Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 57

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

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ai Kayano.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mai Fuchigami.JPG, thanks--Motopark (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

and this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carina Sohaili, Founder and CEO, Vibrant Healthy Life.jpg--Motopark (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Taivo (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please inform

see User talk:謝春鏱 and history, please inform user--Motopark (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

'User imports'

Hello,

On an user's page, the link to the user' uploads seems not to be translated using TranlateWiki. In French, it shows the masculine version, even for a women user ('Imports de l'utilisateur' instead 'Imports de l'utilisatrice'). How is it possible to correct it?

Thanks, kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 19:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's this script : MediaWiki:Gadget-MyUploads.js, dunno how to fix it, maybe Rillke can help. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
phab:T32915 must be resolved. Providing a gender switch in the gadget itself appears to be possible but I wanne get rid of the gadget. Trying to fork mw:Extension:SandboxLink and rename it to UploadsLink. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a coding nightmare again. You have to know that I've to work with Virtual Machines in order to be really able to contribute to MediaWiki. -- Rillke(q?) 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Spam

Please purge Special:ListFiles/Samsungunlukkiralikdaire, thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's another case. Palosirkka (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Image reviewer, etc

I noticed the post on VP regarding the large number of files awaiting license review. Can an admin give me back my image reviewer and patroller rights? I've had some teeth out and am feeling pretty good now, so I think I could handle some reviews again and get that backlog down. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 00:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Kamanahalli

Not sure if this is the right place for this, so if it isn't then please push in the right direction. It appears that Kamanahalli is using User talk:Kamanahalli as sort of a fake article or a draft for an article. This kind of thing is definitely not allowed on Wikipedia per en:WP:FAKEARTICLE, but I'm not sure about COM:TALK#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?. I only noticed this because I was posting a {{Image permission}} notification on their talk page. The editor has made only two edits, both on December 25, 2012, so my guess is that this is just a good-faith misunderstanding of what they are allowed to post on their user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I couldn't find a template to notify Kamanahalli of this discussion. Does Commons require that editors mentioned in AN discussions be notified? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}}... I just added it. Storkk (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Storkk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Anti abuse filter and moving files

Hi, I was catched by an anti abuse filter that disables new users to move many files or categories. But I am not really a new user - I'm using an alternative nickname for a GLAM project. I was simply reordering the subcategories referred to the museum. Thank you in advance. --Marco Chemello (Museoscienza) (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC) aka user:Marcok.

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Mass rollback

Hi, Is it possible for admins to do mass rollback of lets say over 2000 edits ?,
I've made the mistake of removing every single image from Category:Ultra7 temp 25 not realizing some hadn't even been categorized .... Yes I know I'm a complete and utter fucking idiot!,
I'm hoping a bot will tag it as uncategorized but I'm not entirely sure if that'd happen,
Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: There are less than 1000 affected pages as far i can see, mass-rollbacked them. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter - You're an absolute diamond thank you so so much!, I won't ever do that again! , I seriously do deserve a good smack after that!, I've reverted the remaining ones as it didn't pick them all up, Anyway thank you so so much :) –Davey2010Talk 18:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A video available on Flickr

Hello.Can you move this video By this name:"Villas in New Cairo"?Thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 Hi,
You can do it using Commons Video Convert. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This category

US Army, US Navy and USGS (US Geological Service) images in this category can be passed as definitely PD. The other images may be DR'ed if one wishes. Does anyone have time to mark some of the images here? I marked a few. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Need assistance correcting misidentified image

I'm trying to correct a misidentified image in the Commons -- it's named as an image of Sophia Cracroft [1] but is actually a greyscale copy of a painting of Marie Duplessis (née Alphonsin Plessis) as painted by Édouard Viénot, an image properly attributed in numerous other reliable sources, includiung this [2] in the New York Times. I have already had one admin decline to correct this -- I'm hoping for someone to be willing to consider the renaming on the merits. Clevelander96 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Renamed and added appropriate info. --Achim (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2016 is now finished

Hi everyone! This is just to let you know that the admin inactivity run for February-March 2016 has now ended. Three Commons administrators—@Matt314, @Lupo and @Skeezix1000—have resigned their access due to lack of time during the course of the run, and additional four—@Cecil, @Chris 73, @EVula and @Zolo—have just had their admin privileges removed on Meta by a steward as a result of their inactivity; @Cecil has also had her bureaucrat privileges removed as a consequence of the above. I've already thanked each and every one of these users on their talk pages, but please join me here in thanking them for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over so many years. Thank you all, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to all of these admins for their work and hopefully we will see them return sometime soon. Thank you also to odder for organising the inactivity run. Green Giant (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

What was simple disagreement on categorization of an image I posted has now turned uncivil. Could someone please remove that comment? Thanks. Evrik (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Note left on talk page of Beyond My Ken. Green Giant (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete old versions

Is it possible that admins delete the older versions of these my created images, becose the older versions have wrong information.

--Zunter (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't delete old versions because they are wrong, for transparency reasons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about possible "returnee" file

On there is both a mention of File:Polysc.jpg being on Commons but also of the file existing at File:Polysc2.jpg and being nominated for deletion (and is now deleted). Are Polysc.jpg and Polysc2.jpg the same file?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, they are completely different. --Achim (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Filemove issue, possibly a false positive in title filtering

Hello!

File:No luck uploading the real file name for some unknown reason, but this works just fine.JPG needs a moving, but the real subject name cannot be used. I guess that the culprit is the word "compass" due to the string a-s-s; hopefully, an administrator could do the job by overriding the alleged word filter (I wasn't allowed to). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Wieralee. Yann (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz and her abuse of her Administrative tools

According to the talked at the IRC, I open this tread here because Ellin Beltz continued to making abuse of her administrative tools.

I already opened a thread in the Village Pump about the Copyright paranoia issue in Commosn, but no concensus got. Even, I got blocked due I isnulted Ellin Beltz in her DRs, that I considered most of them ridiculous (for example this and this and this and many more, all of them resolved as Kept).

Another problematic DR is against File:Bethlehem_Steel_logo.svg, clearly {{PD-textlogo}}, and Ellin Beltz based her reasoning for deletion in anything rather that the US Copyright Law. Yes, the SVG can be problematic when someone are claiming copyright over the SVG code, but the DR was finally closed as Kept as clearly PD-textlogo. This is not the only simple logo considered by this admin as copyvio.

And there is another DR (related file uploaded to Commons in 2014) that demonstrate that several users don't research before nominating (is worse if they are admins), even asking to Me why I removed the Speedy tag. So, one must be blind to don't see the date of publication of the link that she provided as "source" (posted in 2015).

But the straw that broke the camel, is the deletion of File:Rtextdoc editor example.png, that is a clear and blatant violation of the Deletion Policy (she restored it, but it does not remove the policy violation), and demostrate that this admin is unable to deal with copyright issues due the several mistakes commited, specially with simple logos and Free software screenshots. For the record, High_Contrast deleted a screenshot of VLC and I requested its UDEL, same disruptive action.

This issue will continue unless administrative actions are taken. De-adminship seems too severe (but not too severe as her actions), but other ways are possible, like prohibiting her to making any deletion-related actions (including opening DRs, tagging files as Speedy or Copyvio and deeleting files) without removing her Admin status and tools.

As I mentioned, the Copyvio is serious, but the Copyright Paranoia is too dangerous, and these disruptive actions should not be allowed anymore.

So, I'll ask to other admins (and users), should I open a De-adminship against Ellin Belz, or just prohibiting her making these kind of problematic actions? Please comment/vote. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This note seems to be to me to be directly related to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_16#Amitie_10g this discussion about speedy delete tags which were removed by Amitie 10g. In over twenty cases, speedy tags were removed from clear copyright violations. At that time I stated that I think Amitie 10g "does a lot of work in areas that are useful. This discussion is not about those areas, but instead about an ongoing pattern of confrontational behavior." This action today seems to be another in the string of unnecessary confrontations. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
What about this Speedy tag of a Duplicated file of an existing one in Commons? Yes, I sometimes ve removed Speedy tags, I admit, but nothing is more serious than deleting files without researching. Even worse, you're taking this situatiuon too lightly, talking about confrontation, but you still making false copyvio tags like the above. So, what we're talking about? --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As many of you know, I am one of several editors who keeps a fairly close watch over Com:Undeletion requests. My strong impression is that her deletions appear there less frequently than some others among those who do 50 to 100 deletions every day. Certainly she doesn't appear there more than once a week, which would be one UnDR in about 500 deletions.
I also think that complaining about ToO issues is not going to get us anywhere. I would have deleted the Bethlehem Steel logo mentioned above. The few court decisions about ToO on logos give us very little guidance and our closures are all over the place -- I have stopped closing DRs for logos except in the very most obvious cases. If Ellin has the courage to close them, we shouldn't jump all over her for a decision with which we disagree. Remember that almost all closures make either the Nom or the Uploader unhappy -- you can't please everybody.
Amitie 10g mentions File:Rtextdoc editor example.png. There is an UnDR open now over that file, at which I noted that it should not have been restored, albeit for reasons different from those in the DR.
Finally, there is [3]. I don't see any problem here. We routinely delete raster files that are created after a good vector file of the subject exists and there is absolutely no reason to keep a PNG version of an SVG. On top of that, it was a copyvio because it did not credit the svg from which it was made, so it was a {{Speedy}} for two different reasons.
We should not forget that unwarranted complaints such as these drove away Fastily, our all time most active Admin, who did 12% of all deletions done on Commons. His record at UnDR was substantially better than many others, but because he did so many deletions, he did make more mistakes than most of us. The same is true of all of the most active Admins -- we will make more mistakes, but as long as we keep them well under 1%, we should be proud of our record, and not have to respond to baseless charges such as this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the ammount of deletion-related actions is relevant (see at the bottom), but these actions itself. Almost two users at the IRC agree with me that Ellin Beltz violated the Deletion Policy, and no doubt about that; supporting wrong administrative actions is just ignoring the Policies established by the Community and it should not be allowed, specially by admins.
  • File:Bethlehem_Steel_logo.svg is {{PD-textlogo}}, or, at least, {{PD-US-no notice}} (see the large discussion in the related DR). If you aren't comfortable with the DRs of simple logos and you want to deal with them, then read the US Copyright Law and the several related cases in Commons.
Your opinion is that it is a simple logo. Mine is that it is not -- the border between the two is very unclear and the case law gives us little guidance. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Rtextdoc editor example.png was undeleted by the same admin who deleted it (Ellin Beltz), so the UDEL should be closed. The file was already nominated for deletion and kept. The issue with the file can be fixed by uploading a new screenshot with free text, preferably under a Linux distro (if you don't want to fix it, then don't touch the file), but forcing user ti fix them bu making DRs is totally inapropiate and there is already concensus about that.
  • File:Cloud computing.svg.png was used when Ellin Beltz tagged it as Copyvio, so the file was in scope and not a candidate for Speedy until it is replaced with the SVG (I made the replacement manually). Now, the file is unused, and therefore, a candidate for Speedy deletion (you already deleted it, that is somewhat right). But tagging that file as Copyvio giving the infamious Google Image Search results is totally inapropiate, specially if the file is all over the internet since it was uploaded to Commons as SVG. And, notice that the icons in the graphic comes from the Tango! icon set, so no Copyvio in any way, and Copivio should not be a valid reason for deletion, as you leaved in the deletion summary.
  • And finally, what is the main purpose of the admins? Delete files? no comments...
The main purpose of Commons is to be "a database of 30,727,865 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". Note, please, "freely usable" in that statement and our most important policy, "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." All files are guilty until proven innocent, which is the reason we must delete around 1,700 files every day. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Less wrong administrative actions means less work for everyone. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but driving away an Admin who may or may not have made a handful of mistakes among more than 2,000 Administrative actions a month means more work for everybody else. Our DR backlog is growing and one of the reasons is that Fastily was driven away by nonsense like this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Ellin is doing a great work here on commons, and we can be proud that she spend his free time for commons. I agree with Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Software is a tricky topic. We get overloaded with non free print screens and incorrectly licensed print screen. Missing that a certain file is free because the uploader used a bogus license and didn’t attribute the files correctly. Such a mistake (if you can even call it a mistake) is easily made and every active admin deletes such files because they missed the free license every now and then. Or are there active admins who never overlooked a free license ;)? Please don’t forget that failing to comply with the licensing conditions still makes the file a copyright violation. Those files should either be fixed or deleted.

Though, we have spoken shortly about File:Rtextdoc editor example.png via IRC I disagree with the wording that Ellin violated the deletion policy. Okay, one could argue that every mistaken deletion is a violation but “violation” implies bad faith and the intend to violate it. Therefor I rather use wordings like deleted in error. Especially when it is only a small mistake that everyone could have made. Honestly, try looking at 100+ files and then check if you might have missed anything crucial. While File:Cloud computing.svg.png consists of freely licensed icons the licensing info and attribution where clearly bogus. Also not the best example to show that an admin is sloppy, makes a lot of mistakes, is ignorant or whatever you want to prove here.

I agree with Jim regarding the logo. Not a clear cut case, borderline perhaps but this discussion could have went two ways. You might find Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. interesting reading material regarding the argument brought up by RP88. Anyhow, see also legal’s post regarding the TOO of certain logo’s. Apparently the norm can vary per circuit making stuff even more complicated.

In general Ellin does a great job so I don’t believe de-admin is justified nor is forbidding admins to work in certain area’s going to help. Especially when we are talking about DR’s that could have be closed as either kept or deleted depending on who participated in the discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question, Amitie 10g: No, you should not initiate a de-adminship procedure for Ellin Beltz for this. That would be bloody ridiculous. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well said, LX. There is nothing actionable here when it comes to Ellin, but a trout slap might be in order for Amitie10g (or for Palosirkka for nominating File:Rtextdoc editor example.png for speedy-deletion after he agreed to keep it a year earlier). That said, I have to disagree though with Jim in a single point: I do routinely keep raster images that have been tagged as a duplicate of an SVG. Per COM:DUPE, "a bitmap (PNG, JPEG or GIF) file superseded by a vector graphic is not considered to be exact enough a duplicate. Such files ought to be listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that they may be decided upon, case by case." De728631 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
De728631, I routinely keep raster files that were created before an SVG. In fact, I am being berated for that right now at User_talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Emporia_State_Athletics_logo.png. On the other hand, I routinely delete raster files that are made from existing SVGs, particularly when they are copyvios -- that is, when the SVG is CC-BY and the PNG made from it is claimed as "own work" with no attribution, as this one was. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I admit that I exagerated. While is true that there is a big backlog of files eligible for deletion, is also true that the admins are too fast for deleting files, but to undelete...

Also, that Natuur12 mentioned Especially when we are talking about DR’s that could have be closed as either kept or deleted depending on who participated in the discussion, this is the reason why Commons is broken. I should remember that there is somewaht called Deletion Policy, and every admin should research properly and provide a valid deletion summary. While the deletion of File:Rtextdoc editor example.png by Jameslwoodward was right, the deletion by Ellin Beltz lacks of a valid reason (considering a DR resolved as Kept), and this is the reason why I mentioned that admins are too fast with so controversial decisions like the deletions. I insist that the Copyright paranoia issue is even worse than the Copyvios, and it should not be allowed anymore.

Finally, I have too much free time and big experience, but my behaviour is so shitty to be an admin, I guess. Anyway, the backlog and the little time is not excuse to make controversial actions too fast, the false positive DRs and Speedy tags is growing, and that worries me a lot, even more than the copyvios.

This thread can be closed now but with a warning: Please be more careful, please. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete a revision of a file

Please delete the first revision of the file File:Εστία Αριθμός 520.djvu. I uploaded a new one in which I censored a text by Georgios Drosinis (1859-1951) which is not yet eligible for a free licence. Ah3kal (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to rename my account

Hello, please could be my account Terreantiche be renamed? You can choose whatever name, like user0001 or user2345 or the like, I just wanna be anonymous and not use anymore this actual account Terreantiche.
Please, just answer me what to do to achieve this,
the best regards --Terreantiche (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. If you want an account renaming, please proceed to m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Recovering valid images

Hi. I and @Kasir: , uploaded many pictures from http://ypa.ir/. For some days, the website was unavailable but it is in access now.(example) During past days, administrators deleted some images of the website for «invalid source» reason. Now we request recovering the images. Please do it.Saman-1984 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry:

 Info: For license CC-BY 4.0 see bottom of homepage http://www.ypa.ir/ .--Achim (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

for example:

  • File:73th Tehran derby by winning Esteghlal FC.jpg
  • File:Carlos Queiroz hugs Ali Karimi.jpg
  • File:Ali Karimi playing a group stage game against Al-Hilal FC in the 2014 AFC Champions League (1).jpg
  • File:Ali Karimi dribbling past a Malavan FC player.jpg
  • File:IRIAF Su-24s exhibit their mid-air refueling capabilities.jpg
  • File:Ali Karimi playing a group stage game against Al-Hilal FC in the 2014 AFC Champions League (2).jpg
  • File:Sukhoi Su-25s belong to AFAGIR.jpg
  • File:Two EMB-312s belong to AFAGIR.jpg
  • File:Sukhoi Su-25 belong to AFAGIR (1).jpg
  • File:Sukhoi Su-25 belong to AFAGIR (2).jpg
  • File:Firing Shahab 1 missile.jpg
 Info: As I noticied laterly, admins became too fast when deleting files. For that reason I wrote WebArchiveBOT monts ago and is currently running, so there is no reason to claiming no valid source without checking Internet Archive first. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is another Tasnim News Agency replay involving the same uploader, which just causes overwork on Commons volunteers. Regarding WebArchiveBOT, the keyword here is no valid source. Webpages get deleted for many reasons (eg.DMCA) and the BOT cannot distinguish these cases (or can it ?). Unfitlouie (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

License review/Tasnim News

I've whittled away at Category:License review needed quite a bit over the past week, but I'm not sure what to do with the Iranian Gov/Tasnim News images, which total at least a thousand as it sits. These have a blanket free license on each source page, but the images are credited to individual photogs in captions. I've seen a couple DRs recently questioning that blanket CC license. With a thousand or more images awaiting review, I would think we need to be clear on whether these are passable or not overall. The reviews aren't hard, and I could probably take care of them in a week or so on my own, but the quantity is far too much for me to make a decision about the licensing on my own. Thoughts? INeverCry (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete Old revision

Sorry, I did it again. Please delete original version of File:Ελεγεία και Σάτιρες.djvu. Two poems were censored. Although their greek translation is PD, the originals were not, as original authors died 1966 & 1958 respectively. I only realized it after I finished the transcription. Will be more carefull in the future.Ah3kal (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done.-- Geagea (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please move this back

[4] user has been moved userpage--Motopark (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --★ Poké95 05:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please look at File:Lubch.jpg or File:Cerkiew dubiczańska.jpg. Among others, these files have been deleted due to copyvio, but links/references to them on Polish Wikipedia have not: Cerkiew św. Proroka Eliasza w Lubczu, Cerkiew Opieki Matki Bożej w Dubiczach Cerkiewnych. Shouldn't the links on plwiki have been deleted by a bot? I am asking because I am quite sure that this is the way it has been done in the past. --jdx Re: 07:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: CommonsDelinker does so on most wikis, but it's not allowed to do so everywhere. Things like pending changes, or page protection, can cause it to fail. Reventtalk 03:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't read Polish but it looks like both articles mentioned by Jdx are in fact in pending revisions mode. That would explain why the bot edits didn't work. De728631 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Everything is all right. If you click on the link(s) I mentioned above, the message on creamy background says "This is old version of this page edited by ... on ... It may be quite different from the current version". --jdx Re: 22:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Word Smart by princeton.pdf--Motopark (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done ↔ User: Perhelion 11:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vanguardia 42.pdf --Motopark (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Érico (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

COM:CANVASS

Do we have any policy comparable to en:WP:CANVASS, which prohibits outright campaigning for votes in discussions? There's just been a report at en:wp's AN about a user campaigning for a specific result at a discussion here; the user's was blocked months ago at en:wp on unrelated grounds but has no block log here. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Unfortunately, we have no such policy here on commons :-(. Feel free to propose such a policy at COM:VP/P. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Although there is no policy here (so it is not an actionable offence), canvassing has consistently discouraged by the community and the en-wiki policy has often been cited. In practice this means that admins/bureaucrats should certainly take canvassing into account in their decisions whenever possible. I would be happy to see such a policy proposed & discussed. --99of9 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please move

Category:Miste nate please move to user gallery area--Motopark (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to move categories by yourself. --Stryn (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
He wouldn't be able to delete the redirect from category space to user space (or do the move without leaving a redirect, as an admin can). He'd have to tag it for speedy. An extra step which would require an admin anyways. INeverCry 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Random files

Hello.There are more than a thousand random files.look here --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Red Hair Teen.jpg

I'm not sure what to think of this. Uploader says it's his own work, but says the author is "Big Balls". My guess is a teenager mucking about, either a photo of himself or a friend. It isn't his only dubious upload. Doug Weller (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

At least they're responsive. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

some pictures needs deletion

in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Miste nate are 7 pictures that are not deleted, please delete--Motopark (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvios - seeking additional opinions

This report/discussion is regarding Vk1711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I'd like a second opinion or two before nominating a whopping 702 uploads for deletion, because of the disruption that may cause if I'm incorrect here.

All of the user's bus photo uploads are suspicious to me. Three that have already been speedied as copyvios are File:Samar 556.jpg, File:Samar 954.jpg, and File:Samar 1591.jpg (re-uploaded since being speedied). Also see prior Deletion Request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samar 556.jpg. In all cases, the files have prior publication on Antiono Vera's flickr stream with the license (c) All Rights Reserved.

Because there are such a large number of uploads by this user, I've performed spot checks on 6 remaining files, as follows:

  • File:Samar 673.jpg - prior publication here, (c) All Rights Reserved, with a watermark that has been cropped out of the file on Commons and replaced with a different watermark. Flickr version has full EXIF data indicating photo was taken on February 7, 2014. Uploader claims photo was taken 22 May 2014.
  • File:Samar 660.jpg - prior publication here, (c) All Rights Reserved, watermark present in both versions. Flickr version with EXIF says taken October 16, 2013; uploader claims photo was taken 29 February 2016.
  • File:Samar 1837.jpg - prior publication here, (c) All Rights Reserved, watermark cropped out of Commons version. Flickr version with EXIF says taken January 29, 2016; uploader claims photo was taken 29 February 2016.
  • File:Samar 1843.jpg - prior publication here, (c) All Rights Reserved, watermark cropped out of Commons version. Flickr version with EXIF says taken January 29, 2016; uploader claims photo was taken 29 February 2016.
  • File:Samar 1839.jpg - prior publication here, (c) All Rights Reserved, watermark cropped out of Commons version. Flickr version with EXIF says taken January 15, 2016; uploader claims photo was taken 29 February 2016.
  • File:Samar 1821.jpg - prior publication here, (c) All Rights Reserved, watermark cropped out of Commons version. Flickr version with EXIF says taken September 19, 2014; uploader claims photo was taken 8 January 2015.

Based on the analysis of the 6 files, I think the precautionary principle applies and all the user's uploads should be deleted since they seem to all have been taken from this Flickr stream. I don't think the uploader is the owner of the Flickr stream, because of all of the other discrepancies, but if they are, this would need to be proven.

I'm curious what others think about this situation. All the templated deletion notices given to the user have been removed, and they haven't engaged in any discussion about their uploads. --Nick (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've notified the user to see if there's any context they'd like to provide here. --Nick (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a big case. Even among the earliest uploads in November 2015, there were already suspected copyvios. User did twice remove problem notifications from his talkpage, now restored by me. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Either that guy is a commercial camera seller or the images are stolen from various sources. I've found 55 different camera models in the Exif data (and also some files without any Exif data):
  • 5MP-9EY
  • 6MP9W4
  • Canon PowerShot A430
  • Canon DIGITAL IXUS 55
  • Canon DIGITAL IXUS 30
  • CASIO EX-Z850
  • FUJIFILM FinePix Z20fd
  • FUJIFILM FinePix S2800HD
  • FUJIFILM FinePix A600
  • FUJIFILM FinePix F480
  • FUJIFILM FinePix A205S
  • FUJIFILM FinePix A345
  • FUJIFILM FinePix S9500
  • Hewlett-Packard Photosmart M307
  • KENOX S760 / Samsung S760
  • KODAK EASYSHARE C1013
  • KODAK EASYSHARE Z915
  • KODAK EASYSHARE Z915
  • KODAK C310
  • KONICA MINOLTA DiMAGE G400
  • LG KU990i
  • LG-D405n
  • LG-D405
  • NIKON COOLPIX L20
  • NIKON COOLPIX L23
  • NIKON COOLPIX L25
  • NIKON COOLPIX S6100
  • NIKON D3200
  • NIKON E3200
  • NIKON D40
  • Nokia 6288
  • Nokia N70-1
  • Nokia 6120c
  • Nokia N95
  • OLYMPUS FE4050,X970
  • OLYMPUS FE210,X775
  • OLYMPUS FE170,X760,C505
  • OLYMPUS X100,D540Z,C310Z
  • Panasonic DMC-FS18
  • Panasonic DMC-FS62
  • Panasonic DMC-FZ8
  • PENTACON DCZ 8.3
  • PENTAX K100D
  • samsung SM-G920F
  • Samsung Digimax S1000 / Kenox S1000
  • SAMSUNG GT-I8190
  • SAMSUNG GT-I8160P
  • SONY DSC-W30
  • SONY DSC-W35
  • SONY DSC-T5
  • SONY DSC-WX7
  • SONY DSC-S950
  • SONY Xperia E4g
  • Syntek USB Camera
  • WWL PDC3070

--Didym (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I had time to search for a few more images so I've tagged a few more with {{Copyvio}}: File:Samar 1770.jpg, File:Samar 1780.jpg, File:Samar 1791.jpg, File:Samar 1819.jpg, and File:Samar 1591.jpg. Obviously this is going to be hard to do one-by-one. Is the best course of action to open a DR with all their uploads? Or does policy allow consensus to be reached here to speedy them all as copyvios? I'm kind of hoping to avoid having to make ~700 automated deletion-tagging edits. --Nick (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I added Vk1711 to the global blacklist of the CVN via #cvn-commons-uploads. Will expire after 2 months. --★ Poké95 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Tagging every single upload of this user seems to be a waste of time, so I've just deleted all remaining images. --Didym (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 Support & thx, since — after tagging individually around 30 files as copyvio — I was about to start a related mass speedy deletion request... Thx to @NickW557: for the catch. Gunnex (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

File:Canadian_Brass_logo.jpg

File:Canadian_Brass_logo.jpg was uploaded as "own work", but appears to be copyrighted - see [5]. I'm not active on Commons, so I'm not sure where else to report this, or how to tag it myself. I'm already removing it from the Wikipedia article it was recently added to. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about the related file File:Canadian Brass.jpg, which has been around a lot longer, though happens to have been uploaded by the same user. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 Info I marked the logo as copyvio, while the other one is nominated for deletion. --★ Poké95 12:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Fru1tbat, for future reference, a blatant copyright violation can be reported using the following template on the file page: {{Copyvio|1=Image can be found on website of subject|source=http://www.canadianbrass.com}}. If you believe a file is a copyright violation but it is not obvious, you can follow the instructions at COM:DR. Hope that helps! Riley Huntley (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

RFA for User:Denniss

After the out of process desysop of User:Denniss today, the new procedure laid out by the de facto controller of Wikimedia Commons is that Denniss has to stay desysopped for 30 days and can then regain admin rights, however a RFA will be "required" (I note that there is no community agreed process for any of this, they are arbitrary constraints as part of a punishment which Jalexander has made up without any community consultation, such as a discussion with our elected Bureaucrats).

I propose that we run a new RFA for Denniss to reconfirm his continuation of administrator rights early. There seems no logical reason why we cannot start it this week so long as Denniss has no objection. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I support an early RFA for Denniss. WMF's de-adminship of Denniss is out of process. They should have notified the community before they de-admin someone, as it is very controversial. --★ Poké95 11:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The WMF policemen are threatening to block any administrator who resysops Denniss before the 30-days in the wilderness have elapsed. We can run and close an RFA as early as we like however, we would just need to delay giving Denniss his rights back until the 30-days are completed. I agree it is a bonehead move that this WMF action is directly against perfectly good community agreed processes that they could have chosen to apply. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that the threat was not against a crat that re-admins him (though they would undoubtedly block for that) but against any editor that even opens an RFA for him before the 30 days have run out, and it was rather implied that even after that they would only let him self-nom. Reventtalk 13:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I also support. Even if the adminship cannot be restored until after the 30 days it will show what the community thinks of the decision. Reguyla (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, WMF had no rights to de-sysop a community elected user without following the proper procedures (which they obviously did not) and secondly, there is no need for an RfA, Denniss sysop bit should be restored after the 30-day period has ended...running another RfA will just create more drama and I think we already have had our quota for this month and next lol..If anyone has a problem with Denniss after his rights is restored after 30 days is more than welcome to start a de-adminship request in 31 days.--Stemoc 03:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

RfA is ok but it would be better to start a request for de-adminship so that we can check if there is consensus for the desysop. Alternatively, given there is no urgency for the deflag, a bureaucrat could restore the right and then start the desysop request. Nemo 09:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So what now? Should the community take action now? Well, maybe after 2 or 3 days, I will start a RFA for Denniss. I don't care if the WMF threatens me or lock my account. I will show them that they are not superior than us. That we, the community, and WMF are equal. They cannot make threats against a 12... ★ Poké95 10:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Why all this fight talk? Face it. Wrt globally banned users editing here, posting on forums, uploading IRC logs, making dubious legal accusations, blackmailing people, etc, etc, the game is over. You can't do anything wrt Denniss's admin status for the 30 day period, including opening an RFA. WMF have made it clear that Denniss must request his rights back and an RFA opened after the 30 days and then the community approves his admin status. This can't be done by doing a de-adminship and restoring the bit if it fails, nor can it be done by a 'crat making a decision to simply reverse the office action. Just accept that and go fight vandals or delete images for the duration; whatever turns you on.
But prior to the RFA, it would be helpful to get a statement from Denniss and AFBorchert about their actions the other day:
  • Edit warring to restore edits of a globally banned user. Whether they wish otherwise or not, I hope they both confirm this will not happen nor be allowed to happen again.
  • Blocking a user the admin is actively in dispute with. I hope Denniss acknowledges this is a serious abuse of the tools and is never permissible regardless of what principles or points someone wishes to make. And I hope AFBorchert agrees that he was wrong to turn a blind eye to this.
  • Wheel warring with other admins over a block. When Denniss re-applied the block on me, he was wheel-warring. Ditto for the above: serious admin abuse and serious failing of a 'crat to ignore this.
If the community wants to demonstrate to WMF that it is capable of policing itself, it could start with the above. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: When I went through the edits of the edit war, I noticed just one revert by Denniss and overlooked accidently the other (1, 2). If I would have been aware of the two reverts, I would asked him to refrain from participating in an edit war as I did in the other cases. I am sorry that this led to the impression that I would not object to that.
I would like to add that I find following quote from this statement by Jalexander-WMF disturbing: “Let it be noted, however, that we will not tolerate sanctions against contributors attempting to enforce a global ban in good faith or of users who edit war or, otherwise, attempt to prevent them from doing so.” If I understand this correctly, it means that anyone is free to edit war without restrictions whenever the reverts are good faith attempts to remove edits by a banned user. This turns (like any edit war) an area into a battle ground, leaving the admins helpless to act against this. It is obvious that we must act within the terms of use, and that we cannot restore edits that were done in violation of the terms. But an edit war is not the correct approach. If after the first revert, the violating content is restored again, this should be brought to the attention of admins, preferably through one of the administrative boards.
I think that a policy in regard to the handling of edits and contributions in violation of the terms of use could be helpful to avoid the repetition of such unfortunate developments.
The two blocks of Colin by Dennis were obviously bad as he was involved. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that this was sanctioned by a temporary de-sysop through the WMF and not by opening a discussion without sanctions. This approach disregards community processes and leads to even more disturbances which distract from working towards an approach to solve this conflict. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, if someone would be pointy now, they would delete the last year's picture of the year. Of course I would immediately restore the file and, as it would be quite serve vandalism and highly disruptive, I might even consider a block; I am aware this would possibly lead to sanctions by this site's web host (at the moment it is the "Wikimedia Foundation" conducting their MediaWiki beta tests here). All this is hypothetical and out of the context, though... I agree we should neither edit war, nor block in more controversial matters. I believe the more this site's web hosting organization representatives and staff engages in processes the community should discuss and settle, the more they're running in danger of being involved, criticized and to blame for their decision that might not be transparently reflected in all media, given their complexity. -- Rillke(q?) 20:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
AFBorchert, I am sorry that after multiple clear explanations that I was not edit warring (removing the edits of a banned user is never, ever, edit warring), you continue to describe it as such. Let's be quite clear: banned user makes attempt to edit on Commons / participate in discussion; that edit is then reverted/deleted by anyone here; end of story. There never, again, will be a case where Denniss or anyone else edit wars to restore that text, because they know now that doing so is very likely to lead to WMF office action against them, which presumably next time will be rather more permanent than a 30-day loss of admin rights. So, no, I don't see that anyone will be "free to edit war without restrictions". There won't be an edit war because nobody here will be restoring the text. I hope that is quite clear. There won't be a "battleground" because there will be no "consequence" for anyone removing the banned-user-text. If the "violating content is restored again", it won't be "brought to the attention of admins" who turn blind eyes like you do. AFBorchert, the offending actions took place on the 'crat noticeboard. Do you seriously think that it is necessary to go to a "lesser court" of the admin noticeboard in order for that to be dealt with? As for your explanation of why Denniss was not censured by you, I'm afraid I do not believe a word of it, and if it were true it would show such incompetence that you should still resign. It is unfortunate that the community did not deal with Denniss, but it had a whole week in which to say even one word against him. And the admins and 'crats did not. So you only have yourself to blame for that. -- Colin (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just checked Denniss's talk page and still see no warning from you. If you claim "we must act within the terms of use" and you believe 'crats should hold admins to account for violations of the terms of use and policy, then I expect you to place a warning on his talk page for (a) breaking the terms of use by enabling a banned user to edit here (b) edit warring [note: even his first revert of my revert of the banned-user is edit warring -- this is Admin 101 stuff so I shouldn't have to be telling a 'crat what the definition is] (c) blocking while involved (d) wheel warring with other admins (you said nothing about this). All these things happened before you decided to warn the very users who were enforcing the terms of use. So, make amends now, show that Commons 'crats are not a complete waste of space. Otherwise, you make it very hard for the WMF-haters to argue that we don't need WMF to step in to help enforce their ban. Demonstrate what this precious "community process" you talk of can be. At the moment, it is a mix of turning a blind eye and gross incompetence on your part. -- Colin (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Colin, you wrote that removing the edits of a banned user is never, ever, edit warring but you seem to mixing up English Wikipedia policy with Commons policy. For example, you might have noticed that English Wikipedia has a speedy deletion criterion, w:WP:G5, which does not exist on Commons because there is no consensus for that criterion on Commons. Check COM:CSD: the speedy deletion criteria are not always the same as on English Wikipedia. It may be useful to implement a narrower version of w:WP:G5 on Commons. One problem is that we don't want to keep copyright violations (so it's a bad idea to blindly revert {{Copyvio}} tags). Another problem is that a user who is a persona non grata on Commons might not be a persona non grata on another project where a file the user uploaded happens to be in use, and then we disrupt that other project if we delete the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Stefan2, we are short in many policies and depends on EN for that. See my attempts to update the blocking policy at Commons_talk:Blocking_policy. It is not clearly mentioned, but the understanding is "By default, a block means no edit is allowed. Any non-trivial or non-consensual edit should reverted." So a banned/blocked user need not edit here. Otherwise no meaning in the blocking policy. It is inline with what AFBorchert said above (about edit-wars): "If I understand this correctly, it means that any blocked user is free to edit without restrictions whenever the edits are good faith attempts." This will ended up as an anarchy and we can't manage it. File uploads may be treated differently as only admins can delete them.
AFBorchert, I'm disappointed by your comment here. I had given you benefits of doubts as you didn't edit after that inappropriate edit warnings to a few users. I had given you a very friendly message on your talk page about the importance of being neutral and impartial. But you neglect it and come back with a fake apology. This is just like what HJ Mitchell did. He attacked Odder to lighten his mistake and you are now attacking James to hide your mistake. You should aware that WMF need not step in if you or any other crat handled it properly.
And this is not the first time you did inappropriate consideration to Denniss. I don't know why. May be you have no courage to warn your friends from DE wiki. If so, you need to step back in cases where your friends involved.
As I commented in your talk page, you didn't warn TP for his strong comments against me. It was you who closed that RFA and you only see the mistakes of HJ Mitchell. This is not something ordinary users expect from a crat, especially in their difficult times. And remember that his allegations against me are still remaining here as unfounded and without any warning. I'm eager to see when the crats interfere or they prefer to complaint when The Office step in? Jee 02:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Stefan2, I'm not mixing policy. As Jee notes, there are many definitions, guidelines and policy pages on en:wp that Commons refers to because it hasn't developed its own. Our Protection policy links to en:wp edit warring, for example, and this is not unusual. Most of us (apart from the "there should be no blocks, especially the ones that apply to me" folk) agree that banned users should not be permitted to edit on Commons. We aren't talking about copyvio tags. There are some who wish to make an exception for Russavia, but they say nothing about the other WMF global banned users who I assume they are quite happy to stay banned. So, in the typical, non Russavia-exception, case, anyone where should be expected to be able to fight vandals and blocked users without being accused of edit warring. That's why the definition excludes that action from the definition of the "crime". We all know the only reason Denniss edit warred the other day was because the edits came from Russavia and presumably Denniss wanted to test whether WMF were true to their word about "sanctions". You can't have it both ways: where the community claim it should be left to police itself yet does nothing about multiple policy violations purely because it wants to protect an old friend and to play power-games with WMF. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There is consensus that users who have been banned by the community (Russavia hasn't been banned by the community) shouldn't edit Commons. However, there is not consensus to add a speedy deletion criterion to remove content which nevertheless have been added by such users, as shown by there is no consensus for that criterion on Commons. I think that this Commons rule is a bit weird, but that's nevertheless how it is. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Stefan, now you are mixing policy that refers to whole pages and mostly to the media we host, with what we should do about some paragraphs added on one of our forums. Since nobody is likely to try to speedy delete the 'crat noticeboard, this is irrelevant. In the discussion you link we see a comment "Content should be judged on its own merits. Of course, if a person who had been banned for copyvio started adding "own work", we might not assume good faith, but if the content is good, why should we delete it?"' which seems to indicate some here are happy for banned users to upload other people's work, but would probably be uncomfortable if the banned user started taking/creating their own images and uploading. So you see the arguments/mindset that people have for different forms of content (own work, other's work, media, pages, discussions) are all separate and complex. A general policy on speedy delete on Commons is very likely to only consider seriously the case for media files. Anyway, the whole "banned by the community / not banned by the community" argument is tired and clearly we all have to agree to disagree on that one. The ToU are quite clear that WMF has the power to ban anyone for any reason without seeking permission from the community (and this is true of all hosting sites, e.g., Github, Flickr, etc) and we should be grown-up enough to respect that. But Stefan2, even in your "Russavia is permitted to edit here" mindset, Dennis broke several commons policies (edit warring, blocking while involved, wheel warring) and yet our 'crats, and AFBorchert did and continue to do nothing. What does that say about our precious community policies? -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, people do try to (hopefully accidentally) speedily delete noticeboards on a fairly regular basis, they just get reverted within moments. Reventtalk 06:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Jee, I think you misquote AFBorchert. The "If I understand this" sentence did not refer to "blocked user" edit warring. Instead he clearly referred to me, Yann and Jcb "edit warring ... without restrictions ... to remove edits by a banned user". This is just upside-down, as I explained above. It isn't edit warring that me, Yann and Jcb did, and it absolutely wouldn't have been necessary or permitted if all the 'crats and admins watching that page had bothered to lift a finger to Denniss to tell him to stop. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I emailed Denniss if he will accept my nomination. I wonder if Denniss is using IRC... ★ Poké95 00:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Colin, do you believe there are wars (wheel-warring, edit warring, real world wars) with only one party involved? Perhaps because one party "does it right" from your point of view? This is a rhetorical question. No need for any reply. -- Rillke(q?) 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not really a rhetorical question and yes it always takes more than one person to have a conflict. Editors fighting over content using the revert button isn't good. It just doesn't fit into the category called "edit war" when one side is clearly restoring banned-user content. There really isn't anything excusable about what Denniss et al did the other day. The only rational explanation is simply that some people want Russavia to edit and will keep inventing arguments that try to justify it. Where's the community discussion and vote for this indefinite block? There are times when the wider community is not involved. Deal with it. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case Colin then you should be able to link me to one or 2 occasions where the WMF has previously desysopped someone like the Denniss case. I would be very interested to see that on any WMF project because as far as I know this action is unprecedented. Reguyla (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
See here. (Of course this case differs but we seldon have two cases who are alike) Though back then they asked the stewards to remove the tools which resulted in a wheel war.... In this case the admin tools where suspended for 1 year. And we also have Erik Muller who threatened to desysop volunteers over the mediaviewer debacle though he never backed up his threats. Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, the WMF is the judges of their own case. Very very bad, very very undemocratic, ethically not ok. Last but not least: Audi alteram partem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
"democratic" is not another way to spell "ethical". Lots of things in life aren't "democratic" and we function quite well. To turn things the other way round: you don't get to decide what photos I take, what choose to upload for free, and where I'm going on holiday this year. The world seems quite happy that I can make ad hoc decisions about these things without submitting them to the "community" for a vote. The only thing unethical I see in the last two weeks is the actions of one admin called Denniss. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This is your interpretation of the current causa, i have my own :-). The editwar in which you was involved is speaking for itself. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Not wanting to make a statement regarding the ethical part but not even judges have to apply the audi alteram partem-principle all the time. (A Dutch example is the Rechter-commissaris who seldom hears the accused party because he makes ad hoc decisions) Natuur12 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
We've got 30 days to deal with things. Probably better to let things cool down a bit first.Geni (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Test images

Hello.Are these files useful?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done If the filename begins with "Test" and educational value is missing, then I take liberty to delete them all. They are uploaded in October 2015, so there was enough time to make sure, that the test worked. Taivo (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Selenium user is indefinitely blocked as unauthorized spambot. One of his uploads, file:Test-image-rosa-mx-15x15.png, is now 42 times deleted (mostly by Steinsplitter) and it has 5555 deleted edits. I have heard a legend, that Wikimedia software prohibits deleting pages and files with more than 5000 edits – this legend is now disproven, I had no problems with deleting the file. Taivo (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Title blacklist time? Riley Huntley (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Riley Huntley: FYI, that account was previously used by the WMF QA people to monitor the Commons upload API... it has been deprecated since last October. (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115465) No need to blacklist it, they are no longer running that task. Reventtalk 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Lac Sidi Boughaba.jpg

This image was failed as ARR by Anna/Cookie but I don't know the source. But this person did fail another image by this uploader from a panoramio account with an ARR license. Does anyone know the source of this image. The uploader is uploading many images but I don't know if it is from this account. I just tagged it--Anna already failed it--as a copy vio. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Added panoramio source. --Achim (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm tagging this as 'no permission'. The usernames are a bit similar, so it is possible that the Commons user is the same person as the Panoramio user, and the user might be able to arrange an OTRS message or a {{Change-of-license}} on Panoramio. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please move

Nepali keto62 to userpage area--Motopark (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploads by User:EliuHP

Please take a look at this users uploads. The pictures can be found in much higher resolution on various sites, e.g. File:Josef martinez.jpg = http://imgs.notitarde.com/Imgs/2014/02/795fd7b2-58ea-4415-9a64-fb419d46a14e_W_00960.jpg --Magnus (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I warned him and will mass delete all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My user page

Please delete my user page. Thanks. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Cheers:) Ilya Drakonov (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

POTY navi template

Hi there I think adding this {{POTY2015/header/navi}} to this page Commons:Picture of the Year/2015/R1/Gallery would be a good idea, thank you. I'd done it myself were it not locked. Palosirkka (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the content you were looking for you couldn't find, Palosirkka? -- Rillke(q?) 15:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for info on how to vote. I don't do JavaScript so life is hard. Thanks for working on Commons, Rillke. Palosirkka (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request for File:Autofellatio6.jpg

I am an OTRS volunteer handling Template:OTRS ticket which is a request from an individual to take down the image currently being used as the main image in the English (and many other languages) Wikipedia article on Autofellatio. The actual photograph is of another person, and seems to be properly licensed and sourced, but the person who contacted the OTRS system has reported experiencing significant bullying because the person in the photo looks remarkably like him— he is being socially targeted as a result. I submitted a speedy deletion request, but it was downgraded to a regular deletion discussion and two other editors have now argued the photo should be kept despite the fact that it affects this person's real-world life. I am not part of any crusade to remove sexual imagery from Commons, I am here to advocate for this person's interests which I strongly feel trump the fact that the image is so widely used in so many articles (which, if anything, seems like a stronger reason to remove it rather thank keep it). My point is this: a person contacted the OTRS system begging for a sexual image of someone closely resembling him be removed because he is being harassed. The request seems entirely fair, does not smack of being motivated by prudery, and is within our power to grant. When someone's real life is being affected by something like this— something sexual and explicit, even if it is not directly tied to that person— it seems like the decision about whether or not to retain the image shouldn't be left up to a discussion among editors who do not know what it is like to be this person. Please review the ticket, and consider removing the image post haste. It can be replaced with another image in due course. Thank you. KDS4444 (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem for those willing to comply with this request, is the broad use of this image in Wikipedias. All these uses need to be replaced by an equivalent image. --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That OTRS story sounds plausible to me, and it should be seriously considered. Is it possible to delete the image then immediately redirect the file page to a replacement image?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, this can be done via the duplicate-template. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I think if the image were replaced, that there should be no problem in complying with the request. Someone needs to suggest a replacement image, however. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that we should change the content of an image that was uploaded 6 years ago and which is in heavy internal and unknown external use by redirecting it to a different image. Nobody would accept to overwrite this image, so for the same reason a delete and redirect to different content shall be declined. I also don't see anybody who will change the actual usage in all the articles. Although I consider the request reasonable, I don't see how we could comply with it. --Krd 16:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I must have used the wrong word. Could we not replace the image in use with another image from our collection? There are several images of this same man in the category, perhaps we could take a larger size image of a different person and use them in the projects? I am not advocating for over-writing the image, and don't think it needs to be deleted (there is no valid criteria anyway). I think the bullied young man is being bullied because the image is on so many project pages, and just substituting another from our collection might be enough to make the problem go away. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What about the idea that someone of the Foundation hands out some funds to hire a professional, e.g. a suitable porn actor, to show this act. There is then the possibility for a fully fledged model release that would avoid this kind of problems in the future. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sure the young man in question would be happy if we could do any of these things. Which are feasible and within a reasonable time frame? (Does the WMF ever really hand out money to porn stars or was that meant to be a joke? Because there are also other ways to address this problem with money: the WMF could also pay a graphic artist to create an identity-neutral image that would not require any model release and would never be mistaken for anyone, but I do not know that they are in the habit of doing things like this). KDS4444 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I have now gone ahead and replaced the photograph in the article with a Masters & Johnson-type vector drawing that I think will do the job here. No deletion may be necessary as long as no one objects to the use of the drawing over the photograph (and I see no justifiable reason why they should). I have also sent a message to the original client, notifying him of the change and asking if it will be enough to meet his needs as well. This doesn't change the use of the photograph on all the other Wikipedias, but that may not be his concern. More news as events warrant. KDS4444 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't joking. The German WMDE chapter actively supported photo sessions with politicians, the so called Landtagsprojekte, with money and equipment. I do not see any reasons why the same couldn't be possible with other subjects, even related to sexuality. Someone needs to think more education and science (Masters-Johnson was a good catchword) and less about arousement and porn. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've 'boldly' run a global replace on this image, to use the SVG version... I noted the reason, and specifically said that I could be reverted if the original image was preferred. We'll see if it sticks. Reventtalk 06:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In the mean time, I have heard nothing more from the client. I am comfortable withdrawing this request, and thanking everyone for their input here. KDS4444 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to provide deleted copies of PDF copies

It is not a request to undeleted but I am asking to send me copies of the following PDF files. Can an an admin please send these to me at tito@cis-india.org?

  1. File:Prabodha Tarangalul.pdf
  2. File:Tatwamula vivaramu.pdf
  3. File:Geetham Geetha Total.pdf
  4. File:Jyothishya shastramu.pdf

--Tito Dutta (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add phonenumber to blacklist

see edit of user:Sophia55s, please add those number to blacklist.--Motopark (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what blacklist are you saying (maybe it is abuse filter?), but their edits must be oversighted, if not already. ★ Poké95 02:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Why do these edits require oversight? It's not non-public personal information. Riley Huntley (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done The only upload is deleted and Achim warned her. I think, that no other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Riley Huntley: Phone numbers are non-public personal information. How phone numbers are not private information? ★ Poké95 07:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
888 numbers are toll-free (i.e. business) numbers, hence not "personal" IMO. Storkk (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: As said above, its a non-personal phone number that is highly public therefore it is not private. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I already saw Storkk's message yesterday (I just forgot to reply on it), so thanks to you two for explaining it to me. ★ Poké95 00:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please delete

Talk:Quickbooks error 3371-18445566315--Motopark (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done, spammer blocked as well. -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Queries

Hello.

  1. These images are copyright violation, is not it?
  2. Why no one here can create translations in MediaWiki namespace by a tool like Wikidata?
  3. Can I Upload files of books pages (Written by professors of Ain Shams University) (I can not keep them long life) Then asking for fdeleting then be Undeleted after 25 years (According to the Egyptian law)?

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Favor regarding a deceased user

User:Jinnai died on February 1, 2012: [6]. Can someone please place en:Template:Deceased on en:User:Jinnai? I can't due to my ban from enwiki. For those of you who don't remember, Jinnai was a visual novel enthusiast who contributed his knowledge to Wikipedia. He also wrote the "Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons" article for enwiki. I listed him on the "Commons:We_miss_you" page, although another user later removed Jinnai's entry from the page for not making enough edits to Commons. I can verify that Jinnai is Aric Farrell via Email, if necessary. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please, fullfill this request. Thank you --Aftab (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted videos still accessible at Facebook

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T109331

Hi! File:Pee_Jaun_(Official_Video_Song)_Ft._Farhan_Saeed_Uploded_by_Free_download_Links_BD.webm (uploaded via "Bangladesh Facebook Case" and deleted per logs) is still accessible via https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=547141718790171&id=534693546701655 (click at the link) where the upload was originally shared (gaining still likes and views etc.). Is this a deletion cache problem? I saw a similar case just a few days before, but can not remember where (phabricator?) it was treated... Gunnex (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

phabricator:T129845 --Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that phabricator task I already know very well [but the above problem was discussed otherwise elsewhere] but anyway: thx for the input :-) Gunnex (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Tracked: phab:T109331 (it is a security bug, other users can't view the report) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have serious concerns regarding copyright and origination over two photos recently uploaded: [9], [10]. The uploader claims to have taken the photos, however, the metadata for each differs completely from a photo he truly did take, here. Is it not true that if he had taken the photos with a camera, rather than copying them from elsewhere, that the camera metadata would be intact and show up when uploaded to Commons? That seems to be completely missing with the two photos I have concerns about. Winkelvi (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with copyright concerns by Winkelvi (talk · contribs). Both the images in question are low resolution less than sixty (60) kilobytes. Tagging both for COM:OTRS permission to resolve this. -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Winkelvi (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Cirt, the editor who uploaded the photos is complaining about my concerns expressed here and has copied over this discussion to the photos' talk pages. Links are here [11] and here. Winkelvi (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Going through Commons:OTRS process is the easiest and simplest way to resolve this. It is indeed questionable about copyright that both photos are such low resolution, we should follow Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle which could lead one to believe images of less than sixty (60) kilobytes could have been grabbed from another website somewhere on the Internet. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Is it not true that if he had taken the photos with a camera, rather than copying them from elsewhere, that the camera metadata would be intact and show up when uploaded to Commons? "
No.
For that matter, if camera metadata has the sort of biblical inviolability you seem to be assuming here, then the camera of the other website would still show up in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Problem solved, Deletion request closed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong picture

File:Predio Pott Maputo.jpg This picture is NOT of PREDIO POTT in Maputo, Mozambique. The picture is of a ruin of an old Farmacy in a parallell street! Can someone help correcting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklaslehmann (talk • contribs) 09:34, 02 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Renamed and categories changed. --Achim (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall a SNAFU with categories last month, where files would not show up in the categories they were placed in. It seems we have a number of files editing during the time the site was broken (10–11 March?) that are still missing their categories. Especially problematic are copyright violations tagged with {{copyvio}} but not showing up in Category:Copyright violations. I stumbled across File:Brendon McCullum was out to Mohammad Amir for a first-ball duck.jpg and then made some attempts to locate additional files. Searching for hastemplate:copyvio found File:Previs The Best.jpg, File:Thecrackplayer.jpg and File:Despicable me 2-2560x1600.jpg. A bit more searching finds a lot of false positives, but also files like File:Shi yufei.jpg, File:Mersea Lifeboat.jpg, File:Screenshot of namewaster account on YouTube.png, File:Bill Kreml.png, File:S 35831830.jpg, File:Matthew Settle Wicked Red Carpet.jpg and others. I suspect we have a similar problem with files tagged as missing source, license or permission information. How do we un-copulate this mess? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How about null editing all the search results? This can be done by my bot --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It'd be a good start, but that search probably isn't exhaustive. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Results in file namespace with 'insource:"{{copyvio"', 'insource:"{{no source since"', 'insource:"{{no license since"', and 'insource:"{{no permission since"' are all null-edited twice. 'insource:"{{no source since"' & 'insource:"{{no permission since"' had api failures failures while searching (more specifically gsrsearch-error: We could not complete your search due to a temporary problem. Please try again later.), though. This probably won't catch everything though--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Spammer

Kindly liquidate Special:ListFiles/Allopropc, thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted some copyvios, nominated remaining files, and warned for spam. Storkk (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: I'd deleted them all as copyvio, spam, out of scope. Feel free to change it as you see fit. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Mass DR filing, please

Would someone mind creating a mass DR for File:Antichevron1.jpg through File:Antichevron10.jpg, because I just found them and have to leave? Each one looks fine by itself, but they're all claimed as own works by the uploader, and all are claimed as being taken yesterday: they're from Argentina, Nigeria, the UK, and various other places, and it's impossible that one person could have been in all of those places in a single day. The uploader has only one other image, and I've already created a DR for it. All of them were created for en:Antichevron, which was basically just spam. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --★ Poké95 11:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Soy muy real

Wikimedia Commons me ha puesto un mensaje enn lapágina de discusión de mi perfil diciendo que no soy "a real user" no entiendo porqué pues he tenido conversaciones con otros usuarios, he corregido alguna página o al menos la he intentado corregir (no sé si al final salió bien), y he creado dos entradas sobre un personaje aunque fueron desestimadas porque ninguno de los correctores conocía al tipo. ¿Qué puedo hacer para "ser real"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by San Vicent (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed some indef blocks on IP addresses to 5 years

I've changed some indef blocks on IP addresses to five (5) years.

Let's avoid indef blocks on IPs and stick to some defined time parameter, ideally one (1) year or maximum five (5) years.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the 1 year standard for open proxies or LTA sockmaster static IPs, though most admins aren't that familiar with either, so the blocks usually end up being too short rather than too long. I've seen several of Jermboy27's static IPs come back to life after a 1 month or 2 week block for instance. Any IP or range that requires as long a block as 5 years might be better off reported at Meta for a global block. INeverCry 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Wise points all by INeverCry. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: Good to see you swinging the mop around a bit more over here again BTW. INeverCry 02:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, most appreciated ! :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging @Jcb: , he indef blocked a ip recently. 1 year is enough for a open proxy per standard procedure. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I hope he doesn't indef block 82.81.77.76 this time. ★ Poké95 08:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked that one for one year. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not mean to block infinite, I know that makes no sense for an IP address. Jcb (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Okey, thank you Jcb, no worries ! :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing de-admin discussion

Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP and possible license violations

Y'all, please have a look at File:Daniel Yoon.jpg and File:Jong Ki Yoon.jpg. I contend that these were uploaded specifically to blackball the owners of Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, via that outfit's article on Wikipedia. I already have serious doubts about the license (a mug shot is "own work"? a pretty official looking portrait is "own work"?), and more serious doubts about whether this is OK BLP-wise. I'm about to go and look through the article on en-wiki again and may revdelete the offending content. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Deleted both files and warned the user at User talk:Integraknight. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Cirt. I did indeed revdelete the content; it was pretty bad. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Drmies, glad to be of help ! -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In 2014 I notified David Shankbone about a possible malware infection of his blog. Since then, contents vanished and some suspicious scripts, too, including the links for the "safe online pharmacy" (view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20141117082334/http://blog.shankbone.org/about/) but BlueHost is still happily including their hidden malvertising iFrame through dsultra.com

The issue is that most of his uploads at Commons cite his blog as the source of the file, posing a risk at our visitors. Are there any objections to unlink the source for uploads by himself? The next issue is the author line but I think we can't do anything about that: It's part of the required attribution that is entirely under the copyright holder's control. -- Rillke(q?) 12:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

His last activity was at January 2016. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The author line may be the required attribution, but it could be replaced with a credit template that takes the user to a warning page which suggests using a webarchive version, rather than directly following the link. I suggest this, or a similar delinking alternative is used if David does not reply within a few days. If the problem is fixed, then amending a credit template would make it easy to return direct links. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

MassMessage SPC2015-GR

Please someone send a MassMessage with this content to the talk pages of these users. It is to ask from the participants of the Greek part of the European Science Photo Competition to complete a survey, so that we will have some more results about the project. Thank you. --Geraki TLG 08:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Rillke(q?) 09:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of Oresund files

Many of the Oresund files give an error message when I try to restore them, e.g. Error undeleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/5/5b/The_8_Million_City_Bjarke_Moller_20130410_0570F_(8648714382).jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends. Any idea how to solve this? Jcb (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Lodi Schiff vor-Taufe.jpg

Can a German speaking or reading Admin read the source of this image and see if the copyright owner gave permission for the use of this image. Or would someone be willing to ask the copyright owner to change the license. I have no picasa account and don't speak German. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the photographer is asked whether his pictures can be used for Wikipedia, to which he agrees. He is happy to have any number of photos he made of the ship's christening to be used. Then he is asked if he would be fine with the Creative Commons license. The implications of the license are explained. He also agrees. I'm no admin, but a native German speaker. --Momotaro (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed)

This DR has been silent for about a month now. I propose that we start working on the 2700 involved files. I think the best way is that some of us read the DR and then for every file we delete it or we remove it from Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed), while also removing the deletion tag. This way the category will shrink and only unreviewed files will remain in the category. Any ideas? Jcb (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick request

Please delete File:Jimbo Wales.png. It is a poor-quality unattributed crop of File:Jimbo Wales 2005.JPG and is being used for trolling purposes right now on English Wikipedia. It was uploaded today by the troll. BethNaught (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Clear copyvio against CC-BY 2.0 license of the original. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Queries

Hello.

  1. These images are copyright violation, is not it?
  2. Why no one here can create translations in MediaWiki namespace by a tool like Wikidata?
  3. Can I Upload files of books pages (Written by professors of Ain Shams University) (I can not keep them long life) Then asking for fdeleting then be Undeleted after 25 years (According to the Egyptian law)?

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Point 3. I work often in speedy deletion requests and it seems to me, that some users even do that. There are quite a lot of self-requests for deletion of recently uploaded files without obvious reason. But I would personally like, if this would not be widely practiced. Taivo (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Point 1. I think, that those surpassing threshold of originality are copyvios. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: Not "speedy deletion" But 1 deletion request to be 1 undeletion request to maintain these precious books.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Massive backlog

Greetings all Admins: We have a backlog of Commons:Deletion requests which dates back to February. Would it be possible for each admin to take a very few minutes to clear through as many of these as possible? We do have the "backlog banner" up and running again, but I am hoping this more personal appeal will result in a massive Housekeeping effort and a reasonable backlog to remain after. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Account Merge

Hello, back on 11 March on Wikipedia I lost my password so, I had Kyle1278 (talk · contribs) merged to Kyle1278-2 (talk · contribs). Edit Is it possible to do the same here? Thanks! Kyle1278-2 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind completed.Kyle1278 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please move

User/Brandybradham/global.js to right area--Motopark (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done, but the page seems broken in rendering --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Content model was incorrect; deleted and recreated. Ankry (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Warren B. Hamilton page photograph

A photograph of Warren B. Hamilton, which I took in 2007, for some reason has been marked as a copyright violation and delinked. It should not be. Although this photograph has appeared in some other locations, usually with my permission, I have never assigned copyright to anyone else, and am happy to have it under Creative Commons arrangements at Wikipedia. I posted this information when the photo was first marked as a violation but got no response, and next day it was gone. Can I get through to a human? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IChiloe (talk • contribs)

If it was published anywhere before upload to Commons a written permission in OTRS is required. If this is the case, read COM:OTRS. And sign your messages, please. Ankry (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
There's now a category here, and the enwiki page can now be improved by others, so some kind of "license review" as suggested above is all that's still missing. Thanks for the photos; and if you have more (not necessarily showing you, but interesting for the enwiki Geology portal), please upload them. One COM:OTRS permission should cover everything uploaded by you, where you say that you are the photographer. –Be..anyone 💩 02:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Russavia - deletion of old uploads

See also: User_talk:Odder#Problems_with_Jcb and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#ticket:2013052310008773.

Beware for ongoing Russavia trolling, see here - Jcb (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Trolling? Yeah...raises an issue that you deleted a lot of files out of process, which were pre-ban claiming that were fraudulent. Not so much trolling, as holding you accountable, if you've done something wrong...(might be classified as ban-evasion, but not trolling).Josve05a (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Since when do you have access to OTRS tickets, enabling you to judge whether an OTRS ticket would be genuine or not? A lot of pre-ban Russavia fraud has gone unnoticed, because everybody trusted him. If it comes to light later, there is no reason to keep copyright violations online. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't, but other OTRS-agents and OTRS-admins on IRC do. Josve05a (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Jcb, I'm curious as to why you deleted these files. OTRS has a policy with regards to dealing with the contributions of WMF banned users and deleting files (especially in a retroactive fashion) and your actions represent the polar opposite. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Nothing in the OTRS ticket for Category:Files from News Øresund Flickr stream seems to indicate there was any fraud at all. I'm really sad to see such behaviour. I can understand that some people don't want to have Russavia around anymore: he is globally banned and WMF had make it clear proxying for him is not tolerable. Ok, that said we don't have to wipe all valid content uploaded in the past. It looks to me jcb is on a personal vendetta which is not compatible with being an admin and OTRS agent, IMO.

For this reason, I'm in favour of a de-admin discussion (again ...)--PierreSelim (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. No defense of Russavia in particular; just saying the files were uploaded in good faith (in 2013, there were no issues with sockpuppetry, POINTy uploads and such things regarding Russavia whatsoever; let's remember that, after all, it was Russavia who received the permission from Kremlin.ru ad many others), long before WMF ban, in accordance with Commons' licensing policy (the files are even by now still CC-BY licensed on Flickr) and — some of the files were in use (see Delinker logs from Odder's talkpage), so with that said, there was no reason at all to delete the files, I fully agree that it were clearly bad faith deletions, and I am waiting for a desysop request. --A.Savin 18:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't we talk with Jcb first? Perhaps he has a good explenation. Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In the ticket I saw no mention at all of permission by the photographer. For one of the involved files a different OTRS-agent dealt with a complaint from the photographer. I came accross his request for speedy deletion. So we do know that the involved Flickr stream is unsafe and we do know that a former Wikimedian was involved who was also involved with at least several other complaints from photographers. So that's why I have deleted the files coming from that Flickr stream per COM:PCP. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the proper thing would have been to point the photographer to the Agency which claims that its photo is CC-BY, rather than deleting 350 files from the agency. You may be right and that agency stream might be polluted with non-CC files, but you seemed too quick to reach such conclusion, Jcb. Platonides (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Would you mind explain your attitudes, especially your attemps to cover up your wrong, out of process and rush deletion, by blocking the editions of this page to everyone except autoconfirmed users and deleting "the banned user comments" in here and other user talkpages(see history page and dont come with the WMF arguments of user protection and whatnot!).
Like it or not of his attitudes, opinions, etc, he does have valid points, like your statement A lot of pre-ban Russavia fraud has gone unnoticed, because everybody trusted him.. So:
Show irrefutable, clear and incriminating proofs that Russavia had engaged in "fraud [that] has gone unnoticed". If not, your statements are - in the spirit of an previous administrator accusing, without proof, an OTRS member of leaking information - libelous, patently and deliberately false and misleading.
So prove your accusation, per above, or retract your statements, admit your mistaken deletion and un-delete this files until, AND IF, proven fraudulently obtained. If not, i will myself open an de-administrator request, as, in my opinion, you have shown that you do not have aptitudes to be an administrator. Tm (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I have to say, Tm (talk · contribs) makes some good points here. -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I also agree and I find I also agree with several of the comments here. I also find it a little disappointing to see Jcb semi protect this page eventhough he is clearly involved. I can't see any of these files that were deleted because I am not an admin but given Jcb's longstanding interactions with Russavia, I don't see why they thought deleting preban content would be a good idea. Reguyla (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Jcb, you can stop the Russavia drama (by semiprotecting this page). but you can't conceal your disruptive and shameful action against the hundred of files that you deleted unilaterally (like the unilateral actions from the WMF). The Community didn't decided the ban of Russavia, but your disruptive and shameful actions against the files deserve the ban (or at least the desysop); users who opposes disrruptive actions with more disruptive actions should not have admins tools anymore; users who prefer to follow the interests of the WMF instead of the interests of the Community should not be part of Commons anymore.

To be clear, I don't support the actions from Russavia (and even supporting him), but going against the files is going against the Community and the essence of Commons (the media files for everyone), that I repudiate from the depths of the soul. Wikimedia Commons is a so huge project, and is worrying that a few persons (the WMF and the users who prefered to follow its interests) could decide in the name of hunderd and even thsousands of active users, actions that place the whole project in danger. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: At the very least, such strong community reaction to controversial speedy deletion of hundreds of files on the purported basis of retroactively applying unilateral disappearing of a person's contributions prior to their sanctioning — shows such deletions should be subject to discussion with the community by Commons:Deletion requests and not be unilaterally speedy deleted with no community discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised there was no discussion on the OTRS wiki or even here at COM:OTRS/N either prior to this lone-wolf nuke. INeverCry 02:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: — Lone-wolf nuke — is the most concise and suitable description of what has gone on here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Jcb: You deleted files again? Wow, just wow. And also, Kalliope said that pre-ban uploads are not included, and the files you deleted are pre-ban. Are you going to make another drama here again? You just violated again the deletion policy, and I don't know why you're not yet de-sysopped, as you repeated your mistake again. *sigh* ★ Poké95 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, it is not Russavia trolling here, it is you, Jcb. You troll Commons by blindly deleting files (that are pre-ban) without following the procedure. @INeverCry: Yeah, "lone-wolf nuke" is the right description of what is going on here. :) ★ Poké95 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The hardest part which admins do not realise is when the images are restored, it may take a while to manually 'restore' them back to the articles they were in...it just creates more work for other commons users..may sound easy to just [rollitback] but its not necessary that easy as edits may have been done to articles after it was removed..anyhoo, I see Jcb's action more as a personal vendetta than anything else...I also blame WMF for this (yes they are the root cause for everything) because they have allowed the removal and deletion of edits by "globally banned" users even if the edits made were legit, on-topic or along commons policies cause obviously commons policies be damned when WMF sees fit..they left the door ajar after making those statements allowing admins with vendetta to remove and/or delete stuff added by a globally banned users even before they were banned by the WMF and thus not allowing them to defend their actions which we saw recently in HJMitchell's de-adminiship.--Stemoc 03:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Quoting you from above: "For one of the involved files a different OTRS-agent dealt with a complaint from the photographer. I came accross his request for speedy deletion." Can you please advise which file / ticket this was? Thank you. --Krd 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Krd: You migth want to see this (Google Cache) which might help... Josve05a (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@@Krd: , @Natuur12: did post the correct ticket above, but somebody else edited it away - Jcb (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Corrected, my apologies. I thought the same mistake was made as here. I've left a note on the ticket. Riley Huntley (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to restore every file for which we receive a valid release from the photographer (as opposed to flickr stream owner). It has become clear that the stream owner is at least not the author of all pictures, even Russavia admits that there are at least several copyright violations in the stream, so we cannot trust the stream owner. As for the deletion reason (Fraudulous OTRS ticket from global banned user, see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AThe_Bridge_season_2_Sofia_Helin_%288724852601%29.jpg&type=revision&diff=192008 - Using VisualFileChange.), I should have left out the words 'from global banned user', for it was irrelevant for the deletion. The ticket was fraudulous after all, for the permission did not come from the author of the files, at least not of all of them. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Permission from the copyright holder is enough, the photographer is not always the sole copyright holder or he granted the rights to a other person. I see no evidence that the flicker stream has been used for flickr washing. Please elaborate, thank you :-). And by the way, please elaborate why the ticket is "fraudulous" - fraud is a crime under some jurisdiction. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
In this case we received a complaint from a photographer, which should give us reasonable doubt about the statement in the ticket. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: Please give us a link to the complaint in question and please elaborate how the complain is connected with the current deletion. Please answer my question regarding the alleged fraud. Would you please undelete the files and start a regular deletion request as required by policy? Thanks! :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
ticket:2016031010009553 (for your other questions, please find my answers in this very section of this notice board) - Jcb (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: Thanks, i see. Likely we schould ask the person who granted the permission first before deleting all files. It is possible (for example) that he file has been published accidentally. Can you please answer my question regarding the alleged fraud (which is a strong accusation)? It isn't clear for me. - sorry. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
FraudUntrue statement by the stream owner, he has released at least several files into a free license of which files he was not the copyright holder. From a head of news redaction you should expect some understanding of copyright regulations. Maybe somebody could ask questions about the other pictures in the ticket? I will follow the ticket and if I find the answers satisfactory I am willing to assist in undeletions. (The delinker is not a point of discussion, I always check the delinker log after undeleting a file) Jcb (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Jcb, could you please strike the word "fraud" from your comments on this issue. While you are entitled to your opinion as to whether the stream owner was recklessly incompetent in his or her duty-of-care towards wrongly labelling images in their possession as CC, you cannot and have not determined this was done so deliberately in order to result in financial or personal gain. I'm sure you will agree that we all sometimes misuse words that turn out to have a more serious legal meaning than our intention, and hope you rectify this misuse. It would be helpful if folk consider we are all amateur volunteers here, so let's leave allegations of fraud or libel for the lawyers. Those with bruised egos should also remember that when we discover all-rights-reserved copyright images being wrongly tagged as "free" the real victim is the photographer who may lose out financially on an income stream they rely on for their living. These images do not belong to you or me or anyone else in this discussion. -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, if that helps. Jcb (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"Mistaken" or "inaccurate" might've been better choices than "untrue", but just about anything is better than "fraud", which is used to indicate the commiting of a deliberate criminal act here in the US. INeverCry 19:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Just as a side note since Jcb is Dutch. In the Netherlands fraud doesn't have to be intentional and even a honest mistake can be called fraud. The word is far less severe in NL that in the US I guess if there has to be a clear intend to commit fraud in the US. I'll try to come up with a proposal to resolve this with less heat. than yet another de-admin. Natuur12 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, I was not talking about a criminal offence. I was not aware of the more severe meaning in the US. I am sorry. Jcb (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Well I'm sorry I can't buy thoses explaination, it doesn't match the wording you chose in your deletion rationale. At one point, as an admin you have to be careful and communicate clearly. It needs many people to raise concern to get an explanation from you. To me it looks like you are on the same path that in 2011 which finally ended by your de-adminship Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2):

  • Acting out of process
  • Being on a vendetta

Sorry, I did not voted against your re-adminship because I believe we can err, and everyone deserve second chances if he makes amends. However, I'm really affraid to see things has not change: you prefer processing lots of backlogs, acting lone wolf, and vendetta like which is not compatible with adminship IMO. Sorry but I'm not convinced by your explanation, it doesn't adress why you accuse Russavia of fraud when it seems clear that you think the stream owner is reponsible for the copyvio. Do you think it's more acceptable to write that ? --PierreSelim (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Where did I write that this ticket was fraud by Russavia? I'm not aware of having said that anywhere. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit-summary for the deletion of File:White Alexandra Hagen 20121116 1F (8271310831).jpg and many other deleted files (uploaded by Russavia): Fraudulous OTRS ticket from global banned user, ... [12]. --Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
You can read everything in every sentence if you really want, but it's not necessary to read it this way, especially not after all the time I have spend to clarify the situation. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
True, however I guess that this comment may have lead many of us to the interpretation that you are deleting fraud by Russavia. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"Dubious due to logical loopholes" may the right word as the one I mentioned earlier in VPC. It may not be an intentional mistake; but a serious issue as most of those permissions are for entire photo streams. I had demanded earlier in OTRS discussions that bulk permissions need to be more seriously handled compared to individual files. I don't know the current status. Jee 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Can an admin close this? The de-adminship discussion was closed already as unsuccessful, and that the first proposal has been successful. I don't see a reason to continue this discussion. @MichaelMaggs: Can you close this? ★ Poké95 06:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

See also: Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#De-admin_of_Jcb.

(closed; next step would be formal RfDA)

Okay. Let’s try to resolve this in a more sustainable matter than a de-RFA.I would like to do a proposal to resolve this and I hope everyone can be satisfied with this. It is regretful that this discussion escalated while we should have tried to resolve it via a dialogue first. But here we go:

  • We will discuss the status of the deleted images at com:UNDEL and if the closing admin decides that the files should be undeleted he will help restoring the damage
  • Jcb promises that he will refrain from making further deletions like the one mentioned in this discussion in the future. He can start a DR instead though
  • Jcb writes an apology to News Øresund for accusing them of fraud. He has their email.

I hope this conditions are acceptable for everyone. (Including Jcb) The first condition has the purpose to separate the copyright debate from the debate about Jcb’s behaviour, the second condition is meant as an insurance policy that we won’t end up with the same situation a couple of months later and the third condition has the purpose to repair the damaged relationship with the content donor. Natuur12 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you, for proposing something else than public beheading. I know, I have strong and harsh word sometimes, but amends and learning is the way forward IMO. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I am willing to cooperate in this, although I would propose to make a change to the first condition. For now it's unknown who the photographers are of most of the pictures and this could be resolved by email by an OTRS agent rather than by com:UNDEL. So I think the most effective way would be that I write something to them to clear the air and then hand over the ticket to another OTRS agent who resolves the permission questions with them. Jcb (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal, Natuur12. If it would help I'd be prepared to take over the task of handling the OTRS ticket, seeing what if anything can be salvaged, undeleting as and when valid permissions from the copyright owner(s) have been confirmed, and reporting back to the community. It would be sensible for Jcb to send a hand-over OTRS email as suggested. Could somebody please ping me if you'd like me to do that? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: that would be great! Natuur12 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: please feel free to go ahead, thanks in advance! Jcb (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Riley Huntley There's no drama. But... Roma locuta, causa finita?. Don't think so.--Dura-Ace (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am working through this now, as requested in this proposal, and expect to be able to post some conclusions tomorrow or Thursday at the latest. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just broken off to suggest to Russavia that rather than socking again, and threatening to re-upload the files he objected to being deleted, he should await the results of the agreed process, above. He is perfectly well aware that I've promised to report back to the community today or tomorrow, and no doubt he will find some way to make his views known to everyone at that point. He seems to have decided what I will have to say before I say it. I am noting this here for information, and there's no need to respond. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Diff, please? --Elvey (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Starting to re-upload imagery and Socking but I don't want to encourage anyone to open yet another discussion thread about Russavia.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you strike the "threatening to". If you're going to accuse someone of making threats, you ought to have a better diff than that to back it up. Not that I support what he's doing. Also his 'might be' suggests in fact he had NOT decided what you would have to say. Just trying to de-escalate things, and there's no need to respond. I appreciate the work that you did reviewing the Category:Photographs_by_News_Øresund files that Jcb deleted. --Elvey (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Results of review

As agreed in the section above, I have taken over the OTRS ticket and I have looked in some detail at the validity of the licensing. While I have not had the time (or frankly the inclination) to check every single one of the deleted files, I have looked at a wide enough cross-section to give me confidence in my conclusions.

Briefly, although there are some problems with a few of the files, the vast majority are correctly licensed for Commons.

In May of 2013 (before the WMF global lock) Russavia contacted the owner of the Flickr stream to point out a discrepancy between the CC-BY 2.0 licence applied to the images and an inconsistent note in the Flickr image description stating "Photo manipulation is not allowed". The owner of the Flickr stream replied that the CC-BY 2.0 was correct. An OTRS ticket was opened and on the basis of that statement the ticket was approved.

While more investigation at that time would definitely have been sensible, my review hasn't disclosed anything other than individuals acting with the best of intentions and in good faith.

Recently, an OTRS agent has checked that the domain from which the email was sent is correct for the News OEresund website. The domain is owned by OEi Service AB OEresund Media Platform, and the email signatory is the personal registrant of the domain. The relevant Flickr account lists the same website as being owned by them. The email signatory is listed on the website as being a senior executive with the company. That all seems fine, and provided that OEresund does in fact own the copyright we are perfectly able to accept a statement from them that the images have been released under a free licence.

Several editors have suggested that a release can be accepted only if it comes personally from the photographer. That is not correct. The release has to come from the copyright owner, or from an authorised representative of the owner where that is a company. Where we receive a purported release from somebody other than the original photographer, however, the OTRS agent has to consider very carefully whether the claim of copyright ownership is legally and factually plausible. Where it is not plausible, or whether there is any significant doubt, the agent may have to investigate further, and that might include contacting the photographer to ask for confirmation that the photographer's original copyright has in fact been assigned as claimed.

In this case – though it does not appear to have been noted at the time – the senior executive and sender of the email was also the photographer who took the vast majority of the photographs in question. Though some of the images are credited to other photographers, the majority of those names are listed on the OEresund website as being the company's own reporters, and it seems entirely reasonable to accept that the company owns the copyright in those images as well. The company and the individuals involved are acting perfectly professionally and in good faith; indeed, they have since 2013 almost entirely eliminated from Flickr the problematic description "Photo manipulation is not allowed" (though a few have been missed), and they have moved their images onto a CC-BY 3.0 licence. (It may be noted that there is a discrepancy between the image descriptions, which refer to CC-BY 3.0, and the 'official' Flickr permissions which remains at CC-BY 2.0. That simply reflects a problem with the Flickr platform, which makes it impossible to select any CC-BY licence other than CC-BY 2.0).

There are indeed problems with a few of the images, including one (File:The Bridge season 2 Sofia Helin (8724852601).jpg) taken by the photographer Johan Bävman for the Swedish/Danish TV Series The Bridge. This seem to have been put up onto Flickr by accident, and was deleted from Commons last week following the posting of a request for speedy deletion in response to a complaint from the photographer to OTRS. Very unfortunately considering what followed, the wording of the speedy deletion request was "Marking as possible copyvio because Flickrwashed copyvio. Author is given in EXIF. Photographer has complained to OTRS about the photo". It is this statement that was relied upon by Jcb when he made the deletions.

Commons images which I have noted as being problematic include File:The Bridge season 2 Sofia Helin Photo Johan Bavman 20130411 01F (8725944768).jpg, File:The Bridge season 2 Sofia Helin 20130411 02F (8725957540).jpg, File:The Bridge season 2 Sofia Helin (cropped).jpg and File:The Bridge season 2 Kim Bodnia as Martin Sofia Helin as Saga Photo Carolina Romare 2012 (8724803961).jpg (copyright not owned by OEresund), as well as many such as File:Annehem_hotell_Hyllie_Nordic_Choice_Paulsson_Stordalen_3334F_(8243416609).jpg which still include in their EXIF data the incorrect "Photo manipulation is not allowed" statement.

I conclude that Jcb was mistaken in deciding to delete all of the images on the grounds that the whole Flickr stream was unsafe. I recommend:

  1. That all of the images should be restored, apart the four where we know that the copyright is not owned by OEresund.
  2. That, if not already done, the description pages of all the images should be checked by bot to make sure that the text "Photo manipulation is not allowed" is not present anywhere
  3. That someone with access to a suitable bot should remove that now-erroneous text from the EXIF data, where it still remains
  4. That if any other errors are found in specific restored files, they should be dealt with on an individual basis.

I have apologised to OEresund via OTRS email, in addition to a personal apology already made by Jcb, and have closed the ticket. As I'm just about to leave for a meeting, I will afraid not be able to restore the images myself today. If editors are prepared to wait I would be happy to do that tomorrow, or alternatively any admin could do it immediately. (Note to Russavia: my conclusions and recommendations here are not to be taken as permission to register another sockpuppet account and to start re-uploading the images yourself, as you attempted to do yesterday).

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, MichaelMaggs (talk · contribs), for your due diligence and this cogent and reasoned explanation of what has transpired. -- Cirt (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs, thanks a lot for your review. I have started restoring the files. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks MichaelMaggs and Jcb! Natuur12 (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I see multiple admins calling out lone-wolf and vendetta behavior. Both need to end. Non-impartial behavior is not appropriate from any admin, and based on past performance and the lack of an apology, may well recur. To that end, I offer this proposal, and oppose the one above:

  • We will handle the status of the deleted images with an OTRS agent (e.g. MichaelMaggs) deciding what can be salvaged, with the understanding that, as User:Steinsplitter noted, undeletion doesn't require that the photographer(s) be identified, with Jcb promising to implement any undeletions and restoring any associated damage.
  • Jcb promises that he will refrain from further administrative actions related to this user.
  • Jcb writes an apology to News Øresund for accusing them of fraud. He has their email. It's made public.

Jcb, is this acceptable to you?

Warning Also, I'd like to notify all admins - as long as we're discussing definitions and fraud - that while "fraud", is used to indicate the committing of a deliberate criminal act here in the US, as INC noted, "copyfraud" does NOT indicate an act in bad faith or the committing of a deliberate criminal act. So be careful not to assert that someone concerned that copyfraud may have taken place is making a criminal or bad-faith accusation.

--Elvey (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less what is taking place, see above. Jcb (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: The wording is different from Proposal 1 and Proposal 2. Would you agree to both, as currently proposed ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
We are currently executing the other proposal and I prefer to work from there rather doing lookalike processes at various places. Jcb (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: This proposal by Elvey includes the parameter: "Jcb promises that he will refrain from further administrative actions related to this user." -- Would you agree to that? -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: Also, it says to that your "apologies" email should be made public. Would you also agree to that? ★ Poké95 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: I see JcB has edited DIFF since these two questions. JcB can you please answer these 2 questions ? This proposal by Elvey includes the parameter: "Jcb promises that he will refrain from further administrative actions related to this user." -- Would you agree to that? Pokéfan95} asked: Also, it says to that your "apologies" email should be made public. Would you also agree to that? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest Jcb ignore this ridiculous proposal. There is no requirement to make the email public other than as some humiliation. As for the "refrain from further administrative actions related to this user" no absolutely not. Jcb should of course realise the potential for huge drama when dealing with their files and take more care in future, but interaction bans and administrative black holes are absolutely not the solution. We absolutely do not make certain users (and their uploads) immune from administrative action. Nice try. Interaction bans are at best a cop out, and at worst a devious attempt to evade further scrutiny. Those claiming we should concentrate on the files, not the users, should remember that works the other way around too. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Would like to hear from Elvey and Pokéfan95 on how they feel on being ignored without even being given a response of acknowledgement of their proposals from the user in question. -- Cirt (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It would help if both Elvey and Pokefan would motivate their comments. Why does the email need to be published, why is an adminactioban required? The two main problems where that Jcb jumped to conclusions to soon and that he possibly offended the content donor. Those issue's should be resolved if the first proposal is accepted but what problems would the second proposal solve? I failt see it. And I don't blame Jcb for not responding since you cannot reasonably expect peopleto do so under this circumstances. Natuur12 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It would help if both Elvey and Pokefan95 just cooled off, rather than inflaming things more. Please, if your "motivation" is bad faith and a desire to humiliate or to create a circle-of-protection round this globally banned user, then forget it. Not going to happen. He's still an admin so gets to do admin things. I suggest Jcb continues to ignore this much the same way we ignore trolls. Time to move along to other things. -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I actually don't support nor oppose any part of this proposal. I just pointed it out. I am not trying to heat up this discussion. But IMO, I recommend Jcb to respond by saying yes or no, even without any explanation, just to stop this. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
IMO Proposal 1 seems to be going well, and I see no reason why a response to Proposal 2 should be required. -Pete F (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You're confident Jcb will engage in no further vendetta behavior? Why?
I've already provided my motivation for the proposal: I saw multiple admins calling out lone-wolf and vendetta behavior. Both need to end. Understood? Non-impartial behavior is not appropriate from any admin. Understood? Based on past performance and the lack of an apology for the mass deletion, I saw little reason to be confident. Understood? What part of that is beyond comprehension? In any case, I think Jcb has responded to this propoal - and shown no willingness to abide by its provisions. Perhaps the hassle of doing the undeletes and reverts and the embarrassment are enough to prevent further vendetta behavior. Obviously, this proposal is not going to fly. --Elvey (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Hide button for editing change tags on history pages

Screenshot of a history page, showing a button for editing tags
Screenshot of Special:RecentChanges, filtered by a tag

A few years ago a system for tagging log entries and revisions of pages had been introduced. MediaWiki extensions like the Mobile applications first made use of it and it wasn't available to members of the community. All tags that are currently registered can be viewed on Special:Tags. Further reading on tags: mw:Manual:Tags, mw:Help:Tags

A few months ago, the feature became available to the community; scripts running client side can now apply tags without any installation required by our web host. Administrators can create new tags and users can apply them through API or through the user interface, or they are applied automatically by the software the users are making use of.

I found this feature utterly useful for tracking down upload issues with my upload library, that's why I created a tag (rillke-mw-js-bot) and let it automatically by said upload library.

With the creation of this "community tag", the community tagging feature had been activated and every history page is now showing a button for editing change tags.

It has turned out that some users get confused, others use it for sandboxing (log) and others just don't need it; all in all, no one has a real business to apply any tag manually or to remove it through the user interface. That's why I suggest to hide the Edit tags ... button for now. -- Rillke(q?) 21:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Support because

Oppose because

Other suggestions

Please create a new heading for yours. -- Rillke(q?) 21:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  • If there's really no valid use for users to do this, then perhaps the changetags right should be taken away from normal users, and given to Admins only. Bawolff (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk and Questions

  •  Question Should this be in the village pump, not here? --★ Poké95 10:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Since only administrators can create tags, and there are no tags that can be used by the community/ no non-admin requested creation of a tag, I think we can discuss it here. Perhaps post a link to the Village Pumps? -- Rillke(q?) 14:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filter request

I think it is time to create an abuse filter for such edits. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Also, Russavia will no longer use VFC, because his category is empty now. He even said that to me in IRC. Also, create an abuse filter just to block Russavia's edits will just waste conditions, and increase the saving time a little little bit bit. ★ Poké95 06:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
While I personally believe he still has more automated work to do, implementing an abuse filter would fall under WMF's responsibilities as it is their ban in place and as aforementioned, it would waste resources. A wiser option would be to modify who can/can't utilize VFC. Just my 2c, as always. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI: we are already running out of AF conditions, and for limiting who can use VFC, it's not going to happen without consensus. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hi everyone. Does anybody knows if we could use video tutorials regarding using Microsoft Office (e.g Excel) on Commons? Probably not? Wikimedia Serbia has a project proposition where author of those tutorials is willing to upload them on Commons and we're not sure if this is something we'll have problems with. --IvanaMadzarevic (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Vittrorna vid Vispsjön.JPG

Anybody interested in deleting or reuploading with your own username before I ask WMF Legal to delete it? -- Lavallen 19:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Remotely related question, should {{vote speedy}} populate a tracking category, or would the abuse far trump any use? –Be..anyone 💩 05:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Please check and fix it, if it requires more obfuscation. –Be..anyone 💩 08:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: RE:[13] My only problem is the uploader log. -- Lavallen 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Ecuador has a consulate in Hamburg, I know where to run… :-) –Be..anyone 💩 17:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
👍 Like -- Lavallen 17:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

please restore

Please restore and inform user to not blank user talkpage User talk:James5712--Motopark (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There isn't any general prohibition against users removing warnings from their talk page once they have been read and understood. If the user now understands that they mustn't upload non-free images, then we might hope to see good contributions in the future; though on the basis of edits so far that does seem rather unlikely. If the next file uploaded is also unfree, or if the promotional text is re-inserted, then a block is called for. I would keep an eye on things but don't think any action is needed immediately. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a GeoNotice for a local event in San Francisco

Hi all, we're launching a monthly series of WikiSalons in San Francisco. The event announcement is here: w:en:Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

Is there a Commons admin who would be willing to set up a Geonotice, so it would show up at the top of the watchlist for Commoners in the San Francisco bay area? Here's an example of what would need to be done: w:en:Special:Diff/715314854 Just making an identical edit to the counterpart page here on Wikisource would do the trick. Thanks for any help -- and hoping to see some Commons folks at the WikiSalon! -Pete F (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - please check if I didn't screw up. Natuur12 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, Natuur12! (Yes, from your edit summary...I should have provided a local link...sorry for neglecting that.) It looks good to me; the only way I know to check it is for me to look at my Watchlist, but I think it takes a few hours to start showing up. I will keep checking back and update you soon. -Pete F (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's not working for me, Natuur12. But I don't have any idea how to troubleshoot it. Thank you for trying, and I may try to find an enwp admin experienced with geonotices to take a look. -Pete F (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Natuur12, I see that you changed the colons to semicolons in this edit: Special:Diff/193397934 Perhaps that is the problem? Colons are used in the English Wikipedia sample, is there a reason why you changed it? (I think removing the comma at the end was correct.) -Pete F (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: when I added the code in our code editor (okay, it is a crime to call it that but meh) it gave an error. That's why. I reverted this change. Please let me know if it works now. Natuur12 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
To illustrate my point.... Natuur12 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, it is not showing up now, but I believe there is a several-hour lag even when it's working, so again, I'll report back. Perhaps Andrew Gray, who has done many of these on English Wikipedia, can offer insights? -Pete F (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you need the wrapper code - note that the enwiki one has: window.GeoNotice = {}; window.GeoNotice.notices = {
at the top, and a corresponding bit of code at the bottom, while the Commons one doesn't. The extra brackets will mean it interprets the colons correctly and not throw errors.
However, it probably won't display just with this alone. You'd also need to set up the other bits of the infrastructure - w:en:MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-core.js, plus whatever hooks point to that in order to get it displayed on the watchlist - but I don't immediately know what they are, sorry! I just use the system, I didn't build it... Andrew Gray (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Exactly! Those wrapper means to export the list to window.GeoNotice.notices, without it, the entire code is syntax errors. @Natuur12: To make this work we need to import the enwiki gadget geonotice here and set it as enabled for everyone. Technically I'm able to do it, but I'm not sure about the standard procedure for this. Do we need a vote or anything else? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not a fan of enabling redundant (and in general moor js tools) js tools by default for all users. Rillke has build the WatchlistNotice gadget for such purposes, which schould be used. Alternatively you can use m:Special:CentralNotice (Set commons only, set the county, set the language). I also deleted the gadget here, it won't work whiteout setting it as default gadget in the gadget definition. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively we can use our own WatchlistNotice system --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Added to WatchlistNotice, please check if I've screwed up --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a much better suggestion - well done. (One day I'd like to migrate the Commons watchlist-notice gadget to enwiki - it seems quite a bit superior. But that's a long way off...) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your diligence. I had thought Geonotice was a part of MediaWiki, I didn't realize what I was requesting would require local setup...or that there was an alternative here. Great to have this thorough breakdown of what's going on, though.

One issue: The text is too long, as it requires scrolling within a frame in the window. Could you shorten it, Zhuyifei1999? Here is what I'd suggest:

Join our first Bay Area WikiSalon in downtown San Francisco, Wednesday April 27! Guests will present on high school students' use of Wikipedia, transgender issues, and more. Details & registration: Bay Area WikiSalon

Thanks again, -Pete F (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Commons community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please move

Peter Cadogan to userpage gallery area--Motopark (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ DoneDeleted per authors request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi; Please help me not to go down the wrong road here! I wish to use the dying swan photo of Anna Pavlova which is supposedly in public domain. Fine... But Anna Pavlova presumably had legal heirs and I very much fear that these potential legatees ( if they indeed exist) could claim against someone using the photo of a person they have inherited from. Can you advise. Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.200.88.78 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 April 2016‎ (UTC)

If the picture is truly in the public domain, any heirs would have no claim to the copyright - the meaning of public domain is that the copyright has expired and nobody has any right to exercise that control over the image anymore. Also, Commons:Village pump/Copyright is probably the best place for questions like this. BMacZero (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Viktor Orbán in Tehran's University of Medical Sciences.jpg

Can someone delete just the first revision of this file? The bust/sculpture is very likely copyrighted. I didn't want to CSD this and risk having the whole thing deleted. INeverCry 01:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: You can just use the reason Delete the first revision, because it has a copyrighted work for revision CSDs. In that way, it would say to the deleting admin to delete the first revision only, not the whole. ★ Poké95 00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Please delete the last seventeen images I uploaded [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. I have not noticed that they lack information on their license, I ask the deletion of the 17 images. Thank you. Ks [在这里找到答案] 18:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

It is a simple mistake with PD template, it is easy to fix, no need to delete nothing Ezarateesteban 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User pages moved to user pages of non-registered accounts

Can an admin please move (over redirect) User:Alifatehi to User:AliFatehi? User moved their user page and didn't capitalize the F. User account "Alifatehi" is not registered. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

GinoKolle moved page User talk:GinoKolle to User talk:GiKoNo; "User account "GiKoNo" is not registered." These users are likely attempting to rename themselves, either that or I'm missing something. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Juanjomugica moved page User:Juanjomugica to User:Juanjo Mugica; "User account "Juanjo Mugica" is not registered." Riley Huntley (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done I moved back two mentioned page, but deleted one entirely, because did not fall into project scope. The user had no other contributions. Taivo (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Meta regarding Reguyla

Hey,

Just to let you know that there is a new RfC regarding Reguyla on Meta. Please see this page.

--TJH2018 talk 22:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Closed as invalid request. --Vogone (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request

please delete this: File:Blood_Orange_Picture.jpg i didn't mean to upload it. i keep asking for it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babpacih (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 April 2016‎ (UTC)

✓ Done Please read COM:MELLOW. In future, a single deletion template is enough, and calling people jerks for not responding to your whims quickly enough is not the best way to request a favor. Storkk (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A few questions/issues

Hello, I was reading Paolo Coehlo's biography. There was a book listed called "Love Letters from A Prophet." I looked for this book but could not find it or any information about it. I would like to read it if it is available. Also, I tried to vote on photos, but got stuck in a loop. I saw the photos I wanted to vote for, but when I tried to vote, it took me back to the opening page. Is it me, or is there a technical problem? Finally, I was wondering if I could list myself as the author of a novel that is getting a lot of attention. Martin Sheen read it, as well as other well-known actors. Thank you for your prompt reply. Sherrie Miranda Sherrie Miranda's historically based, coming of age, Adventure novel “Secrets & Lies in El Salvador” is about an American girl in war-torn El Salvador. It is available on Amazon. Her husband made a video for her novel. He wrote the song too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P11Ch5chkAc — Preceding unsigned comment added by SherrieMiranda (talk • contribs)

This category

There are many images in the category above which are from US federal government departments and are PD. Perhaps someone has time to mark some images? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Blatant copy vio

File:GeorgeMichaelKissingAFool.png. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File has been deleted in the meantime by a colleague. In future cases, you may tag blatant copyvios with {{Copyvio}}, this is a nomination for immediate deletion. Jcb (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted images (pictures)

Last days, Wikipedia deleted some pictures that I had uploaded. All of them are images about Musical Rock bands from Spain. I had uploaded these images with my best intention. All of them come from a Spanish Web (a data base about Spanish Rock and Pop bands and the history of Spanish Rock) named "La Fonoteca". As you can see in its wiki page, La Fonoteca works under Creative Commons license. In fact, you can't download images about disc covers et alia (they have copyright, of course); but you can download the images of the bands that the web page includes.

Ergo I thought these pictures are under Creative Commons too. So I uploaded in Wikipedia Commons under Creative Commons license (and I wrote the original site where I found them: La Fonoteca). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Strange (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 April 2016‎ (UTC)

I assume the site in question is http://lafonoteca.net.
Firstly, It's unlikely that the site has the right to publish or sublicense the photos on their site, which appear to have been created by third parties. The files you uploaded included File:Alaskaypegamoides.jpg which is an album cover.
Secondly, there is no such license as "Creative Commons license". There are many different Creative Commons licenses. Some are free (and therefore acceptable on Commons), others are not free (and therefore not acceptable on Commons). Even assuming for the sake of argument that the site had the right to issue licenses for those photos, the license mentioned in the footer on that site is a non-free Creative Commons license, because it prohibits commercial use. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok. But Wikipedia isn't a commercial site, isn't it?
If the photos are in La Fonoteca (which includes some commercial purposes, in fact) without trouble under that Creative Commons License... Why they can't put on in Wiki (a site with no-commercial purposes)?
Anyway, I accept the sentence. Greetings from Spain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Strange (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 April 2016‎ (UTC)
See Commons:Licensing/Justifications for an explanation of why we only accept content that can be used commercially. Storkk (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
...and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle for the "but some other site is using it, so it must be free" fallacy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, websites which as for donations (such as Wikipedia) probably count as 'commercial'. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting my userpage

Hello, could you please remove my user page ? My meta's userpage will be displayed instead. Thanks Archi38 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Archi38 (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Naming scheme for roads, streets and squares

Hello, yesterday I moved the category Avenida da França, Salvador to Avenida da França (Salvador) in order to keep it consistent with the scheme I found already existent; nonetheless Luan asked me where such scheme was stated and I found that whereas there's a scheme for people and places (i.e. York, England and York, Maine with the comma disambiguating the country subdivision) there's not a scheme for urban places like hamlets, buildings, or streets (which disambiguation criterium should be by logic their city in brackets i.e. Stadio Olimpico (Rome) and so on). The problem is that I haven't found any discussion about such kind of disambiguation and found also out that a lot of streets are named Street, city and other Street (city). Now I wish to come to a consistent naming scheme but I just don't know where to start such discussion. Can anyone tell where such issue must be raised? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

While there's no need for us to follow it, the en:WP guideline for disambiguation suggests that commas should be used for place names and brackets for classes, i.e. commas mean "is at" and brackets mean "is a". That's certainly the convention I've been following while curating images of Scotland for the last three years. For places I usually disambiguate to the level above the current category, e.g. counties for towns. This addresses most name clashes I've found. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with all of this, possibly except when one level above is relatively unknown, in which two or three levels up might be better (it also depends on how you count levels, obviously, it's not always clear cut at all Motivating example that is no longer relevant but illustrates the general point: Craigavon_Borough_Council vs Upper_Bann_(UK_Parliament_constituency)). Storkk (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu, ok, but we're on Commons, not on Wikipedia. I mean, for one, we don't use to categorize by nationality but by country (es. en -> American footballers ; commons -> Association football players from the United States) and have generally different ways of categorizing. I mean, I know that English Wikipedia operates that way but Commons is a multilingual project that by chance uses English as a common language and for this reason would be opportune that we Commoners state a set of guidelines without having each time to watch other projects and operate by analogy. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to log on Commons despite being logged on Wikipedia

My account is unified of course. I allow wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org cookies (first level domain). No problems with Wikipedia, but each time I have to log onto Commons. I set the option to keep me logged in.

The next time I visit Commons I'm not logged in (though I've just come from Wikipedia, logged in). So I have to log in manually.

Thus far I've noticed it on Commons. I haven't checked in other wikimedia.org subdomains, nor have I tried to log out of Commons to see if it logs out of Wikipedia. --Hexafluoride (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this a new thing? Perhaps related to yesterday's read-only period? (I encounter this kind of thing occasionally, but not too often.) -Pete F (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It's new, but not as new as yesterday. Perhaps just this week. It's the first time I've noticed it happen. --Hexafluoride (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hexafluoride: As far i can see it has nothing to do with the read-only period. You have problems with de.wp, fr.wp as well? Depending on the browser, you have to whitelist subdomains as well. If you use privacy tools, please check the tools settings. Please tell us the browser which you use. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
For what is worth, it happens to me too, sometimes. In that case I go to my home wiki, log off, clean browser's cache and log back in. And almost always in this case I am logged on all the projects. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I am logged into any Wikipedia (Fr, De, Ar, etc). But nothing outside of it (for example Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Commons). I have privacy tools, but I've set everything from wikipedia.org & wikimedia.org to allow and keep cookies stored. This works without problems for Wikipedia. When I open my browser I'm logged in. I use Firefox, and I've tried clearing everything and even restarting the browser, it doesn't work. --Hexafluoride (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User rights

Please remove my license reviewer right. As it turns out, I have barely used it. I do not wish to be a hat collector.

While you're at it, please also delete my user page. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Larraizi

Larraizi has previously uploaded many pictures that do not have the correct source. I have gone through and tried to find the source for all of these, and while it is annoying, it isn't the reason for this complaint.

On one of the images that does not have a source, File:124 Gure Bizitza Elkartea hitzaldia - Gure Bizitza Elkartea conferencia.jpg, Larraizi attempted to make it look like User:FlickreviewR reviewed the file. Not only is this not the right way to review files, but Larraizi isn't even a license review and FlickreviewR is also blocked. I have posted a warning on the user's talk page, but I am not sure if there is anything else that should be done. Elisfkc (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think your warning was good. It may be that they don't understand that it looks like they were impersonating FlickreviewR. Storkk (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: ok, thanks. Elisfkc (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I gave them a last warning. ★ Poké95 01:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Mass message Borse Alessio Guidetti 2016

Hello, On behalf of the Wikimedia Italy committee for the travel grant "Alessio Guidetti" I am sending a mass message on different it-N platforms and also to it-N users on "meta" level platforms. I've asked here for some help hoping to proceed directly from the meta level but I got no answer so I have started to ask locally.

I have prepared the target lists in m:User:Alexmar983/MassMessageList, where you can check the quarry sources too. In that meta page you can find the list for commons and the message. We've tested the second list on wikidata, it should be ok. I am online for the next 60 minutes if there are issues. Thanks in advance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

anyone?--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I have prepared a local list User:Alexmar983/MassMessageList/commons. From wikidata, I know the message can remain on meta, but the list has to be local.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
ok I do i manually tomorrow if noone is available. Ping me if otherwise. Bye.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done No objections. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
great, thanks. --Alexmar983 (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ?

The files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Raj.sukane seem to me gay contact advertisements with phone number. Is this reason for immediate deletion and if so, can an admin delete them? --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I closed the request and deleted all his uploads speedily. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Deceased user

User:Dravecky, much more active at en:wp than here, has recently died ([31], [32]). Do we have a procedure for dealing with deceased users? I'm unaware of anything here that's comparable to en:Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

blanked his userpage and put a warning in the talk page that he died on 23 April. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Our handling of deceased users is horrible compared to Wikipedia. Why do we wish to blank the userpage of someone who should be remembered? Why would we protect the user talk page of a deceased user when it is common to leave condolences? Why should a deceased user be blocked, has the account been compromised? Clearly we need a guideline on this, our actions do not do justice. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think this topic should be linked at the village pump.IMHO some meta policy would be even better, I understand platforms need independence, but that's just a source of confusion, if we had some default meta guideline on this issue would be better--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we should never full-protect user talk pages (except temporarily because of excessive vandalism etc). Not of a deceased user, not of an indefblocked/banned, never ever. Otherwise, performing a deletion request (if necessary) may be interfered. I'm going to change the protection level to autoconfirmed-only. Thanks --A.Savin 13:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the block be soft (autoblock disabled only), not hard (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled)? ★ Poké95 02:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Blackcat, Riley Huntley, Alexmar983, A.Savin — you all ought to check my COM:VP proposal; the section is "Dealing with accounts of dead users". Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/User categories

There has been no further comment in three weeks on Commons:Requests for comment/User categories, can an uninvolved admin or experienced user close? Cheers. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should close that RFC now. None of the proposals/options have consensus. Maybe give it one more month? ★ Poké95 08:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
While I agree there is no consensus, it should be closed for the same reasons a RfA with no consensus will be closed. As said, there has been no comment in three weeks and even if it remains open, consensus does not look like it's going to be determined. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

License review needed

Can an admin review File:81-717.5A-714.5A on Koltsevaya line, Moscow Metro.webm? I would pass it myself, but the cascading protection prevents me from doing so. INeverCry 18:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can an admin delete TimedText:Michael_Johnson_-_Desert_Island_Discs_-_16_Oct_2011_-_b015ygxd.flac.en.srt? Both revisions (the IP creation and the IP edit today) are vandalism. Not sure if the speedy tag shows up with these. INeverCry 19:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Storkk (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Thanks. Can you or another admin delete TimedText:Upupa_epops.ogg.ru.srt too? BTW, do these show up in the other speedy deletions cat? I remember deleting a few of these when I was an admin, but that was in the course of patrolling for vandalism, so I didn't have to tag them. INeverCry 19:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done - if you tag them with {{Speedy}}, they will show up in Category:Other_speedy_deletions, although the template will not be visible at the description page. (I just tested it with this very file.) Jcb (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

error in annotations on painting of constitutional convention

In the painting located here of a scene of the constitutional convention, the figure of Alexander Hamilton is incorrectly labeled as Thomas Jefferson. please fix. Thank you.

✓ Done INeverCry 01:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for rights#QEDK

Commons:Requests for rights#QEDK has been open more than a week, can an admin process it? Thanks. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:An Oberoi Hotel employee doing Namaste, New Delhi.jpg

Can an uninvolved admin speedy close that DR as kept please? It was nominated again for deletion without new evidence, and there is even legal threats there. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Non-admin speedy closure, no new evidence has been brought forward in the renomination and legal threats certainly aren't the way to go about it. I have brought this to the attention of legal@wikimedia in case we are missing something. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:14 05 2015 Gomphus vulgatissimus - Common Clubtail - Gemeine Keiljungfer 05.jpg

Hi, I renamed five photos of a dragonfly, to which I initially had assigned the wrong subspecies (Gomphus pulchellus instead of Gomphus vulgatissimus). One of them is a featured image and the link to the featured image section in the file description is now broken. I don't know how to fix that. The new file name is: 14 05 2015 Gomphus vulgatissimus - Common Clubtail - Gemeine Keiljungfer 05.jpg -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done In general, when a template breaks, you can refer to its documentation by going to Template:Assessments (or whichever template has broken). In this case, we needed to pass the "com-nom" parameter to specify that the nomination was under a different name. Thanks for your great photo and for finding out its correct taxonomic name! Storkk (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep needed

Can an admin close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Showreel chocolate & caramel by Will van der Vlugt.webm as speedy keep? The nominator isn't familiar with Vimeo's license display. The file was uploaded by Czar, an image reviewer, and I've passed the review. The DR is just a simple misunderstanding. INeverCry 06:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

mistakes in translated text (cz)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Pou%C5%BE%C3%ADv%C3%A1n%C3%AD_obsahu_mimo_projekty_Wikimedia#

článek 2 Jak dodržet licence 3. odstavec 2. věta " Ani Wikimedia Foundation, ani tvůrci obsahu na stránkách Wikipedie poskytovat právní rady." - větě chybí sloveso

2.1 Public domain 3. odstavec 3.(poslední) "Pokud označíte obrázek jeho původem (odkud jej máte a jaký je jeho původ) a jménem tvůrce, může nám to pomociv případě pozdějšího sporu s vydavatelem." chybějící mezera pomociv -> pomoci v

✓ Done Díky! (corrected, no admin action needed) --Michal Bělka (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Authorship information for

Hello, could someone email me (or info-cs@wikimedia.org) the original description for - at least the content of Author, Source and Permission fields as well as the uploader's username? I'm dealing with an OTRS ticket regarding this image and it looks a bit tricky so I'd need to check the original description. Thank you. --Michal Bělka (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Achim (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mass message to participants of Wiki Loves Earth in Germany 2014 and 2015

Could an admin please send a message to the discussion pages of all participants of WLE Germany in the last two years? Text is at User:Blech/WLE2016Rundschreiben, a consolidated list of user names (no duplicates) under User:Blech/WLENamen14und15. I tried to prepare as much as possible. --Blech (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Rillke(q?) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Super, vielen Dank. --Blech (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for expedited DR closures

Hi. The user Wikicology is currently under investigation at EnWiki for, among other things, persistent copyright violations. His extant Commons uploads are being examined at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Wikicology. However some were independently nominated. They are represented in the DRs listed above, all of which are now closable. Could an admin please close these DRs to help the cleanup and unify the investigation? Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Sincere thanks. BethNaught (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

94.213.209.197's edits

Someone probably wants to look at Special:Contributions/94.213.209.197. Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: What is the problem with this user? ★ Poké95 03:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Claims like this are probably something that should be looked into. Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I mass reverted them. Wikia cannot claim those images that are already in the public domain. ★ Poké95 04:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Laberkiste

User:Laberkiste has nominated several thousands contributions of User:PHOTOMAN as 'no permission'. I am about to revert those nominations within a few days if nobody comes up with a good reason to doubt the 'own work' claims. As far as I have seen, I only came accross two different cameras: one for all the 2012 pictures and one for all the 2015 pictures. But before doing such a massive revert, I would like to be sure that I don't overlook something. Any ideas? Jcb (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why I should doubt that PHOTOMAN is the photographer of all those images. They have EXIF data. ★ Poké95 10:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The examples I've checked are just fine. Good anecdotes don't prove that the whole batch is good, but good anecdotes prove that the whole batch isn't bad. Time to revert, and Laberkiste needs to create DRs for individual images (or small groups of images) unless he can give some solid proof that PHOTOMAN's been committing a massive number of copyright infringements, so massive that we need to be careful and delete all of them. Unless that happens, there's no way we should be mass-deleting them. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm still a bit skeptical, the user in question could have downloaded these from a shared fileserver or the SD card of someone, for so many photos I would at least require one written statement or something, imo. --Laber□T 16:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
So you have not a single indication that these files are not own work of the uploader? Just because you are 'a bit skeptical' without any ground, does not justify to tag those files with 'no permission'. If I see you doing this again, I may block you. Jcb (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I mass reverted (with +b) Laberkiste's edits. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, it really seems the admins and other regular users of this project want copyright infringement to occur... --Laber□T 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
So tell us please, what indication do you have that these files would not be own work from the uploader? Jcb (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Now my alerts are full with "99+" revert notifications, how can I clear that? --Laber□T 23:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

By scrolling through them. That will probably not cost half of the time Steinsplitter needed to spend to clear this mess up. Jcb (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't do that, because they stop to load at some point. --Laber□T 19:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Laberkiste: Alright, let's get technical! We have two options... 1) You go to Special:Notifications and do it manually (they should load there) or 2) using my three step program, you become an API wizard. To automatically mark all your notifications as read, I need you to go to here. a) Once you have opened the link, click on "action=echomarkread" in the left column, it will reveal a new section. b) Scroll down to the bottom of the section, specifically to the "token" field, it is empty. c) Click on the sideways arrow in the token field, and then scroll up to the top and press the blue "Make request button". Bingo, your notifications are all marked as read. Riley Huntley (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I't didn't load at Special:Notifications either, that was the problem. However, the API solution worked. Thank you very much for this. --Laber□T 08:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Brussels-Capital Region blank.svg

I converted a corrective file to SVG to uplaod, after the upload the file was clearly inadequate please remove the current version uploaded today . In the discussion page is a link to the JPG file i uplaoded that needs to replace the current file which contains an error -- DerekvG (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@DerekvG: You can use the revert link (below the current) to restore the old file. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Permissions

Hi,

Since User:Reguyla has been globally locked, I think it makes sense to remove the permissions associated with his account. I don't see him using them in the near future...TJH2018talk 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. TJH2018talk 21:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Automated deletion of maintenance categories

Hi :-), Mostly every day maintenance categories such as Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories in grid NJ1169 are automatically nominated for speedy deletion (the template check if the the category is empty, if empty the category will be nominated). Then a admin has to delete the file by hand. We could delete such categories automatically using a automated script. I could do that with my sysop account (using a script, logging in with a restricted (delete only) oauth token). Concerns? Toughs? Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I support the idea. We do have an admin backlog, and cannot afford to waste manual time for uncontroversial technical deletions that can safely be automated. --Krd 17:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Good plan. Natuur12 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 Support of automation of maintenance as long as 100% uncontroversial (which is clearly the case here) - Jcb (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, will code a script :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, btw, they've been hidden for a long time (I think) and showed up right now in bulk because I did a touch run pointing there. --Achim (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Achim55: I am pulling it from the database (real time), touch is not needed therefore. I also remember one/two years ago that there are nearly daily cats in. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please delete

DANISH HUSSAI user removes my speedy tag.--Motopark (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OH-That's why

Sidebar 'Links menu' I'm seeing:

Navigate
Main page/ Welcome/ Community portal/ Village pump/ Help center

Participate

Upload file/ Recent changes/ Latest files/ Random file/ Contact us


Print/export

Create a book←← !!!
Download as PDF
Printable version

Tools
What links here
Related changes... Special pages Permanent link * etcetera

Just stumbled over a page creation link (On a category page: See tools > Create Book or similar language in the sidebar menu) that has obviously been used to repeatedly create a page—which, in turn, has been repeatedly deleted by admins!

~8(( ... Ooops!

  1. Where I was looking: Category: Paintings by Karl Bodmer
  2. Link action generated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Book&bookcmd=book_creator&referer=Category%3APaintings+by+Karl+Bodmer
  3. And the problem is that the script initializing the creation of a new page then auto-creates a link message linking to the Help Namespace page... 'Help:Books' (Redlink Create page!) this page, which has repeatedly been deleted!

So I'd say 'someone' here is out of synch with Meta or the Wikimedia (feature programability) keywords, and consequently either:

  1. the script including that hard coded help link needs tweaked,
  2. or someone should detail how to create a page using the tool
  3. or the Create Book option should be removed from the menu sidebar!

Best regards! // FrankB 15:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a good page about this over at en:wp, so I've just created the page as a soft redirect to en:Help:Books. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for rights#Checkingfax

Commons:Requests for rights#Checkingfax has been open since 24 April 2016 meanwhile all other requests (more recent) have been processed. Can an admin process this? Cheers. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Move

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T134460

Hello.Please move File:Mitchell's lorikeet (Trichoglossus forsteni mitchellii) at Birdworld.jpg/Series to Template:Otherversions/Mitchell's lorikeet (Trichoglossus forsteni mitchellii) .Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought I can move that "file" to the template namespace (since I am a filemover), however, I cannot. It seems that we really need an administrator for this. ★ Poké95 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 Not done Technically impossible regardless of user permissions; error: nonfilenamespace (Can't move a file to a non-file namespace). As the history was non-essential, I have hand-moved the page to Template:Other versions/Mitchell's lorikeet (Trichoglossus forsteni mitchellii). I've gone ahead and nominated the original file for speedy deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we can raise this technical issue to Phabricator? ★ Poké95 01:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Task created, phabricator:T134460. ~riley (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Backlog!!

Greetings all Admins: Please take a minute or two to go through the regular Deletion Nominations and close any which you feel you can close! We are still running far behind, although not quite as far behind as this time last month. May the Fourth be with you and let's clear out April, ok? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Lol, it is May the Fifth now. ★ Poké95 05:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, then Ellin is an American. It was the fourth in her home, when she wrote that. Taivo (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Then, May the Fourth be with you, American admins! ★ Poké95 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Shreyas R Shreyas

Shreyas R Shreyas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded a lot of copyvios today, can someone please delete them all? I've tagged a couple but there's no point in finding sources for all of them, they are all building images from newspapers and websites. —SpacemanSpiff 09:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

personal information in a talk

In this diff a nice user left her email contact. On itwiki this type of information is usually hidden. I cannot find the related guidelines her on commons. We also have a template d:Q11156071 for this type of cleaning request, that I don't find here. I have asked a long-term user and he told me to ask here.

Can someone please hide the content of that diff? I don't like that email are shown so openly, I care about privacy and spam. If it possible of course... Also, I can read any related guideline you want to suggest me . Thank you in advance!--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If the user wants us to hide their e-Mail, we'll hide it. If it would be spam, we would hide it, too. There is no policy I can remember of that would otherwise warrant to hide a revision. People frequently exchange e-Mail addresses on their talk page here, some of them opted for adding it to their user pages. As an image rights holder it's always good if you provide a way to interested parties to quickly get in touch. -- Rillke(q?) 12:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I told her I've removed it, she haven't said anything. If there is no policy, fine with me, I just leave it in the history. I always though that itwiki policy was too rigid BTW.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Could somebody please remove the link to w:Kara River from the caption of today's PotD (possibly also in other languages where it may have been copied)? Kara-Koba in Kazakhstan is a very different river from Kara in the Polar Ural region of Russia. Indeed, they're thousand of kilometres away from each other. Thanks! — Luchesar • T/C 13:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks for noticing! Storkk (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Neymar1384

Bonjour. J’ai déjà signalé le problème sur le bistro. L’utilisateur Neymar1384 upload sur Commons des copies de fichiers sur Commons avec une balise Téléchargement inter-wiki (en changeant les cartes au niveau du Sahara occidental), mais il n'indique pas l'origine des fichier, il indique seulement Travail personnel sans respect des licences et droits d'auteurs : fichier original, copie) et remplace sur Wikipédia les fichiers d’origines par les siens (voir). Cela concerne a peu près tous ces imports (autres exemple: original, copie. Ces imports comptent aussi d'autres problèmes : problème de nomenclature et de titre, descriptifs en français problématiques, etc. J'ai demandé la suppression des 10 derniers fichiers pour copie et non respect des licences (ex: 1, 2), mais il y en trop et je ne maitrise pas ce genre de question sur Commons. Je préfère laisser les administrateurs décider quelle est l'action à entreprendre. Cordialement. --Julien1978 (d.) 07:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human baby.JPG

Hello, I would be happy to have the opinion of my colleagues. I was asked on my talk page to take a look at a first nomination for deletion of this image, I've decided to speedy kept it. My first question is : was I was right? if no then in all case the image is again nominated for deletion. If yes maybe a semi-protection of the image is needed.
The allusion from the nominator about my job is also not welcome "legal terms which cannot be interpreted by, say, truck drivers". Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

 Comment In my opinion, you're right. I don't think that DR makes sense. ★ Poké95 05:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems like throwing common deletion arguments at the wall with no reason in the hope that some stick, honestly. The "child porn" claim especially is laughable. Giving the speedy close a non-admin endorsement.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:1900 births and Category:1901 births

Hi :-)
Can anyone change last revisions? I think that the whole activity of User:Abbafan2 is harmful. Thanks in advance, Wieralee (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you handled it yourself, as for the user, they've been globally locked. ~riley (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

WMF threats to block accounts working with banned users

Flagging a relevant discussion with the WMF for anyone interested. The past threat to block administrators undeleting files, has now morphed into banning any user who a WMF employee judges has not been "innocently" working with a banned user. As these sorts of vague threats lack policy or process, the opportunity of appeal or the any right to examine evidence, they make it significantly risky for any long term committed Commons volunteer to work collegiately with anonymous IP users, or new accounts that might later turn out to be sock accounts.

See m:User_talk:WMFOffice#Working_with_banned_users. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Undelete at an unknown date

Hello.Is it possible to act in these pages or this category useless?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: It's useful, and you can help! For example, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bellegarde_sur_Valserine_Monument1_Maquis_Ain_Haut_Jura.JPG is a photo of a sculpture by Gironos Mileck. I was unable to find out any details about the sculptor, but if you can find out when they died, the deletion request can be tagged accordingly to be undeleted after the statue becomes PD. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Enquiry

Hello.Is this video (source) is stolen?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Deleted Stolen, copyright violation. ~riley (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@~riley: What is the evidence of this?! --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
COM:PRP. ★ Poké95 09:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: - Your approach to this is quite inappropriate, and wasting the time of myself and my fellow colleagues. The reasoning behind this has already been explained by two experienced editors at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fat girl and thin girl.PNG, you were clearly unsatisifed with their answers so you came here, to the Administrator's noticeboard. As a license reviewer, I have failed the license review and deleted the file as a copyright violation after inquiring into the copyright status of the video per your above request. Three editors are now in agreement that the file is likely a copyright violation. ~riley (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

suspect picture

File:Hallett Power Station.jpg purports to have been uploaded by user:Ypham94 as his/her own work. The extended metadata contains "JPEG file comment File source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tallawarra_Power_Station.JPG" - which leads to File:Tallawarra Power Station.JPG that appears to be higher resolution of the same image, purporting to be a different power station by a different photographer. I am not experienced enough at Commons to know how to deal with this properly. --Scott (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I have deleted the file. Generally with duplicates we redirect to the original image after deletion, however, it seems inappropriate with the misidentified title. For normal duplicates, you can tag with {{Duplicate}}. I have warned the uploader for uploading scaled down images. ~riley (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @~riley: . I removed the suspect image from the Wikipedia article I first found it on at the same time I posted this request. --Scott (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Image

Hi, Could an admin delete this image as it was being used on the Bakary Sako article (on EN) and although I've reverted the edits there I have a feeling he'll come back at somepoint, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Storkk (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant thanks Storkk :) –Davey2010Talk 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

City of Youngstown Ohio seal graphic inaccurate - please delete

Please note that the below link on Wikimedia has a seal of the City of Youngstown, Ohio, USA which is inaccurate and has Youngstown misspelled (missing the "w"):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_City_of_Youngstown_(Ohio).svg

Could you please delete that graphic?

I can email you the correct version or have our I.T. do so, or please visit the City's website at www.youngstownohio.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.62.197.132 (talk) 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jennifer Ozenghar 1st Assistant Clerk of Council Jozenghar@youngstownohio.gov

Greetings Jennifer! You or the staff I.T. person can upload a new version with the correct spelling right on top of the old one. Get an account, but please don't use an official name (ex: don't say "CityOfYoungstown"). Go to the Seal page, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_City_of_Youngstown_(Ohio).svg and below "File History" it says "upload a new version of the file". Just follow those instructions and upload a new SVG format image. Then all the links used all over the various projects will autoupdate. If we deleted the old one, all those links would break. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need assistance. I have left this same message for you both where you wrote https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard and via email. Please feel free to correspond in whatever manner suits you best. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_57&oldid=264578415"