-adminship). ~riley (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That desysop request is now closed. Actions on another project or even off-wiki can severely dent community trust, and that's what happened here. As such, Edgar181 can no longer be an admin, clearly. Even without the full 7 days for the desysop request, that's just COM:SNOW.
The same is not true for blocks. Krd has blocked all accounts indef for sockpuppetry. The abuse on Commons, at least everything that was shown (see ~riley's report on the desysop request) is.. not much to talk about. When using multiple accounts (which is not forbidden in and of itself!), I can imagine this happening by accident over time. (and with thousands of edits it would almost be expected) And I also saw many positive contributions. Really, the negative on Commons seems pale in comparison to the positive.
What I suggest is this. As Edgar181 said "feel free to remove admin bit and block", I suggest the block on the main account is changed to a self-requested block which he could request to be lifted. If Edgar181 were to betray this sign of goodwill, indef. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Just want to point out that I did not close it per SNOW or any other snow-like essay. I closed it because it was moot. The original desysop request was started to dot the i's and cross the t's. That proved unnecessary as the stewards found it acceptable to remove the sysop bit on their end without the need for any formalized desysop request. Whether or not that was out of process is besides the point. The actions by the stewards at SRP makes the request on our end moot and leaving it opened served no purpose whatsoever. The only snow-like quality was the community's reaction to the request during the time it was open. All together there just wasn't a need hence the early closure. --Majora (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: You might want to label it as a non-crat closure. It seems to have been the convention. (See Russavia's and JurgenNL's) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done --Majora (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Masumrezarock100

User:Masumrezarock100 is abusing rollback by using it to revert edits that are not vandalism. Can someone revoke it please? Thanks. 188.29.165.240 19:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#188.29.165.240. I have explained why I have reverted those edits. To IP: please read COM:Deletion policy for God's sake! Masum Reza📞 19:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting review due to circumstances

I'm mainly an enwiki contributor, and cross over to Commons mainly to fight cross-wiki promotion and vandalism. I hold various user rights at enwiki, rollback amongst them. Last week, I contacted a Commons administrator (who also was an enwiki administrator) whom I thought I could trust to see if I could have rollback added to my Commons account as well. The request was granted. However, due to what has since come to light regarding this user, I do not feel remotely comfortable just accepting the permission and moving on; this would be in really bad taste in my opinion. Therefore, could another administrator please review my account and revoke/re-grant the permission based on their own opinion instead. I would appreciate it. Home Lander (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I'm decidedly meh on this to be honest. What's done is done. If you want to fight vandalism here or chase down some wandering LTAs we can use the help. You might not be the most active rollbacker but I don't see anything disqualifying and your recent tangle with an LTA certainly does show need. So yeah, meh. I'm fine just leaving it. We have the same rules enwiki does. Rollback is only for fighting vandalism, never use it in an edit war, etc. etc. --Majora (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Edgar181's block

@Majora: Yes, I was more referring to the community response being SNOW-like. After the first ten votes it was already obvious what the outcome would be. Rolling that snowball to be bigger and bigger and bigger just becomes grave dancing at some point.

Errr, thread above is closed as "blocked and desysopped"? I suggested to change Edgar181's block to a self-requested block. (or change the block length, or both) The abuse on Commons was relatively minor (no controversial decisions appear to have been influenced) and possibly even accidental, in whole or in part. I think indef is too harsh. Blocks shouldn't be punitive. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

They have talk page access. If at some point in the future they wish to come back and they want to put their unblock towards the community I would entertain that idea. Changing it to a "self-requested block" just seems like semantics at this point. --Majora (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Semantics do matter sometimes. Anyway, I added a note to the block message on their talk page, works for me. I just wanted Edgar181 to know they're not banned. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

apparent personal attack images

Can an admin please speedily delete the following images? I've tagged them for speedy deletion, but I believe this justifies urgency. They depict a minor and are apparently being used as part of cyberbullying the depicted individual.

[filenames redacted]

Their only use was in a vicious attack page in English Wikipedia draftspace, now blanked to remove attack: w:en:Draft:The Dark Side of T Series. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 1989 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Combining multiple DRs into a single one

I'm wondering if it's possible for an admin or any editor to combine multiple DRs in to a single "multi-DR". Commons:Deletion requests/File:SHOGI Proffesional Ayumu Matsuo.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female SHOGI Professional Sae Itou.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SHOGI Professional Taichi Nakamura Oct 2018.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SHOGI Proffesional Yasumitsu Satoh.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SHOGI Proffesional Osamu Nakamura.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female SHOGI Professional Minami Sadamasu.jpg are all files nominated by the same user for the same reason; so, it seems more practical discuss them all together than fragmenting them into separate individual discussions. There are more many files similar to the six mentioned here that have also been nominated for deletion. The editor (Pooh456) who is nominating them for deletion is also the person who took the photos, and the reason the files are being nominated to deletion seem to be related to personality rights, not copyright; so, this is another reason why it might be better to combine all of these DRs into one because it could be something quite useful for future reference regarding similar photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This appears to have been taken care of by Alexis Jazz. The link is for the mass DR is Commons:Deletion requests/Shogi Proffesionals. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_76&oldid=399410241"