Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 61

File:Ramsgate, Kent postcard-24754444501.jpg

Would anyone be willing to pass this image if it dates to 1920 as the flickr author suggests...or can this claim be verified? If it dates to 1920, then it is PD clearly. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was published anonymously in 1925, it is still in public domain, because it was PD on source country on URAA date. But do we need evidence for anonymous publishing? License, of course, is not PD-author, but {{Anonymous-EU}}. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• {{Anonymous-EU}} seems to be the best solution but there would need to be evidence here unfortunately. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Seems like nobody wants to pass the image. I created a regular DR. Taivo (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Grandfathered old files

On one side we have an official guideline, Commons:Grandfathered old files, telling that files upload prior to 15 March 2006 can be 'grandfathered' and on the other site we have two admins who find that this guideline applies to this 31 March 2006 upload. Simple mathematics tells that one of the two must be incorrect. The date at the guideline page is incorrect and the two colleagues may be correct, or the date at the guideline page is correct and the two colleagues are incorrect. Either way, we have to draw one line. The date before which a file can be grandfathered must not depend on which admin closes the DR. Jcb (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That guideline(!) does not tell us that files after that date can not be grandfathered. March 15th was the date that OTRS became available. From what I remember back of that time (it's been a while), OTRS was something that only slowly came to the awareness of most users, especially those that were more active on other projects than Commons. I know that I had heard of it at some point, but it was only sometime after it was pioneered that I really looked into what it really was. There was also a sense at the beginning, that OTRS is "optional" or would only become required in the future. It is a good thing that it is required now and we have a good process in place. On the other hand, if you look at the file that started the discussion, there is no reasonable doubt that that file has proper permission. The uploading user was using best practices that had only been superseded recently (15 days prior!). He probably was not even aware of the existence of OTRS at that point. It would be unrealistic to say expect everybody to switch over the moment that OTRS became available. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The starting point is the policy that we delete files if there is no evidence of permission. This guideline is an exception to that policy. The guideline mentions a date. If we come to the consensus that 15 March 2006 is too early, then we have to change the guideline accordingly, rather than ignoring the currently mentioned date. Jcb (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The date March 15th is only given as a reference in the guideline proper. I do not think we need a hard and fast cutoff date. Admin discretion should suffice for the few cases this applies to. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, this would be arbitrariness rather than admin discretion. Also the guideline gives no indication that the current date is just a random example of a date somewhere in the past. Jcb (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2006-03-15 date was when the permissions email was first mentioned on Commons, on the help page. The OTRS page COM:OTRS was not created until 2006-09-11 diff, which then explained what templates to apply and advised volunteers on how the system worked. It would be unfair to start hunting out files for deletion that could be considered 'grandfathered' before proper instructions for volunteers was first available, and I suggest the guideline to grandfathering is amended to apply the later date (2006-09-11).

As a more general point, having a debate about this on AN is not the best location and in truth puts off others from contributing as nobody wants to play piggy in the middle. There is no admin action being requested here, instead the discussion could have been conducted in a collegiate way, rather than an adversarial way, on the guideline talk page, perhaps with a Village Pump notice to attract wider attention. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jcb that "admin discretion" around the boundary would amount to arbitrariness... however, I also think that Fæ's point is excellent. I think we should push the boundary to files uploaded after September 2006. Files uploaded before then should still have a clear assertion quotation (added before the cutoff date) that the copyright holder has explicitly consented to a specific free license. I mention this only because there have been a few assertions in DRs I have created or closed that any file uploaded pre-cutoff is "grandfathered". Storkk (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A slightly technical correction, before 2006-01-08, the guideline says "it was only required that the file was properly licensed and attributed, with no specific statement of permission being required on the image page". So the requirements on files as early as this are very weak and deletion should be exceptional, in the light that we are talking about a relatively tiny number of files this old (checking the database, I make it 253,740 files with a timestamp before that date, though this is not a complete count as some will have later overwrites with crops etc.). --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The number of involved files is even probably much smaller, because this is no issue at all for e.g. own work picture, simple text logos/diagrams, simple flags, etc. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have started a discussion (with a vote section) at the guideline talk page: Commons_talk:Grandfathered_old_files#Change_of_cut-off_date - Jcb (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

PIB-India

It seems the conclusion of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/11#A_new_copyright_tag_for_files_from_the_official_websites_of_the_Indian_Army_and_the_Indian_Air_Force is such permission are acceptable. Then please update Template:Attribution-PIB-India too inline with Template:Attribution-IAF. Most gov.in sites have similar permissions. Jee 03:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

rewrite MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-cc-subhead

Hey guys, I'm dealing with a educational programme and students report me this (my highlight):

If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.

In the Dereckson's text we have a ambiguous and not right understanding. The highlighted part is not necessary, or should be use as a conditional, not as a alternative. "If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, and you are not the copyright holder of the work", because as it's now, even when the source is under a free license, the text lead the contributor to follow the steps of OTRS re-licensing.

However stills bad:"If the work is already published online, but not under that license online" I didn't get.

I don't have a away better sentence, however this seems to be ok:

If the work is already published under a different license than the one chosen here and you are not the copyright owner, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS [...]

So, could pleas improve the sentence there?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 14:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Per [3], let's notify El Grafo. --Dereckson (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree to the shift between "or" and "and" given here. The first use with OR, means "if you are not this OR that..." whereas the second use means "if you are not this AND that". The two do not mean the same thing in English. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The sentence quoted by RTA is OK. There are 2 cases where a permission is needed: 1. The work is already published online; 2. You aren't the copyright holder of the work. In either case, a permission is necessary. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh Lord...

Cases that we do not need OTRS:

• It's our own work (even when it's already published in another via, for example FB.);
• Media already published under a free license (even when it's not our work)

Now @Ellin Beltz and Yann: take a time to read the sentence again...

And Yann you are wrong, the correct cases would be:

• 1. The work is already published under a restrictive license and you are not the copyright holder;
• 2. Non published material and you are not the copyright holder.

And the "you are not the copyright holder" is already implicit, as this sentence appears after we click at "This file is not my own work."

Peace-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"If you aren't the copyright holder of the work" should simply be removed entirely. Any previously published work with no indication of license at the source needs to go through OTRS, even if the uploader is the copyright holder, unless it is well-established that the uploader is the same person as the user on the other website. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The sentence about not being the copyright holder needs to stay regardless of the prior button they pressed. It's super important that they understand it. What seems redundant to us, is "I don't understand, please clarify" to a newer user. Also if someone took a screenshot of it out of context, the point would be lost as the button click is on a prior screen before getting here. Please notice it's "non-published material" not "not published material" in English. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't appears to me, but Matma Rex already did it...

And the page name already point to where it's used: "upwiz-license-cc-subhead"

So again Ellin Beltz, it's not "or", it's "and", I can make mistakes in English, but I'm not stupid as you painted here: "The two do not mean the same thing in English. "

How about:

Not all Creative Commons licenses are free, consequently accepted at Commons. Make sure the copyright holder used one of the licenses below.

As you are not the copyright holder of the work, if it is unpublished material, or if it is a already published, but not under a free license, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 14:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this could be made clearer if we integrated this with UploadWizard, rather than override one of its messages. This text is currently shown under the heading "The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license", which is a little bit weird. Perhaps there should be another heading like "This work is published online without a free license", and selecting it would display the short OTRS instructions and automatically insert {{subst:OP}} in the right place? Or we could add another option under "I found it on the Internet — I'm not sure". Matma Rex (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I don't think nor ever said that I think you are stupid; however I do not think you have a native understanding of the English language since each one of your posts here has had an error of the sort not likely to be made by someone with an excellent grasp of the language. I think what you suggest as a replacement is longer and offers less clarity than what you wish to replace. I also don't think we should be rewriting these without guidance from WMF-Legal, and the participation of other active admins including Jameslwoodward, Jcb, INeverCry, HedwigInWashington, Storkk etc. Please relax and participate in a process without adding anger where none needs exist. It's a process not a personality issue. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on this one. I don't think I've used the upload wizard except for a small batch of files in 2013, and while I get that wording tweaks may have some effect on the ratio of good uploads to bad, I doubt the effect will be large enough to make a big deal over (because the vast majority of the problem doesn't seem to come from people who read the instructions and were confused, but rather from people who didn't read the instructions or just mashed buttons trying to get their file online). I could easily be wrong though. I will say that I don't really see the problem with the original wording, and contrary to what RTA said above, I do think OTRS is a good idea if the uploader has previously published it, since we don't know the uploader's username actually represents the author. Storkk (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Storkk -- that tweaking the language would have little effect. However, I think it might be better to reverse it -- to say that unless the file is (a) an unpublished work actually created by the uploader or (b) a file that appears on the Internet or in print with a license that is acceptable on Commons, whether or not it is the uploader's own work, then a free license using OTRS is required. I think it might also be helpful to somehow point out in bold print that photographing or scanning a created work does not make the resulting file "own work". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim,

Agree in most of it, however remember that for newcomers >>this<< appears. So the "bold" part is already in vivid colours, literally.

Storkk,

I saw it happen >> example <<, as I said, students pointed me the ambiguity in the text, this is not from anywhere. OTRS have feel volunteers, this measure will increase the bureaucracy and it's not normal volunteers report all the places that he previously published the material, more than that, it's totally okay, legally speaking, have versions under a free license and others under a proprietary license, our logos could be used as example...

Matma Rex,

If we will change the path of the uploader, would be better do something like:

It's my own work	Normal procedure
It's not my own work	Unpublished	OTRS
	Published	Under a free license	Normal procedure pointing the source
		Under a proprietary license	OTRS
		It's in public domain	Normal procedure pointing the source
		I don't know	"I believe this work [...] deleted."

But this is a away more than what is necessary.

Ellin Beltz,

You are creating a storm in a teacup, I know that you are a bureaucrat, but you don't need to increase the bureaucracy in a small fix... I don't see any need for call all this names that you are claiming necessary, as this was not previously necessary when it was created; as you can see.

And this passive aggressive speech trying to diminish my point using ad hominem arguments, saying that I'm not fully able to comprehend what I'm talking about, should be out of "a process" as it's " not a personality issue", right? My ability to understand is away higher then my capability to write, for personal reasons, and it's not under discussion here, so pleas, could you leave this argument out of this conversation?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, There is also the situation of previously published which could also be fixed by COM:OTRS. The rest of what you wrote is so far off base as to require no reply. Do please recall COM:AGF and drop the stick. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: My own work... previously published without clear free license... still requires OTRS. We cannot verify that it actually is my own work without OTRS. Storkk (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Storkk not at all, only when we have a case of possible copyvio, otherwise not big deal.

OTRS is the last case, if it's published by a volunteer, and it's doubtful, he can go there in the previous post and make the license more clear or prove in some way that their are the same... or simply shut it down... and them the accusation don't have a source...

See this, and this, legally speaking, the first one is a restrict photo, the second one, free. And it's okay. More, the simply fact that the Commons available version have a higher resolution, we can say that the photo didn't came from Facebook.

And we don't need OTRS, even when the FB was published back there and don't have any description.

All this possibilities to verify the authorship can be discussed in a DR... it's not for a upload page.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 03:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that I really don't have a strong opinion on this whole proposal... however I was pinged again, so I will just state that I routinely delete files in DRs that have the sole criterion for deletion being that they were published elsewhere under a more restrictive license, and there is no OTRS ticket either with permission or confirming the identity of the uploader. So do all other admins working DRs that I am aware of. I didn't even think this was controversial: if it is not clear that the Commons user is actually the copyright holder (and a username cannot make that clear, whatever the username is), then OTRS is required if the licenses differ. Cross-linking as Jee mentions below, also goes to establish the identity of the Commons user, so that is indeed another option... but if that cross-link disappears in the future, and we have no record of it archived, then it can become problematic. Storkk (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment It is not that much simple. The current wording mentioned above is matching with Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F #2. But we have exceptions like me and other people (example) who publish there work elsewhere with a different license too. In most case, there is no need of any doubt as we are editing with disclosed identities. If there is reasonable doubts, it can be clarified through OTRS. That's why Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F #3 is added. Alternately, people can cross link their sites by mentioning their Wikimedia account in other sites and vise-versa (example). Jee 04:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Admins,

Please feel free to comment in this DR for or against the image. I have given my views here but an Admin would have more experience here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The DR is over now. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

MassMessage WLM 2016 GR

Please someone send a MassMessage with this content to the talk pages of these users. It is to notify the participants of the Greek part of Wiki Loves Monuments about the announcement of local winners and other info. Thank you. --Geraki ^T_L^G 13:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've done some chaos

Please move Commons:WikiProject Chemistry/Deletion requests/File:Lithium iron phosphateV2.png back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lithium iron phosphateV2.png.--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Natuur12. --Túrelio (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) should be resolved. If there are any redirects left that need to be deleted, feel free to add the {{Speedy}} tagg. Natuur12 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrestling

Please, check https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Damian_betke . Copyvio maybe. SpiderMum (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. I deleted the files and warned the user. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2016/11/26

Could someone explain why Commons:Deletion requests/2016/11/26 hangs in Category:Other speedy deletions? A malformed DR could cause this, but I haven't noticed such a DR listed in the file (although __TOC__ in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celebrities Namibe makes it suspicious). --jdx ^Re: 11:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: I think it was Commons:Deletion requests/Category:2015 World Series Game 6 which was listed by @SecretName101: who may have been in a hurry. I have deleted the offending category and closed the DR but please feel free to trout the nominator for the next 10 years. 🙂 Green Giant (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Green Giant (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

World Tomorrow images (duplicates)

There some disruption by persons self-identifying as "the sole copyright and trademark owners of The World Tomorrow television and radio broadcast"

• On 18-Apr-2012: File:TheWorldTomorrow.jpg was uploaded by TheWorldTomorrow (talk · contribs)
• On 28-Nov-2016: File:THE WORLD TOMORROW.jpg was uploaded by Worldtomorrowgta (talk · contribs)
• On 28-Nov-2016: File:The World Tomorrow (radio and television).jpg was uploaded by Dollyparton7 (talk · contribs)

See also discussions at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#The World Tomorrow (radio and television) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:THE WORLD TOMORROW.jpg.

The user has been advised to upload the image to Wikipedia using a Fair-Use justification and/or to submit an OTRS; but prefer doing things their own way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

We have followed this users instructions, to the letter. The upload was ACCEPTED and user BAREK seems bent on disruptive editing of this article for many years, falsely claims he would assist the insertion of the upload once it was complete, then complains after the upload has been properly done. (See the history of The World Tomorrow (radio and television) page, and other related subject pages Herbert W. Armstrong, and Garner Ted Armstrong, our former presenter's of our show The World Tomorrow. One has to self identify as the copyright and trademark owners for one to grant permission to Wikipedia to USE the show title card and insert it into the corresponding page. ---- DollyParton7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyparton7 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You are currently posting on Wikimedia Commons. Look at the URL of this page. Look at the icon in the upper left that is labelled "Wikimedia Commons".

If your intent is to release the image under a free license (meaning anyone anywhere to use, copy, modify, or to sell the image without giving notice to you), then you still need to go through Commons:OTRS to satisfy any concerns admins of the Commons may have with your ownership of the image.

If your intent is to retain ownership of the title card and only permit use on Wikipedia for fair-use purposes, then you need to upload the image to Wikipedia using a fair-use rationale. Claiming you did it correctly does not change that fact that all three of the above linked images are on the Commons, where you uploaded them. The correct process for uploading using fair-use has been spelled out for you, step-by-step at en:Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)#Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike Goad Images on Commons

Dear Admins,

I am a bit concerned that 9/11 images from M. Goad's flickr account have just been uploaded here and attributed to this person when they are derivatives and were not taken by him. Secondly, the flickr license is PD-Mark and the images could be deleted...without the correct attribution. In one case the real photographer is named and it is Paul Morse. Perhaps, these set of images should all be deleted as it seems Mr. Goad does not have the right to release them into the public domain? I just raise the subject but you should make the decision here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• My computer is going to be taken away for maintenance today but my concerns are still valid. I cannot respond for some time. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Paul Morse, cited above, was the White House Photographer during the GW Bush administration, so his image is {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}, see http://paulmorsephotography.com/about-me/. I have changed the tags on that image accordingly. It's clear that Goad should not be credited for Morse's work or the work of others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Lost image

File:Nina Esmeraldas.jpg disappeared for me, thumb was working but full res shows "file not found". --Denniss (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It could be that the thumbs are from your cache. I do not see thumbnails, nor the full size version. Looks like an on-going ops problem based on the related VP discussion. Please add as a case to Phab:T124101. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Flat(t)ened fauna

Sebastian Nizan (talk · contribs) is mass uploading pictures of flattened animals without giving proper descriptions. They all get the generic description and generic category of "Dead animals". May you please tell him, that this is not OK?--194.95.158.102 14:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Namaste Everyone, Please delete old version of File:Raaza Upreti.jpg. —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 14:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nick (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge Request

Hello and Namaste Please merge this image with recent one. —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 01:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, those are two different images. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

those two aren't different images. Please have a look. Regards —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 12:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Different uploaders, one photo shows the whole building, one only the entrance. Please verify that you linked the correct photos. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Can u please delete entrance photo? —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That image is in use on the English Wikipedia and Wikidata. Also, deletion has to go through the regular deletion process, which will take at least a week. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

About uploading

I am trying to upload a file using UploadWizard which format is JPG. But when I try to upload file it will automatically change its format from JPG to jpg (small alphabet). Please tell me how I can upload it with format JPG using UploadWizard.WeNeverSing (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Another possible sock? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically there is no difference between files with a jpg or JPG extension, and the JPEG file format will not be changed when the extension is set to lower-case letters. Just keep using the Upload Wizard and don't care for the extension. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. lNeverCry 19:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Didym report

Hello! First, sorry for my bad english. I am the main contributor on Hungarian commons in last two and half years (200,000+ edits, over 1000 renaming etc.).

I have problems with an admin (user:Didym). This admin uploaded one word titled photos (that I dared to rename) 'Kettenbrücke' and 'Kettingbrug', these are bad file names (in my opinon) for Hungarian wiki: 'Széchenyi lánchíd', German 'Kettenbrücke (Budapest)' English: 'Chain Bridge (Budapest)' or 'Széchenyi Chain Bridge'.

He threated me for renaming. He deleted my answer from his site, and moved to my. My opinon this person is not worthy to 'Admin'.

In case if I'm wrong and the Rename was unjust,-it means to me I do not understand renaming conditions, -then I want to give back the right to rename instead to harass.

P.S. This message (Hungarian version) is sent to the head of the Hungarian Wikipedia.

(copied text from User talk:EugeneZelenko)

P.P.S. I need an anser to making it clear that the future should be clear what can be renamed (without threat). Means one word title ('Kettenbrücke') is enough for 2-3 words wiki titles (Kettenbrücke (Budapest)/Chain Bridge (Budapest)) or not. Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid that Didym is correct. He did nothing wrong, he left a polite message at your talk page, explained the guideline to you. He didn't threaten you, he didn't delete anything and most definitely didn't show any behaviour that is unbecoming of an admin. Natuur12 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Space Infinite

I think the three recent uploads by Space Infinite (talk · contribs) are either copyright violations or inadequately documented to show that the claimed licenses were granted by the original author/publisher. I'm too busy to look into it right now, but I would be grateful if someone else would do so. Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Inadequate sourcing and no evidence of licensing. All deleted. Thank you @Dragons flight: Green Giant (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for moving pictures

Could please someone move the pictures contained in Category:Kölner Charity Sports Night to Category:Kölner Charity Sports Night 2016? Thanks! --Joschi71 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Joschi71: For future reference, have a look at the gadget cat-a-lot which helps you to bulk move images. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! --Joschi71 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

About uploading

I am a new user on Commons, I am not able to upload file from flickr using User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). Is anyone is there who tell me how I can upload file from Flickr using the same tool.PurgePug^Talk 09:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Purgepug: Hi, did you authorize the application using OAuth? You should authorize the application every time you use it. And can you upload a screenshot of the error? Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@User:Pokéfan95 I want to say that I don't have any link. Could you please give me the link for uploading?PurgePug^Talk 10:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Purgepug: Ah, please use Flickr2Commons or Special:UploadWizard for uploading images from Flickr. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@User:Pokéfan95 thanks.PurgePug^Talk 10:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Walang anuman. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Pokéfan95: This is a sock of LTA sockmaster Jhony jhony ha ji. Please read the description I've added to the userpage of the master acct. It may help with identifying the socks of this highly active LTA. Asking questions like this at noticeboards is a frequent occurrence. He usually uses names that're close to the name of a user he's had problems with. In this case, it's user Indopug who Jhony has been bothering for quite a while. I'll let the people over on en.wiki know so they can run CU and block. lNeverCry 12:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap, I got tricked by this sock. Thanks INC. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 23:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Steinsplitter report

It is with regret that I feel it necessary to make this report. This administrator has blocked editor 156.61.250.250 for alleged "long - term abuse". It was done less than an hour ago. However, the said editor's first edit was less than 24 hours ago. I should be grateful if what appears to be abuse of administrator permissions by the said administrator Steinsplitter could be examined. Miletian (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Good block by Steinsplitter. 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs) was harassing here: User talk:Anna Frodesiak. No action required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What Sebastian omits to mention is that he is not an independent observer. He protected Anna's talkpage. As for the claim of "harassment", Anna invited the editor to a discussion on her talkpage which was accepted. Sebastian should either withdraw this obnoxious claim or substantiate it. Miletian (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Miletian is a sock and should be blocked as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done.-- Geagea (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for moving

Hello, I would like to ask someone to move all the subcategories from Category:FIS Ski Jumping World Cup in Zakopane which names are "WC Ski jumping Zakopane 20XX" to "FIS 20XX-YY Ski Jumping World Cup in Zakopane", for example from "WC Ski jumping Zakopane 2004" to "FIS 2003-04 Ski Jumping World Cup in Zakopane". This kind of name explains a bit better the content of the category and is more elegant. Misiek2 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mark new admins, unmark de-adminships

Does anyone know, how the CommonsMaintenanceBot gets aware of changes in adminship? We have a new member here, and I noticed this only, because he – Sebari/Srittau is not a they ;-) – took actions only possible for an admin. The request was closed as successful on 19 November, about two weeks ago, I do not know, though, when the actual steward action made the rights enhancement. The second last successful request was Kelly’s months ago, and this is shown. Unfortunately I can not ask the bot owner, because he is inactive since end of May – hopefully not final.
BTW: There is a useful request for marking stewards on the talk page of the Gadget. But if you look into MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js, the stewards are already inserted there. So, someone, probably an admin, with scripting abilities, needs to find out, where the issue is, that they are not shown in Commons. (Another thing I’d rather first asked Rillke.) — Speravir – 17:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

For reference, User:Krd added the admin welcome message at 06:30, 19 November 2016 to my talk page, and I definitely had the rights that noon. I would add myself to the JS page above, so people are not surprised by a stealth admin :), but I don't want to mess up CommonsMaintenanceBot's updates. Also missing is Ruthven. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I manually added you and Ruthven to MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js. --jdx ^Re: 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at update_user_groups.js it seems that the bot calls a MediaWiki's API function in order to list users belonging to a specified group. But don't ask me for details – I'm not a MW API/JavaScript/JSON specialist. --jdx ^Re: 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• If this is running under tool labs commons-maintenance-bot, technically @Dschwen: and @Krinkle: also has access. Maybe they can look into it? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, surprisingly I am a maintainer :-). I'll take a look. --Dschwen (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The bot is running without errors. It will take some more time to go through all the source. Could you explain some more what the issue is? --Dschwen (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

    @Dschwen: the bot did not update MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js for a while; the page history should be self-explanatory. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Imagewashed panoramio uploads

Akin to Flickrwashing, it seems that Panoramio upload bot (talk · contribs) has uploaded images from users engaged in this practice. For example, uploads from panoramio user "riccardo riki" (see these search results), who appears to have posted images pilfered from other sites (without trimming copyright notices). You can see this in File:Cadorna - panoramio.jpg, which has a rather prominent watermark. (This image is also problematic because it is included in Category:Panoramio images reviewed by trusted users, which makes me doubt the accuracy of the nearly 700,000 entries in that category.) Mindmatrix 17:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at all a complete solution, but I have sent the images from your search that are actually watermarked by a third party to DR. There are probably others we don't want as well. Revent^talk 08:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I've found a few others and nominated those too. Mindmatrix 15:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of my sysop right

Hi everyone. I'm posting here to let you know that I've asked for the removal of my sysop right at Meta. As I said there, I suffer from mental illness, and being an admin just puts too much pressure and heaviness on everything for me. I also feel that I can't serve the community the way it deserves to be served by an administrator. I think I can do fine in less stressful work, such as sorting uncategorized images, license reviews, and COM:VIC, which I'm beginning to enjoy. My sincere apologies to everyone who I've not been thoughtful and kind to. This is how I respond to conflict, and it's obviously not the right way, and it doesn't make me feel good at all. Having power over others or having power at all here just isn't working for me, and when something isn't working you make a change. Going forward, I'll try to do my best to build and help with Commons, and I'll stay out of conflict situations. Let me make it very clear that I don't intend to be a sysop here again. I take medication but I know that mental illness isn't a short-term thing. I'm 48 and I've been suffering from it since I was a teenager. I just want to do something I enjoy and relax while I do it. Everyday work at Commons does this for me. I can just work with images and help out, and stay far away from the noticeboards. Thanks everyone. Have a good day. lNeverCry 19:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to read this. You have been a great admin and we will have a hard job without you. But your health is way more important than some online drama encyclopedia project. Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Very sad to see this but your health should come first. Thank you for the great admin work you've done and the help you've given us all. Green Giant (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am very sad to read this. Please take care of you. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see this. This project is a hobby for us volunteers, so a focus on what brings you the most enjoyment is a healthy strategy for everyone. --Fæ (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

INC I truly wish you did not do this over Livio, which could well have achieved consensus for an unblock at some near point. I wish we had an admin level for those who want to deal with deletions and non-contentious vandal/copyvio blocks, as this would be more suitable for nearly all our admins who almost universally at RFA say that is what they want to do and they have no wish to get involved in contentious issues. -- Colin (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be a heartless bastard. Are we considering this to be 'under a cloud' and requiring INC to go through a new RfA or will this be considered a non-controversial request and a bureaucrat will be permitted to restore the user permission upon request ?

I do, of course, wish INeverCry well. The community has shown (largely) kindness and patience in the past and I hope (and ask) that we continue to do so going forward, supporting INC in whatever he wishes to do on Commons in the future. Nick (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think a crat should be able to restore the rights as soon as INeverCry states to be ready for it. I don't think a RfDeA would be succesful at this moment, as INeverCry is a great admin. And although I am sometimes pessimistic about our community, I refuse to believe that bad willing users are outnumbering us. Jcb (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. However I don't think that lack of sysop flag will help you to avoid conflict situations. Sure, without the flag you cannot take some actions, but with the flag or not, it's up to you whether you get involved or not. But of course it's your decision. --jdx ^Re: 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame because you're a great admin but at the end of the day your health comes first, I personally don't see the need for you to give up the bit ... just don't use them?. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you will have thought long and hard over this, INC... and I wanted to echo Jcb, Green Giant, Yann and Fae. You have a community of friends here, and as much as we need hardworking admins, that should not come at a cost of misery and poor health. A heartfelt thanks for the phenomenal work you've done, and I know we'll be seeing your handiwork in other areas. Be well. Storkk (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Very sad to read this. Thank you for the great admin work you've done. The tension INC feel it's because of responsible way he done his work. Take care your health and seek be enjoy your work her. After all we all doing it for volunteer.-- Geagea (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Nick: , @Colin: I just want to make it clear that I do not under any circumstances want my sysop right returned once stewards remove it tomorrow. Not in a month and not in a year. I won't bother the community with another RFA. The community has my word on that. I don't expect that an RFA from me would garner much support after this, but I know that adminship stresses me out too much and is bad for my mental health. I take 200mg per night of Seroquel right now, and that, along with 3mg per day of Klonopin and 2400mg of Neurontin keeps me relatively stable. But when conflict arises, I can feel the mania of my Bi-Polar begin to get stronger. I care about Livio, and I wish him well, as I wish everyone here well, but in the end we each have to be honest with ourselves and do the right thing. I've never looked at adminship as a status, but as tools to be used to perform a function. I can do better for Commons without adminship. It's taken me a long time to admit that to myself, but there it is. I've thought I could be an admin if this or if that, but it just doesn't work out. If I find, as Jdx mentions, that I still can't do well here even without the tools, then I'll have to retire altogether. We'll see how it goes. I can only go day by day. I appreciate the kindness that I see above. lNeverCry 22:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• @INeverCry: are you sure that you want to share this much personal info? You might regret it in the future. Natuur12 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I concur, I think it would be sensible for INeverCry to re-write and edit the above comment and we can then ask that it be oversighted. This is a volunteer project, you don't need to justify yourself to any of us, let alone in such detail; a more general explanation would have been appreciated but even that isn't necessary. Nick (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've stated all these details before, so no big deal. I'm a bit of an old nut, but who cares? lNeverCry 23:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:V. Shanker.jpg

Hello I have uploaded the above file. I have fill correct information and license but still it was deleted . Those file was published in 1949 (before 67 years) and according to PD-India lisence the file should be 60 years old. IHappyWithU (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hedwig in Washington restored the file as accidental deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File source

Hi,

could you tell me, what was a source (in a description box) for this image? Thanks.--Juandev (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

|source=archiv_aktualne.cz --jdx ^Re: 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thx.--Juandev (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File: Sardar Patel.jpg

I have uploaded the above image. But now I want to remove the version as of 14:52, 5 December 2016 of the same file. I also want to change the comment of the version as of 14:56, 5 December 2016 the current comment is Adjust brightness new comment User created page with UploadWizard.IHappyWithU (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that there is no way for admins to change the upload summary, unless you wish to delete the file entirely and reupload from the start. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Zhuyifei1999 ok, but please remove the version as of 14:52, 5 December 2016 of the file.IHappyWithU (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Tuvalkin

Can an admin take a look at this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INeverCry&diff=225198757&oldid=225194639, and tell this individual to leave me alone? I blocked him, and my block was good. I only want to work here in peace, and I'm asking an admin or admins to tell Tuvalkin to move on and not try to cause more problems. I'm posting this here because my talks with Tuvalkin in the past have never been fruitful, and I don't want to be here constantly having to worry that he's going to show up to hassle me. Thanks for your time. lNeverCry 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Renewal request

I would like to ask you to renew this file File:Plasy, Královská kaple, oltářná menza.jpg. It was deleted in the bunch of files from user Dobroš, which were considered as imagevios (just like a bunch, not linking to the original source of each one). While now user Dobroš declare on Czech Wikipedia, that this file is a crop of this file: File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG, which is licensed Creative Commons and thus derivative work can be created.--Juandev (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Request moved to: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Plasy, Královská kaple, oltářná menza.jpg.--Juandev (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of right

Can an admin please remove my Image Reviewer right? I want to focus on simple old images and simple new ones. The ones in between are a headache that I'm tired of dealing with. Thanks. lNeverCry 22:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Marking stewards

Split from previous section “Mark new admins, unmark de-adminships”. — Speravir – 18:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Regards the issue of not marking the stewards: In German Wikipedia PDD3 points out, that the solution for someone with editing rights in MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js would be simple (cf. de:Special:Diff/160288574/160323201) – add enabled: true at the right place:

				steward: {
					label: 'S',
					legacyName: 'steward',
					legacyLabelId: 'stewtxt',
					enabled: true
				},

Line to be added is highlighted, note also the comma added at end of preceding line (leading tabulator characters intentionally not removed). — Speravir – 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I see on how the script works, the configuration inside MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js is the default config, and can be overridden with your user js. Do we have consensus to change this default setting? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what exactly should be inserted into commons.js in order to turn on marking of e.g. stewards? --jdx ^Re: 08:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/225087607 is one method, having $.extend deep merging into the configuration of the gadget at run time. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info I just have added to Gadget-markAdmins.js a few lines of explanation how to configure the gadget: Special:Diff/225110806. --jdx ^Re: 13:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Jdx. But actually I do not see, why it should not be useful to mark the stewards for all of us. We could start a poll in Village Pump or elsewhere (but should point to this then). BTW it would also be possible to enable this mark by default and someone not interested in this could disable it. Jdx should us, how. — Speravir – 18:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I just started another request regarding the labels for OTRS members and image reviewers in MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markAdmins.js. — Speravir – 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not in Israel

This picture has "Category:Aerial photographs of Israel", but it is not in Israel, it is on the occupied Palestinian West Bank. How do I remove it? It seems linked with "Category:Photos from WikiAir Flight IL-14-01"? It is the same problem with this, Huldra (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange, when I look at the 1st image, it does not have "Category:Aerial photographs of Israel", but only "Category:Aerial photographs of Palestine": --Túrelio (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is transcluded in the first file page : {{Category:Photos from WikiAir Flight IL-14-01}}, the result is the addition of the categories Category:Photos from WikiAir Flight IL-14-01 and Category:Aerial photographs of Israel to the file, and in this way they can't be removed. It seems this is the case for almost (all?) images in Category:Photos from WikiAir Flight IL-14-01. The fact is {{WikiAir}} should be transcluded instead of {{Category:Photos from WikiAir Flight IL-14-01}}. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

wow, all images in these categories have the same kind of transclusion... this is out of my competence...Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

oh I got it...for exemple the images in this Category:Photos from WikiAir Flight IL-13-02 need to have the transclusion

{{WikiAir |code=IL-13-02 |pilot1=Eli Inbar |pilot2= |pilot1heb=אלי ענבר |pilot2heb= |retouched={{{retouched|}}} }} instead of currently {{Category:Photos from WikiAir Flight IL-13-02}} Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think all images in Category:Photos from WikiAir in Israel need to be fixed. I'm currently a bit too busy, but if nobody fix that, I will do it in the next days/weeks. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Done it should be fixed now. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• User:Christian Ferrer: Thanks! Much appreciated. There have been a lot of pictures falsely labelled "in Israel", (when they are on the occupied Palestinian West Bank). I have changed quite a few, but I doubt that I have changed the last, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Old mass DR still open

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC has been open for over 3 months without much movement. 768 files are still nominated for deletion. According to ticket:2016090610022455 "The Wellcome has gone quiet". Several questions have remained unanswered and no consensus has been reached in the DR, which has also been silent for the past weeks. Let's not keep this open until somewhere in the 2020s. It's about time to move on. Maybe we can set up a vote to decide as a community how to close this? Pinging some involved people: @Fæ: @Jameslwoodward: @Asclepias: @Storkk: - Jcb (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone go through the list to assure there are no PD files left, as far as we can tell? If that is the case, I am prepared to  Delete the remaining files due to a most-likely invalid license (and the PRP). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There's limit on how much volunteer effort to invest. I have marked many as confirmed as needing deletion or should be kept as PD in the list. I have also sorted all the images out into RAMC archive number, which means they all come from the same archive box of photos and documents, hence are highly likely to all have the same PD status or non-PD status.

I suggest an admin goes through each RAMC archive number at a time and delete where there is doubt and keep those all marked for keep unless they have serious doubts as soon as they look at the images they are deleting as possibly non-PD. If Storkk or Sebari is still interested in trying this, I suggest they are supported with suggestions but we avoid adversarial discussion, mainly as there are too many files to have a long debate about. It may be worth posting again on the Village pump, drawing attention to parts of the collection of potential special interest. The last time I posted the collection had not been sorted, it's now much easier to make a useful investigation. I believe the Wellcome are unlikely to engage further to help with keeping files, however it may be worth me trying an email once most of the obvious deletions are complete, perhaps in January. --Fæ (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) My position remains that the most likely scenario is that Wellcome made a mistake, and that even if they didn't, absent clarification we should assume they did. This is now twice that I'm aware of that a large Wellcome donation has been incorrectly licensed (the other being Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AIDS_Poster_from_Wellcome_Images_(check_needed)). I think before accepting any more donations of non-PD material from Wellcome, we should require proper OTRS documentation that they either are the copyright holder (in which case they can no longer change the license), or that the actual copyright holder has licensed the material. That will help to avoid future issues... but for this current one, I do think we need to strongly lean towards deleting those that aren't PD. Storkk (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• To answer Sebari, no: the category has not been completely purged of likely PD files. Storkk (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember also that there were a lot of files that I felt quite skeptical about for another reason: files that likely are not PD due to deathdate of the author, but whose initial license by RAMC seemed dubious (ie. we'd require pretty clear documentation from any other donor). Storkk (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has already put effort into this. My suggestion for further action: Vet the files steadily. Remove vetted files we can keep from Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC (fixing their license templates if necessary) and delete other files as we go along. Maybe create another category Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC (to be deleted) so that non-admins can help if they wish to. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Influx of files with embedded data (CSD#F9)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T48921

Please keep your eyes peeled for new files that are way too big for their dimensions (e.g. 1GB for a <1Mpx Jpeg)... I've seen these very rarely in the past, and now three times in one day (Soe Khant Lin's, Zawminmyatyt123's and Totalleecher's files, note especially the last username). Word may have gotten around the game/app piracy circles that we are a convenient and free filehost as long as the extension is "jpg" and it parses as a jpeg. A quickly hacked together quarry query can spot some of these (the following checks only files over 10MB whose filesize is >10*width*height):

USE commonswiki_p;
SELECT concat("File:",img_name) 
FROM image
WHERE  img_media_type LIKE "BITMAP" and 10*img_width*img_height<img_size and img_name LIKE "%jp%" and img_size>10000000
ORDER BY img_timestamp;

I suck at SQL, though, and there is probably a much better way to do this. A similar query is taking forever to run. Pinging also @Ninjastrikers: who independently found some a lot of these. Storkk (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism, here are others that Ninjastrikers found: User:GGN TPhA, User:Kma123, User:Soepyitaung, User:Ko kyaw 111. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, MSE Upzone, Cum mortem, Wyibe, Ldy03607, Myo294, and more. Storkk (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also Wikikhaing.sample.account whom I indeffed a few minutes ago. --jdx ^Re: 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, Minthwayy and Goldchannel. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

For the SQL query: increase the size to 100 MB and the query will execute, because the set of files to look through is reduced significantly. Also, does anyone know how this is done technically? Is the movie just appended to the JPEG file or is it hidden in any other way? Could this be something that could be stopped during the upload by MediaWiki? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I also made a RfC about this issue. They used some kind of application that combine rar and jpg. Please check File:Weasone.jpg. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 17:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The naive way works because of the internal structure of a JPEG and some archive file formats. An explanation is here. I don't think it would be possible to stop this at upload time without some significant work, but I could be wrong.... @Bawolff? Storkk (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I just glanced at it, but it seems fairly easy to find that pattern: Any JPEG file that contains a significant amount of data after the end of file marker (0xd9ff) should be marked as invalid. Especially if that data contains a ZIP local file header. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that this would be technically difficult. But what could be done in 5 minutes on our home machines might be extremely difficult to get implemented on Wikimedia's production servers, given the QA, reliability, etc. etc. etc. that need to be considered on the operations side of things. Storkk (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The end-of-file marker in JPEG files is optional, so this doesn't really help. Matma Rex (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

See User:Dispenser/Absurd overhead. Previous discussions: Sept 2013, Oct 2013, Nov 2014. Then I was banned from Tool Labs for having copied freeware from the Toolserver (pngout). Dispenser (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I just have created a rule for AbuseFilter. A few uploads have been already marked (for death ). The rule doesn't trigger any action yet (testing period), but some actions might be turned on in a few days (@Steinsplitter, what do you think about it?). As for now, observe the log and delete marked crap. --jdx ^Re: 20:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Excellent :-).--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: I should have thought of an abusefilter rule! Great idea... I have a couple suggestions: because this is specific to how JPEGs work, and (animated) GIFs and PDF/DJVUs can reasonably be a higher multiple of width*height, I think you should restrict this to jpegs only. Additionally, since even 100% quality Jpegs are always compressed, I don't think your bits per channel calculation is meaningful. Rather, I would restrict it to files > 2 MB (to catch, e.g. File:1sony.jpg, File:Sony_vaio_lap2.jpg), and reduce the threshold to 3 * file_width * file_height ... 3 is still arbitrary, but anything >1 probably needs examination/explanation. Storkk (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That mostly mirrors my Absurd overhead script, except the ICC profile in rare case can be a megabyte. So I'd set the threshold at 3 * file_width * file_height + 1048576. Dispenser (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've implemented your suggestions with small changes – I've lowered file size from 20 MiB to 3 (2 is IMO extremely low) and restricted bitmaps to plain (not progressive) JPEGs and plain PNGs – File:Mynamr600.png is example of a 565 × 400, 60+ MiB PNG file. @Storkk, you're an admin, so feel free to change the rule. --jdx ^Re: 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

PNGs are cannot be correctly calculated because of phab:T132986. So file_bits_per_channel=8 could be either a True color 24-bit or an 8-bit palette PNG. Also, if file_frames or file_framecount existed we could account for Animated PNGs too. Dispenser (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/160 appears to be working extremely well (thanks again, Jdx!). How about raising the edit count limit to 100 (really, there's no reason anybody should be uploading these, so maybe remove that check entirely) and preventing the uploads? Any objections? Also, I think it should be renamed to "Suspected embedded archive (CSD#F9) - gross filesize vs image size discrepancy, likely copyright violation"... what do others think? Storkk (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There are a few files caught in that filter that are probably not from our vandal: File:V-CUPS Menstrual Cups.png and File:MPPharaoh20xd14 3D printeris.png. These should probably be analyzed beforehand. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, we support animated PNGs also, so that needs to be taken into account. Possibly just start with blocking JPEGs, and keep flagging PNGs? Storkk (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk and Srittau: OK, I modified rule #160 – I turned on "disallow" action (suspected JPEGs are now automatically rejected), removed edit count checking (so the rule applies to all users), removed PNGs checking (I created rule #162 for PNGs) and changed its name (although I think it should be shortened to Suspected embedded archive inside JPEG file (CSD#F9)). Rule #162 doesn't trigger any action except logging suspected PNGs. --jdx ^Re: 19:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Great, thank you! #160 has already done its job. I will keep monitoring both filters. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Great. I don't have a problem with the shorter name. It's good that we're not blocking PNGs, since I there's probably nothing wrong with the very first hit. If a few more false-positives trip the PNG abusefilter (and I think they will), we should probably increase the limit multiple for PNGs significantly. What is a sane size for an 16-bit per channel, 4-channel PNG? Storkk (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: I have no idea what a sane size is, but IMO we can safely assume that anything bigger than 4 channels × 2 bytes/ch × W × H is a fake plain PNG or it is an animated PNG. --jdx ^Re: 23:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: I've been rewriting the Absurd overhead report. We have a number of images with 6 MB of APP10 metadata, the largest File:Thorunna daniellae 1.jpg (examine). So I'd up the offset to 8 or 10 MB just to be safe. Dispenser (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Do you mean + 8388608 instead of + 1048576? BTW. WTF? More metadata than actual image data? What possibly could be there? --jdx ^Re: 23:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, although + 8*1024*1024 might be easier to understand. Also, User:Dispenser/Absurd overhead has been updated, it now uses ImageMagick to estimate metadata. Still don't know how to detect Fireworks PNGs. —Dispenser (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am also struggling to come up with some legitimate explanation that allows a 0.5 MPx image to have 6 MB of binary data embedded. Does anybody have the Olympus software to check whether it can read those tags? I have similar concerns with, e.g. the custom color profile in this stamp ... I am struggling to understand how a 60Kpx few-color image has megabytes of ICC info. Storkk (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

While it's silly, I don't think we should disallow such files if they are not abuse. Imagine that you just took a photo with your fancy new camera, want to upload it to Commons, and it tells you you're evil for uploading files with embedded archives and you are all like "what the hell". We can't punish users for camera software being stupid. Matma Rex (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if we can be reasonably sure that this isn't something malicious masquerading as 6 MB of APP10 data or an ICC profile. Storkk (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

For reference: Category:Sockpuppets of Wunnakyaw1 --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser#Wunnakyaw1 Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

$ cat orig.jpg test.zip > stacked.jpg
$ file stacked.jpg 
stacked.jpg: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01
$ convert stacked.jpg stripped.jpg  # this is an ImageMagick command

http://ask.metafilter.com/119943/How-to-detect-RARsEXEs-hidden-in-JPGs — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.218.89.9 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Imagemagick recompress the image. May be a good hint, but you cannot rely on this method. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Most recent example, User:Gotze, stopped by the filter a dozen times in a row from uploading the same 843x850 'image', under multiple names, with a 370MB file size... you definitely know them when you see them, lol. Revent^talk 23:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wrote a quick-and-dirty script to remove this (and only this) overhead, with a first test output at File:Briefmarke_LindauerHuette_6S.jpg. Do you think the filter should be left this way preventing all such uploads, or change it so that it feeds a filelist to an adminbot, which attempts to truncate the file and revdel the original upload? Personally I do not feel it right when the prevented uploads may be a good image without the overhead, like the one linked above. Pinging @Jdx: as author of the filter and @Krd: who objected to a use of adminbot recently. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: You ran that on the original (deleted) version, right? File:BMP 2.jpg is another possible test subject (though not a useful image). The embedded archive contains some Android application. Revent^talk 04:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding File:Briefmarke_LindauerHuette_6S.jpg, yes I tested the script on the very original version; on your extraction my script produced no size change at all, meaning the file is fine (no appended overhead). Regarding File:BMP 2.jpg, the script truncated the file to 63904 bytes from the original 1762496 bytes. Currently I'm unsure about whether files with & without the enf-of-file marker, with & without the overhead get processed correctly. Also, the script is just a proof of concept; reading the file one byte at a time is terribly inefficient, especially with NFS (too many read syscalls). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Look at the part of the log before the filter started to reject uploads – most of these files are also copyvios. I would even say, that all listed files which I personally deleted were also copyvios. Besides I think that allowing to upload these files while vast majority of them will be deleted due to other reason is just waste of storage space (the biggest "image" I saw had size about 3.3 GiB). Also I think that there is almost zero probability that the current version of the rule (3 × W × H + 8 MiB) might reject a valid image. So IMO the rule should stay as it is. BTW. I've just deleted 3 "funny" 300 × 168 PNGs, ~500 MiB each (P1.png, P2rr.png and P3rr.png). --jdx ^Re: 06:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Jdx: The thing about these prevented uploads is that, well, you can't "undelete" them; in fact, there's no way to know the file contents at all besides having the file description page and some basic (alpha)numeric identity (eg. SHA checksum & size) of the file itself.
• Re copyvios: Yes this is a concern right now, but without undeletion there is no evidence that the files intend to copyvio. It may be just one of the legitimate (as in non-copyvio) uploads like the one I linked above, or or some malicious apps adding these overheads without the uploader's knowledge (see Matma Rex's comment above). Having a bot can clear out any ambiguity (and yes I can program the bot to add the mime type of the overhead to the upload summary), and leave the actual image data unmodified. They go under the normal procedure of speedy deletion if they are in fact a copyvio. Blanket prevention isn't something cool.
• Re storage space: Storage space wasting is currently neither a reason to delete the file, nor reduce the quality of the file. Yes the former does not actually release storage space, and the latter, well, reduce quality, but there are many ways possible to release them if storage space is a concern. How about starting by... deleting old "moved to commons" files & other 100% duplicated files from the storage backend?
• Re impossibility of rejecting valid image: True, but perhaps with bot checks we can find a smaller threshold. This could be the first step, until we can address an extra ~1% payload (what if that payload is illegal content?). Alternatively checking RC shall work as well, but that requires must be done on production side due to excessive bandwidth usage. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I never objected admin bots in general, but I objected giving admin bit to bots without reason just in case they may need it once in a while. --Krd 06:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think rejecting those uploads outright is the right solution. You can see in the log that once we started implementing the block, the uploads stopped. When we were not rejecting those files outright, they kept on coming, even if they lasted only a few minutes before being deleted. Also, any image that violates the current rules has to be very suspect, even if it looks ok from the outside. Deleting is the safe choice. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree for the deletion. As far as I know, most of the uploads with copyvio are came from Myanmar ip/users. When I found out those files were shared within some Facebook groups, I tried to find and mark for deletion to those files on Commons. All of the files that I had reported for deletion contained copyvio data for sure. For now, even with the filter, they are still trying to upload. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 15:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh, if that's the case, I withdraw this proposal. I'll hope this isn't a WP0/"Facebook case" again; I got absolutely tired of last time's and don't want to see that happen again in any way. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016120310005375 is relative here. Telenor users in Myanmar are allowed to access Wikipedia websites(including Wikimedia Commons) for free - unlimited internet is normally expensive. There is graph of traffic, shows a steep rise from 25th Nov, peaks at 28th, and is now dropping towards normal. If it resurges, they might introduce a fair-use policy. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've updated User:Dispenser/Absurd overhead, with improved PNG support. The problematic files are those with low compression (Zip: -2%) indicating the file can't be made smaller and high Trim/Opti (Trim: -80%). I've added the error from pngcheck. Also, Things are also hidden in small files:

$ unrar-nonfree l Hh_2.jpg   # (284 × 446, 503 KB)
 Attributes      Size    Date   Time   Name
----------- ---------  -------- -----  ----
    ..A.... 322033212  26-11-16 02:04  Bluesea E04 ( Channel Myanmar ).mp4
Unexpected end of archive
----------- ---------  -------- -----  ----
            322033212                  1

$ unrar-nonfree l Plexus_U.jpg   # (343 × 250, 400 KB)
 Attributes      Size    Date   Time   Name
----------- ---------  -------- -----  ----
    ..A....      1275  30-03-16 17:46  PROJECTV/ChromaplexUpdate.bat
    ..A....    539128  16-01-16 01:29  PROJECTV/Rar.exe
    ..A....    344056  16-01-16 01:29  PROJECTV/UnRAR.exe
    ...D...         0  30-03-16 17:24  PROJECTV
----------- ---------  -------- -----  ----
               884459                  4

Dispenser (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info It looks like pirates have found a new way for uploading stuff – they split it into a set of small, at the first glance innocently looking files, all with the same "cover image", e.g. Special:Contributions/Sonny james (I've already deleted his first 13 PartXX.jpg files). Due to their small size they slip through Abuse Filter. And of course they are not marked as duplicates because they have different content (i.e. different SHA1 checksums). --jdx ^Re: 06:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: For the sake of simple speedy deletion as copyvios, the image there is http://www.deviantart.com/art/Junkyard-Spalsh-382463908 Revent^talk 06:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Also it is on http://arenaofheroes.wikia.com/wiki/File:JunkyardSkin1.jpg, where it is under CC-BY-SA (according to the footer) or PD (according to the EXIF). But you're right, probably it's been stolen from DeviantArt. --jdx ^Re: 06:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Yeah, the watermark on the DeviantArt image says "Work Done By Concept Art House For Sneaky Games". The Wikia is for a game produced by... Sneaky Games. It's almost certainly a copyvio on Wikia, IMO, though the game's website is defunct so it's hard to tell for absolute certain. Good enough evidence for a speedy, though. Revent^talk 07:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've replied to Telenor, on the OTRS ticket, about the multi-part files. I'm hoping they will start a fair-use policy on individual's Wikipedia bandwidth. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

$ unrar-nonfree l My.xxa.png   # (1,440 × 900, 3.51 MB)

 Attributes      Size    Date   Time   Name
----------- ---------  -------- -----  ----
    ..A....       419  08-12-13 15:50  Winrar 5.0.1/rarreg.rar
    ..A....   1852159  08-12-13 15:50  Winrar 5.0.1/winrar-x64-501.rar
    ..A....   1673561  08-12-13 15:50  Winrar 5.0.1/wrar501.rar
    ...D...         0  08-12-13 15:51  Winrar 5.0.1
----------- ---------  -------- -----  ----
              3526139                  4

So the estimated size: 1,440 × 900 × 3 byte/pixel² = 3.71 MB is 6% larger than the actual size. This was found in a larger search (~30 GB) for intended to find Fireworks & Picture It! files for tagging. —Dispenser (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Speedied, and uploader warned. Apparent software piracy (a copy of a copyrighted program, with a registration key). Revent^talk 03:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

BLP Violation?

Someone might want to check out [(Redacted) this picture]. I suspect it may run afoul of BLP concerns. Aplogies if there is a more specific place to post this. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal

Please remove the old version of this file.Get2Space 16:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - both versions, because it was a duplicate of File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Rights

I have joined Commons just 2 day ago but now I have about 40 edits. So, I think I should be an autoconfirmed user. Please gran me the rights.Get2Space 10:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please elaborate why you need the right. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to become mellow here, but I am smelling something fishy here. This user copied the style of INeverCry's talk page and signature, and their username is also suspicious. I suspect that this user is a sockpuppet. I could create a RFCU for this, but I don't have enough evidence. I'm gonna watch this "new" user's edits. Pinging also SpacemanSpiff on this, who may be interested on this. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Pokéfan95, this is a sock of Jhony jhony yes papa (talk · contribs). I'm going ahead and block on en.wiki now.—SpacemanSpiff 13:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Blocked I suspected that the account is a sock, but wasn't sure which sock. The edit pattern is the same as the Jhony jhony yes papa et all thus blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I knew it, that user is a sock. Thanks all. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

photo entries in the contest

the link to the photo contest still goes to November for submissions. Photo challenge/2016 - December - Holidays (section) thanks for all you do. --All things are possible to him who believes (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg

I contributed to the abovementioned deletion request supporting the 'keep' option as I perceived the "distinctive" font of the logo was not enough to trespass the threshold of originality. At the same time I mentioned that almost all the logos in the category used the same font and therefore should be applied the same result (in case of deletion, obviously). @Jcb: make the decision to delete the file but did nothing regarding the remaining files. As I thought he hadn't read my comment, I repeated it. To my surprise, Jcb answered that he felt no obligation "to hunt for similar cases". To sum up, Jcb decided that a file was a copyright violation (fine) and deleted it while, at the same time, he consciously left in commons the same copyright violation, even if warned twice. If he doesn't feel any obligation to remove a copyright violation I don't feel any obligation to open a deletion request myself. Best regards --Discasto _talk 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Discasto: we are all volunteers and nobody is obligued to do anything. However. I believe that the decission concerning most logos in this category will be the same when they are nominated. Maybe, it was a mistake that they were not nominated together. Note: the image was deleted as a community decission, not as an obvious copyvio; it is not a reason for speedy. Ankry (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ankry. If it was your position that the other files should be nominated, should you not have tagged them with {{Delete}} and notified the uploaders? While consistency in our actions and our stance is indeed a desirable goal, if Jcb had acted on your request as is, the other uploaders would now be up in arms about an out of process deletion. Storkk (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: Being an admin is also volunteer. If you don't wish to carry out the admins' tasks you'd better not volunteer, hadn't you? On the other hand, Storkk what you claim is pointless. The deletion summary would have been as clear as Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg. I do agree that the original nominator was lazy and should have included all relevant logos. But he didn't. The other uploaders would now be up in arms because of the original (and questionable) decision by Jcb, not because of his obvious outcome. To finish, as it seems that, in practice, nobody agrees with Jcb's decision, please proceed to undelete the file. Best regards --Discasto _talk 11:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, and I think your position is untenable: if I point you to User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2016_December_06_00:00 and note that there are a huge concentration of copyvios there that should be tagged, am I now obligating you to go tag them before you do anything else? If so, please then after doing that, click the link to "previous gallery" at the top, and repeat. My point is that just by bringing something to the attention of somebody, you are not forcing them to perform the action that you request. We all spend our time here in the ways that we think are the most effective and most interesting. Given that there was an open DR, Jcb chose to close it according to the policies as he saw them. That doesn't obligate him to follow a trail that you have then left him to similar files. Many admins would then have nominated the others for deletion, others would not have, leaving it to you to do so. I do wonder why instead of wasting a huge amount of time complaining on multiple noticeboards, if consistency in our decisions is so paramount in this case, why you have not nominated them all for deletion citing the previous decision? Storkk (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: What I wonder is why, instead of creating more bureaucracy, you (any of you) duly apply Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion (in particular, point 1 in Namespace-specific > File). Because, if the Chapecoense coat is subject to copyright protection (as deemed by Jcb), all the derivative works of such coat must be deleted or, in the contrary, there is no copyright violation and all of them must be restored. Deleting or restoring is something only an admin must do. Claiming that a jet another bureaucratic process is needed is simply not knowing Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Discasto _talk 11:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line seems to be that you consider the situation unimportant enough to nominate them yourself (or request undeletion for the deleted one), but yet you feel inclined to come here to complain about Jcb. Meh. Absent any specific new factual revelations here, I don't think my continued participation in this thread will be fruitful. Storkk (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Discasto: Jcb would have been grossly incorrect to delete files on the basis of a DR where they where only mentioned, indirectly, at the last moment, and not specifically listed for consideration. It would also have been incorrect to delete files on the basis of a DR when people watching those file pages, and the uploaders, had not been notified. Such deletions would have been out-of-process speedies. Revent^talk 03:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: I'm afraid it's you the one that is utterly wrong. Things haven't change too much since I left adminship and, for sure, policies haven't changed in a significant way. Have a look at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion (in particular, point 1 in Namespace-specific > File). Files that are subject to speedy deletion:

File

1. Apparent copyright violation

Content is apparently a copyright violation, with no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work.

So, claiming that Jcb would have been grossy incorrect is far from close to the commons policies. Speedy deletion policies enable him to speedy delete copyright violations. So, there are two action paths: acknowledging Jcb decision on copyright is OK (I tend not to support is) and delete all the derivative works of the Chapecoense coat, as copyright violations. Or considering Jcb's decision wrong, and therefore restoring the original file. As Jcb, I don't feel obliged to open an (unnecessary, see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion) bureaucratic process just because someone doesn't want to admit being wrong. Best regards --Discasto _talk 11:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC) PS: BTW, see the global usage of File:Símbolo_da_Chapecoense.svg

@Discasto: Opinions can differ. I personally do not think that a TOO case qualifies as a speedy deletion unless there has been a very clear and widespread consensus on the specific point... that was not the case at this DR. Arguing that his closure of the DR was wrong (and that the file should have been kept) while arguing that he should have speedily deleted the others seems pointy. Revent^talk 06:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Sanjay Dutt at the launch of T P Aggarwal's trade magazine 'Blockbuster' 09.jpg - non-free image / vandalism

Could an admin please delete or hide the previous versions of this file from 10 December? The original, and now reverted, image should be OK though. The replacement is either outright vandalism or a non-free movie screenshot. Even if the new image was usable (doubtful), it wouldn't match the given license and file info. Apparently there may have been similar cases of vandalism in BLP-images lately, so Asclepias (talk · contribs) at the help desk suggested to post the request here as a fyi. GermanJoe (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:İçərişəhər DTMQİ icazə vərəq 1.jpg

Hi, Could someone review this please? See also the discussion on my talk page: User talk:Yann#İçərişəhər DTMQİ icazə vərəq. There seems to be a misunderstanding, also because of language issue (according to Google, it is Azeri). Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If this is an official Azerbaijani government document, it is probably {{PD-AZ-exempt}}, but without a clearer explanation of why the document is in scope, I'd endorse deletion. Perhaps Mardetanha can help? Storkk (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Please delete the first 2 newer versions of File:Aditya Roy Kapur promote ‘Ok Jaanu’ on the sets of Indian Idol.jpg. Regards —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 11:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Report about Fair use images

Hello.

1. I find Category:Twitter bird logo which includes non-free logos needs a permission from the manufacturer.
2. Are not the screenshots here copyrighted according to Template:Non-free software screenshot?If they were so, When they will become in the public domain?

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

New Template

Hello to everyone I have created this template for CheckUsers. Please use this template and made improvement in it.Letsinganddance (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jhony jhony yes papa.. --Stemoc 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@ User: Stemoc what are you saying? Letsinganddance (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. For those who do not know, this was a pointy creation of a (redundant) template to be used when CUs flag sockpuppets, created by an LTA sockpuppeter. Revent^talk 11:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Redundant images

Hello.Tom.Reding (talk · contribs) uploads test and identical images and leaves them.Please delete the unhelpful images.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I've deleted the uploads that he categorized as 'test images', since they were obvious tests of svg rendering and no longer needed. Revent^talk 12:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Thank you.What about the identical images that uploaded in 9 January 2015? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I don't think those are identical images, though they are very similar. They are comparisons of the size of the Earth and Moon to six different moons of Saturn. Revent^talk 13:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, which images did you delete?

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, which images are you referring to exactly? Tom.Reding (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: The images I deleted were all variants on File:Euler diagram of solar system bodies.svg that you had categorized as test images... you appeared to have been experimenting with variations on how svgs are rendered. Revent^talk 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, thanks, I forgot about those. Tom.Reding (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Image Was Updated, Failed to Code?

Resolved

I recently updated a higher resolution image of the USS Nevada (BB-36). The high-resolution image (5,666 x 4,256 pixels) does not appear to have replaced the previous version of the same image, uploaded on 28 January 2006 (740 x 493 pixels). Can this be fixed?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Uss_nevada.jpg

Thank you.

Signaleer (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a better version! It has replaced it just fine. Please refresh your browser or follow the instructions on Help:Purge if the old version is still being served to you. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for assistance. Signaleer (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bulk rename request

Resolved

Annoyingly, I misspelled the placename "Edgbaston" in the name of 16 files, in Category:Carpenter Road, Edgbaston. Can someone do a batch rename, preserving the rest of the file name stings, please? Or is there a tool I can use to do so, without being an admin? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I know of no way to perform a bulk rename, but have placed a {{Rename}} template on them, and they're all now in the short queue at Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 3. Storkk (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Legoktm/massrename.js ? --Didym (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to know! Storkk (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

pseudo administrator

User:Wikinamii call himself an Administrator. I do not know what I should do, I report it here.--Y.haruo (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed template {{User admin}} from his user page. As for now, IMO that's all we can do. --jdx ^Re: 07:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.--Y.haruo (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

MassMessage WLM 2016 GR event

Please someone send ASAP a MassMessage with this content to the talk pages of these users. It is to notify the participants of the Greek part of Wiki Loves Monuments about the awarding event of local winners and other info. This has to be done today since the event is tomorrow! Thank you. --Geraki ^T_L^G 07:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --jdx ^Re: 10:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Grandfathered old files

Recently we have had a discussion at Commons talk:Grandfathered old files about the cut-off date. At this moment there seems to be a consensus that the date in the guideline should change, but not yet a consensus about which new date would be suitable. There are two good candidates at the moment, one with 5 votes and one with 3 votes. This difference and this number of votes is very small to build a consensus on. I would like to invite you to read Commons talk:Grandfathered old files and to vote, so that a change of the page could be based on the input of more different users. Jcb (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Add Category:Commons bots on a protected page

Hi, can you add Category:Commons bots to protected page User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome, it is useful for statistics purpose. Thanks. Akeron (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hi, Someone please delete this (226570400) revision? Thanks, — TBhagat (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi Zhuyifei1999! IMO, Also block needed of respective contributor user ip i.e., 202.129.228.229 (talk · contribs); Reason : nonsense edits. Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 69

a note on Abuse Filter 69: It also fires when a file is moved, not only when the the OTRS template is added. But maybe this is necessary to keep the OTRS-database in sync? Otherwise moves could be ignored? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Felix & William Browder

There are two pictures that are 'flipped'. File:Felix Browder.jpg is actually William Browder per the original source and File:Bill Browder, 1982.jpeg is actually Felix Browder per its original source. These were uploaded by different users so I'm assuming that Oberwolfach Photo Collection had them reversed at one point and then made a correction. As the move request tool doesn't allow submitting a request to move to an existing name, I'm bringing here to have these both moved. "File:Felix Browder.jpg" should be moved to "File:William Browder.jpg" and "File:Bill Browder, 1982.jpeg" moved to "File:Felix Browder.jpeg". I considered loading new versions to correct it, but the 1982 would need to be removed anyway and the files have different permissions so seems easier to just move. Though pages using "File:Bill Browder, 1982.jpeg" would need to be updated to "File:William Browder.jpeg" Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done, with file usage replaced one another. That was a hard one. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin action)

Verschiebewunsch

Hallo, Kornberg.jpg stellt definitiv den Schneeberg dar. Schneeberg.jpg stellt einen Lichtellauf in Schneeberg (=Ortschaft) dar. Da beide Bilder z. Zt. nirgends verwendet werden, schlage ich vor, File:Schneeberg.jpg verschieben auf File:Lichtellauf.jpg und File:Kornberg.jpg dann auf die freizumachende Weiterleitung File:Schneeberg.jpg zu verschieben. Damit wäre die bildliche Darstellung des Schneebergs auf File:Schneeberg.jpg Vielen Dank! LG --Abrape (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done; die erste Datei zeigt den Schneeeberg im Fichtelgebirge, die zweite ist in Schneeberg (Erzgebirge) - ist das o.k. ? sarang♥사랑 10:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Summa cum laude. Danke! LG --Abrape (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for importing Abuse Filter

Hi! IMO, Importing of Repeating characters abuse filter from enwiki would be useful for this type of edits by ip or other newbie users. Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Please revert my renaming to this page. I am not able to reverting.Ibola25 (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done, please don't move your user talk page to another one again. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin action)

Removal of my rights

I don't how but my autoconfirmed right has been removed. Please help me.Ibola25 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The autconfirmed has been revoked by Special:AbuseFilter/60 which has been created in 2010 by NuclearWarfare. Maybe the "Revoke the user's autoconfirmed status" should be removed. I restored users autoconfirmed status. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ibola25 has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. That said, the edit filter does look useful to me because it revokes a user's autoconfirmed right if they move a page having made less than 60 edits before. This is a reasonable measure to prevent move warring or disruptive moves by new accounts. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello Sir, Tulsi Bhagat is using multiple accounts. When i was investing on this topic i found that this user is using Wiki Mopper. In his meta user page he said that he is retired and willn't use any accounts but he is rapidly using other accounts. 36.253.254.125 11:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that Wiki Mopper is Tulsi's account. If u need proof then i can provide. 36.253.254.125 12:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is proof in @newiki that user is requesting adminship for Wiki Mopper in place of Tulsi Bhagat. 36.253.254.125 12:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: this user should be globally blocked. Shouldn't he? 36.253.254.125 12:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any admin action here is needed. If Wiki Mopper is really Tulsi Bhagat, then this is considered as a "clean start", which is acceptable. No block is needed, as long as Wiki Mopper doesn't abuse Commons. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: it's unfair JuniorX2 was also doing "clean start" but why he is globally blocked and he hasn't abuse wikimedia projects. 36.253.254.230 13:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, but blocked the IP's as socks of Sarojupreti. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for context, Tulsi Bhagat has a clean block log on Commons... JuniorX2 was created after Sarojupreti was indeffed for "Abusing multiple accounts to upload copyvios". Revent^talk 14:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2016 to check closure

Hi there,

I request a review of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2016 to check. The goal of Wikimedia Commons is to makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content. Files that are unrealistically useful for educational purpose are generally considered out of scope and often deleted. However, the expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Taking that into consideration, I request a review of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2016 to check as I do not believed the DR was properly closed. This review would be helpful in understanding what should be acceptable per COM:SCOPE especially when images like File:Bleck Okidji.jpg, File:Drive through Mbale town 1.jpg, File:Chania 15.jpg, File:Chania 16.jpg File:Drive through Mbale town IMG 0613 Drive through Mbale town.jpg, File:Drive through Mbale town IMG 0612 Drive through Mbale town.jpg, File:Drive through Mbale town IMG 0610 Drive through Mbale town.jpg (to point out few) from the DR were closed as "kept". I earlier thought of contacting the closing admin, User:Yann but looking at their closing note, I believe contacting them would amount to a waste of time. Pinging Steinsplitter, Jameslwoodward, Jcb, Didym, Ellin Beltz and EugeneZelenko who are active in DR for an insight. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

First one I picked. file:Drive through Mbale town IMG 0612 Drive through Mbale town.jpg. This one can be used to discribe a certain fase of ecological succession. (It's called stakenfase in my native language but the English translation slipped my mind.) Natuur12 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I think your point that some of these are probably out of scope has merit, I might well have closed this the same way and with much the same comment as Yann. Large DRs that contain a heterogeneous collection of images are a difficult to handle. If you were to start several DRs, selecting the carefully so that the images are similar, they would be much easier to handle. VFC makes this very easy -- just tick the ones that have similar problems. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bleck Okidji.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the closure: Most of these are acceptable. In addition, a mass deletion of this kind is really not helpful. I don't understand the point of this DR, and there are a few great portraits here: File:He enjoyed seeing himself on the image, so I hung around a bit longer than usual for his entertainment (Jeppestown, 2015).jpg, File:She wasn’t very verbal but quite taken at the scene playing out in front of her (Jeppestown, 2015).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Before the DR was closed, I looked at a random selection of the listed file and found that some were really OK and some were borderline. Please be aware that an admin closing such an unmanagable large DR is unlikely to look at every single file. If looking at e.g. 15 random files gives the impression that most of the files are at least OK, the DR will probably result in 'keep'. I don't see a problem with the closure of this specific DR. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think will be good idea if organizers of competition will participate in review, especially if they know specific of particular country well. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for right

Hola, Whenever i revert test or vandalism edits by ip, sometimes i've to perform captcha which is very irritating. So that Can someone kindly help adding me to confirmed user group? Also, when i became Autoconfirmed then kindly remove it. Thanks, Born4People (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, I wonder how you have to perform CAPTCHA if you are reverting unconstructive edits. In my knowledge, CAPTCHA is only triggered for edits containing links. And you only have to wait four days to become autoconfirmed, I don't see a good reason to not let you wait the four days period. Commonly, the confirmed right is only given to users needed to overwrite some files, bots that are not yet approved, and new alternate accounts. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, But Honestly, i have performed CAPTCHA. Ofcourse ! I'll wait to become autoconfirmed. --Born4People (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Report for issue with a user

I'd like to outline the difficulties several editors are facing with user:Wikicology and ask for help to see what could be done.

The facts

• user:Wikicology has been been mass listing images from the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2016 contest for deletion. Another example of such listing. Whilst I will agree that some of the requests do have merit and I am certain some will be deleted (I already deleted some of them myself), I believe many of them are borderline or completely ok for Commons. The reasons given for their deletion in many cases are not convincing at all
• Whilst the deletion request case has been closed, Isaac is now coming on this board to support his deletion request, making it somehow void that the original request has been closed.
• We have tried various mediations about the above issues. User:Olaniyan Olushola talked with him in length and got his agreement that Isaac would be more cautious and friendly in the future. But this was not followed by results. I talked with Isaac for quite a long time on Monday on Facebook msg and he promised he would be more cautious, but I see he is still moving around trying to get images deleted.
• I suggested Isaac that copy pasting various warning messages on images files was very unfriendly to new editors and was not exactly the way to get new contributors for Commons. He informed me that in case of doubts, the policy on Commons was to contact the user and get an authorization on OTRS (being an OTRS member, I am not frankly unfamiliar to this... but I am unfamiliar with the concept of basically asking authorization for any single image. OTRS team is already overloaded). Accordingly, I suggested that instead of doing mass deletion templating, he could contact some of the users he had doubts about and talk to them. This is what he did with images from SanDanceVR. He apparently got confirmation that this user is the copyright holder... but having defaced every single picture uploaded by this user (eg File:Tradiona lives on in the red dust of the Kalahari.jpg), he refuses to clean up the mess behind him and let every image HE templated for deletion, just as is. Isaac clearly expect that others will clean up behind him, arguing he does not have the time (he found the time to list dozen of images up for deletion though).
• Isaac is pushing work on the admins, asking them to check mass of pictures instead of taking up each case one by one. Which I think is quite unice.
• During the discussion he had with Shola and then later with me, Isaac promised to hold on with the issue for a couple of weeks. I trusted him to do so. Only to find him 4 days later reloading the issue on this board. After the long discussions we had with him, I do not believe yet another discussion with Shola or me can be anywhere useful given that he does not do do what he says he would do in our former discussions
• Besides, user:Wikicology has recently harassed User:Rberchie on various copyright issues, not only being overly picky in his requests to him, but also using a very strong and unfriendly language [4]

The context

• to provide a bit of context to the whole situation, Isaac has been recently refused scholarship to attend m:WikiIndaba conference 2017, organized by a Ghana team, which include Rberchie. I do not know who made the scholarship decision (funds are from WMF), but I know the spree started just after the decision. It is hard not to see a sign of a disgrunted editor rather than someone just trying to make a point in good faith.
• Additional context is the reason why Shola has been talking to Isaac directly is that both are members of Nigeria UserGroup and know one another.
• I have been wondering why he listed for deletion pictures from user:SanDanceVR upon the reason that "The copyright holder of this work is " Kevin Rack". Unless there is a compelling evidence to suggest that uploader is the same person as " Kevin Rack", this images should be deleted per our precautionary principle". Those pictures are on scope, of interest, with exif, good but not amazing enough to think they come straight from a published pro book. So this is, in my eyes, typically the case where we would keep the images rather than deleted per our precautionary principle. Why would Isaac list them ? I find it suspicious that this is the only uploader I actually thanked for his input in the past 3 weeks. It feels like I am being stalked.
• Yet additional context is that Isaac is indef banned on the English Wikipedia [5].

My state of mind

• Whilst I know that being banned on one project does not imply he is banned here, nor do I see appropriate that he is banned here, I definitly consider him to be a problematic editor disrupting community activity. At the moment, I feel like rolling back his edits like could be done with a troll :(
• I would like to know if there would be anyone willing to clean up the mess he left (removing the templates "up for deletion" on the files taggued), perhaps a bot can do that ?
• Any feedback or comment on the whole issue is welcome. I am at a loss of what to do. Anthere (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good, this saves me the trouble. I'll add a subsection, just give me few minutes to compile the major problems. Wikicology (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Florence. This is actually started quite some time ago, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mac-Gbathy (note that the nomination contained files in use, and I only noticed that because a file was removed by Delinker from one of the pages on my watchlist in the English Wikipedia. That particular file was restored after I filed an undeletion request, but other than that nobody ever acknowledged that things went wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks Anthere for providing the background of this issue. I now see that the problem is much more serious than requesting files deletion under a senseless reason. I totally agree that Wikicology's DRs are unacceptable with this context. Unless he apologizes quickly and accept not to create DRs anymore for some time (3 months?), a block may be needed. I will request undeletion of these. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: , this one was already dealt with, see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-10#File:Museum_5.jpg - Jcb (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will restore some more. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment As images are previously published at [6] and [7], I think we need an COM:OTRS verification for the account User:SanDanceVR (per Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F #3). Jee 12:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Yann that we need a long-term block here. Despite the fact that two days ago I was clearly demonstrated that the community of Wikimedia Commons does not care about any - new or established - users, I still believe it should care. Mass-nominating files "to probe" the policies is not an appropriate behavior, especially since we have admins who blank delete everything without checking every single file (as policies require). Not agreeing to stop these disruptive nominations is for me disruptive behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Anthere

User:Anthere is one of the most respected Wikimedian with experience in organizing wikimedia projects and a past record of discrediting good people for nothing but selfish interest [8]. In the past few years, she has co-organized four Wikimedia Project including Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2014, Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2015 and Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2016 and now the ongoing m:Wiki Loves Women. I co-coordinated Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2015 in Nigeria, evidence can be found at Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2015#Team, File:Isaac Olatunde.jpg, File:Wiki Loves Africa 2015 (Moshood Abiola Polytechnic , Abeoukta, Ogun State Nigeria)13.JPG. I also participate in the ongoing m:Wiki Loves Women (not as one of the trainers but as a supporter). Evidence can be found at Category:Wiki Loves Women - Events in Nigeria. It is strange that Anthere could come here to maliciously describe me as sabotaging their effort due to my edit here. Let me put more light into this. Anthere suddenly developed this hatred after I challenged her comment at the African mailling list for maliciously describing User:Seddon_(WMF) as sabotage [9]. I wasn't happy to seeing such comment from a highly respected editor. This was first noticed by Douglas Scott (User:Discott who told Anthere to assume good faith [10]. I suggested that a more friendly words should have been used [11]. Instead of apologizing, she directed an ad hominen attack to me [12]. I raised a concern about this [13] and she apologized for attacking me [14] as if she meant the apology. I accepted her apology and moved on with other things. Few months ago, Elisfkc raised a concern about Wiki Loves Africa 2014 at COM:VP#Wiki Loves Africa 2014. I advised Elisfkc to nominate the problematic ones for deletion. My experienced with the contest is that people don't bother to do cleanup during and after the contest. Anthere is only interested in generating images to impresss the WMF and their donors, weather out of scope or copyvios contents. Recently, I was patrolling images uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Africa from Nigeria. I saw some problematic images and decided to patrol Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2016 to check for similar problems. I nominated the ones I found to be out of scope for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2016 to check. Anthere was not happy about this because she felt the images would be automatically be deleted. I told her this is not always the case, that DR does not mean automatic deletion. She wasn't happy because she was interested in generating contents either good or bad just to impress the WMF. The DR was closed, some were deleted and some were kept. Looking at the closed DR, I saw some ridiculous images such as File:Bleck Okidji.jpg which was later renominated by Jameslwoodward after another look. I was shocked and I became confused about what should generally be accepted here per COM:SCOPE, maybe I have misinterpreted COM:SCOPE and COM:EDUSE. I requested the review of the closure and several editors offers useful comment and the feedback I got was that the DR was properly closed that the closing admin would not check each of the files since they do not have the same problem (pardon me if I misunderstood your comment). I am appalled that Anthere could come here to raise a concern about my edits for nothing but personal interest. Providing this for the record. The question, I want to ask Anthere is if this report was based on the now closed debate, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SanDanceVR where I told her that I do not have the time to close the DR now, after I deemed it fit to resolve the copyright issue with the uploader? Anthere, I like to remind you that the burden to close a DR is not on the nominator. Nobody is paid to do anything here, you can't force any user to edit any Wikimedia project when they are busy in real life. If the report is based on my request for review of images like File:Bleck Okidji.jpg from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2016 to check, that's was not a bad idea as I was only interested in knowing more about what is acceptable per COM:SCOPE. Why this premature report? This report is baseless, reckless and remain nothing but an attempt to harass me. This is unacceptable. Wikicology (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line : I like to remind you that the burden to close a DR is not on the nominator.  : double the reason for you to stop mass listing images for deletion. Don't you think ? Anthere (talk)

Wikicology, I see that you are not willing to cooperate. Specially attacking Anthere here when the issue is with your DRs is not acceptable. Therefore I propose a six-month block of your account. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yann, what is going on here? You never consider her comments above as an attack but you see mine as an attack and you are here threatening me with a block for no apparent reason? Six months block of my account for what? Wikicology (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read through the wall of text above, and to be honest, I have no idea what it is you claim that Anthere has done wrong. The only thing you yourself characterize as an "attack" ([15]) was off-wiki, and does not look like an attack to me at all. Anthere's apology afterwards can not be construed as any "admission of guilt", just a way to restore a friendly working environment. Apart from that you link to ordinary discussions. Unless any concrete evidence of misbehaviour is provided, I will close this request. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Srittau. Honestly, I do not have any issue with Anthere. We have worked together in the past few years. If there are issues, she knows how to contact me and resolve it. The reason why she started the above thread is not clear to me. If I told her, I have no time to close a debate, it simply because I was busy in real life and when I am less busy, I'll surely close it. If I request a feedback from admin, that was not a bad idea. She filled a report against me without any discussion with me on my talk page. That was not a good idea. This is someone we coordinated Wikimedia projects together. I spent my resources, time and energy in ensuring her project was successful. It's said that the same person filled a report against me for no apparent reason while I was trying to help. Wikicology (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Srittau, here is a copy of my email to Anthere on December 18, 2016

Dear Flo, I trust you are fine.  I want to let you know that the WLA images I took for deletion was done in good faith. My earlier thought was that if we wait for all the images to come in, it might be difficult to deal with thousands of problematic ones. Following a discussion with Olushola Olaniyan, we discovered that dealing with them at early stage might do some harm than good. On this note I have decided to halt my review on the images until the end of the contest and probably after the WLA organizers submitted their report. Ignore my comments on the DR pages because I won't comment there again. Please, do accept my sincere apology for any inconvenient this might have caused the team. Best, Isaac

Meanwhile, I have neither review WLA photo nor nominated anyone for deletion since then aside resolving copyright issue with the user with metadata problem. So, what is the problem here that she has decided to report me? What exactly is she reporting? Wikicology (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, I suggest you to stay calm so that we can take some time to review this (entire) case. My first impression is, both of you act in good faith to gather more contents from Africa. At the same time, it seems you tried to ensure the quality of permissions which also good. All I see as "not so good" is you used deletion requests excessively for that purposes. Although our policy allows it, the word "deletion request" is not so friendly. We had early discussions, suggesting to reword it to something more friendly (eg: permission review). I suggest you to use talk pages to gather permission (otrs, etc.) first and use deletion request as a last resource. Cheers, Jee 14:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point Jkadavoor. I do not think the issue at hand is an Anthere/Isaac issue. As a *person*, Isaac is a fine good man. The problem is the editorial approach of things. Anthere (talk)

You are kind and nice too. If you had contacted me on my talk page or via email, I would have explained to you why I requested the review. I just wanted to know the kind of images acceptable per COM:SCOPE when I noticed that images like File:Bleck Okidji.jpg was not deleted and not because I wanted WLA images deleted. What do I tend to gain in that? I think it was all a misunderstanding. I am sorry, Anthere. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anthere and Wikicology. Hope the misunderstanding is now resolved; so suggesting to close this thread. Merry Christmas, both of you! Jee 16:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit perplex of why you consider that the issue is closed. I do not really see how it is closed. Is not this a very classical case of red herring where the issue I am raising is not discussed, but instead morphes into supposingly a two people disagreement ? Why would what I say be dismissed simply because Isaac responded to my appeal in listing my own failings rather than addressing my concerns ? Again... the issue is not a conflict between Isaac and I. Isaac and I spent the best part of an hour discussing it in private a couple of days ago, and that conversation was friendly. I am fine with Isaac as a person, I am not fine with his acts. Mass listing articles for deletion, tagging the files for deletion and not removing the tag afterwards, plastering warnings on new users talk pages, being agressive when older users are not getting it quickly enough, is the issue I am raising. We want good content on Commons and cleaning is important... but it should not be at the expense of having participants feel so much unwelcome. If you feel that the thread should be closed... fine... let's close it. But I am completely unconvinced. Anthere (talk)

1. As I commented above, we need strong evidence, especially in case where works are previously published. So SanDanceVR account need to be verified. Otherwise those files can be deleted at any time. See for example Davidvraju. 2. Wikicology already stated here that he stopped making mass DRs. Do we need to ask him again? 3. "not removing the tag afterwards": I saw that DR. It is easier for an admin than an ordinary user as they have no access to automated tools. Jee 07:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot-Wunsch/Ich wünsche mir ein Bot

Hallå,

Es ist Weihnachten und ich wünsche mir ein Bot.

Ich wünsche mir ein Bot, welches nach der Eintragung einer Datei in die Löschanträge (gleiches gilt auch für Dateien in den Kategorien: Medien ohne Lizenzangaben/Quellenangaben/Genehmigung) den Datei-Uploader in seinem Home-Wiki auf seiner Diskussionsseite benachrichtigt. Außerdem sollte bei eingebundenen Dateien auch ein Hinweis auf der Diskussionsseite der Seite, wo die Datei eingebunden ist, erscheinen. Dies würde viel Stress ersparen.

Falls es schon einmal solch einen Wunsch oder eine Diskussion darüber gab genügt mir ein Link.

Merry Christmas --Hystrix (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(Request for a bot to notify users on their home wiki in case of DRs.) In general that sounds like a good idea, but I don't know how this could be done, except for cross wiki uploads, since we don't have a way to determine the home Wiki. Also, user page notifications are global. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth might be a start, although it's not perfect: the "home wiki" there is where there initial account was merged from. May be worthwhile anyway, since it's probably correct for a decent portion of users. Storkk (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lieben Dank für die schnellen Antworten.

Bot-Wunsch/Ich wünsche mir noch immer noch ein Bot

Wenn es nicht über die Home-Wikis funktioniert, dann könnte es doch über die Einbindung in den lokalen Wikis gehen. Die lokale Verwendung jeder Datei ist auf Commons ersichtlich. Könnte aber nicht auf der Diskussionsseite der Seite, wo die Datei eingebunden ist, sofort nach dem Löschantrag ein Hinweis erscheinen. Wünsch euch frohe Weihnacht. Hystrix (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hystrix: Ein paar Gedanken... Riskieren wir dann nicht das Leute als Bot in anderen Wikis gesperrt werden (wenn wir das aktuelle Skript benutzen)? Ein x-wiki bot würde sowieso in vielen Wikis gesperrt werden. Da wäre eine Mailbenachrichtigung (auf opt-in Basis für aktive, und auf opt-out Basis für seltene Gäste) wohl sinnvoller. Und dann brauch es wohl auch Konsens für und jemand muss es Technisch umsetzen. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

EN: @Hystrix: A few thoughts... Then we risk that people are getting blocked on wikis as unapproved bot (if we use the current notification script)? A x-wiki bot would likely be blocked on multiple wikis soon. Imho a mail notification would be better (on a opt-in Basis for active members, and on a opt-out basis for inactive people). And this likely needs community consensus, and then someone who provides the code. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

„Riskieren wir dann nicht das Leute als Bot in anderen Wikis gesperrt werden...“, ist das heute immer noch so? Vor vielen Jahren lief ich einem Troll hinterher, der alle Links von Camel auf Camel (Band) setzte. Habe versucht alles zu reseten. Ein Ergebnis: Die fr-WP dachte ich bin ein Troll und markierte mich ebenso- Hystrix (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Dateien für ein Was-auch-immer wiederherstellen

Wie ist mit dieser Anfrage umzugehen? Hystrix (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Da es sich nicht um eklatante URVs, sondern um fehlende Panoramafreiheit handelt, sähe ich kein Problem, wenn du mit dem Antragsteller ein enges Zeitfenster vereinbarst, wo du die Dateien entlöschst (vielleicht immer 10 auf eine Schwung) und er sie dann auf das betreffende Wiki verschiebt und du sie danach gleich wieder löschst. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Dank für den Hinweis. (immer wieder das FoP; ich kann nur darüber kotzen, kotzen, kotzen ... sorry) Hystrix (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JAnDbot

I don't know whether this behaviour is intended or not: After 2 years of silence on Commons the linkfixing JAnDbot has mutated to a category creating engine generating cat pages that contain an unsubsted {{Uncategorized}} only. Pinging User:JAn Dudík. --Achim (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Achim55: The bot is not locally approved on Commons, and such behavior is incompatible with the global bot policy. Noting that the bot was denied a flag for 'mass recategorization' on Commons in 2013 (see Commons:Bots/Requests/JAnDbot), I have blocked it for the time being. Revent^talk 22:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've pinged the bot owner on his home wiki. Revent^talk 23:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was testing @Matěj Suchánek: 's clean_commonscat script and forgot bot running for longer time than I wanted. JAn Dudík (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@JAn Dudík: If the problem is resolved I can unblock the bot here if needed. Please fix (categorize) the created categories, though. Revent^talk 20:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

About Picasa

I want to upload a image from picasa the link is https://get.google.com/albumarchive/111834408019109014215/album/AF1QipOCGb5WtJI2-j_8M8DYnX-MrnnXaRi1vHG3J_GN/AF1QipN8ZKwy5hmfhhDm4weMuLNscBkwsTukgaAvhrT6?source=pwa please give me a photo ID for Flinfo.Just smile for us (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Just smile for us: Picasa is now defunct, officially (see https://picasa.google.com/). Flinfo unfortunately does not support Google Photos, it's replacement. I don't know if it's planned to add support for it. Revent^talk 17:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful while editing the file description of works by others

Yesterday I noticed this strange edits and read a related discussion too. I don't want to discuss about the behavior of those editors here. But I noticed a serious violation of licensing policy here. "A license can only be granted by the copyright holder, which is usually the author (photographer, painter or similar)." I see nowhere the uploader claimed s/he is the photographer. I see nowhere the uploader (if the photographer) provided a license for the photograph (non-free frame). I don't think another volunteer can add such info for a work on file page which itself is the original source. (Volunteers can fix errors when reviewing a transferred work having an external source with a license. They can insert/fix such info while processing an OTRS too. But this is a very different scenario.) I vaguely remember this is well documented in somewhere; but not remember the page now. I'm bringing this to your attention as many other similar files remain. Jee 04:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: The CC-BY-SA-4.0 license was in the original version of the file page. Sherteng uploaded a number of images, all taken with the same camera, of photos taken at the Kirchner Museum Davos during a Glam-on-Tour event where he was a registered participant (and the event page said he was going to be taking photos). He also added them to his user category, which says they are his own images. I think adding {{Self-photographed}} was safe. Revent^talk 15:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The author and source are very different and that category not exists when that license is given. Note that Template:cc-by-sa-4.0 and Template:Self with a license tag has different meaning. When that category is added; the license is very different. "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" has a clear meaning which is also missing here. I think it always better to ask the uploader to clarify and fill the missing info than making our own assumptions. Otherwise it very difficult to understand the validity of the license from this file history. Jee 16:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: What? The original version of the file page had a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. The uploader added the file to his user category, of "photographs by Sher Teng", three days later. This seems to be a clear claim that 'he took the photo', and I only edited the file page much later, after other people began fighting over it, to end the argument by separating statements 'about the painting' from statements 'about the photograph'. This was after the issue was taken to ANU.

Sherteng also uploaded other images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) taken the same day, in the same place, with the same camera, as {{Own}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}, and then added them to the same "photographs by Sher Teng" category. It seems quite obvious the only confusion was from using the upload wizard, and someone who had just started editing Commons not knowing how to mark licensed images of PD-Art correctly. Revent^talk 03:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems you didn't get what I'm saying. The original version of the page has a license coming from Ernst Ludwig Kirchner; not from the uploader. It is not a license grant; only a statement that the uploader believes that work has a license in the source as stated. (I didn't see that ANU; neither I questioned your intentions. All I stated above is the need for attention in handling such cases. Adding a user category or availability of other works from the same user may give some lights about the author of the work. But they will not substitute the need for a license that should come from the author with an explicit source as "own".) Jee 03:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I assure you I was careful, and I seriously doubt a person who died in 1938 placed his painting under a CC-BY-SA license. We are allowed to apply common sense. Feel free to go ask the uploader if the page is wrong (I was not even the first person to come to the conclusion that it was the uploader's image). Revent^talk 04:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A bug in MediaWiki?

I was browsing COM:AN and I reached to User talk:Slowking4#File:Recumbent Nude.jpg and others. This is what I saw: File:Mediawiki bug (jdx).png. Instead of "Template:Autotranslate" translated version of {{Idw}} should be displayed and translated version of "talk" message instead of "int:Talkpagelinktext". Everything seems to be fine near the top of the page. Don't you think it is a bug in MediaWiki? This talk page is quite big (over 260 sections) and perhaps it's too big for MW's parser? --jdx ^Re: 11:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The template include size is exceeded, therefore templates won't work correctly on that page. The talkpage should be archived. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Modification de license

Bonjour,

Je viens de upload-er 2 photos :

• 
  Statue of Luís de Camões - Camões High School - Lisbon
• 
  Statue of Luís de Camões - Camões High School - Lisbon

Je me suis trompée de license en procédant au téléchargement. Je souhaite placer ces deux photos sous license : "Domaine public" Pouvez-vous soit changer cette license, soit m'indiquer comment procéder.

Merci pour votre réponse, Adèle de Reiset (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour Adèle de Reiset,

Dans la partie "Licence", remplacez {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} par {{self|cc-0}}. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merci pour votre réponse. En effet, c'est simple et ça fonctionne.
Adèle de Reiset (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:CropTool functionality, usage requirements and review

When using CropTool to upload a cropped image under a new file name, the old file page is more or less directly copied to the new file page. This includes image appraisal templates like {{QualityImage}}, {{VI}} and {{Assessments}} but also user-specific hidden categories, like "Quality images by User:XXX" or other hidden categories like "Quality images of XXX", see here for an example. A cropped version evidently does not inherit the review templates. The problem is described here and here. I estimate that several houndred cropped images are currently incorrectly tagged with appraisal templates. The tool is available for all users, the tutorial does not make it clear of these limitations of the tool and the user responsibility of reviewing the new file page, and there is no review process for assuring the cropped file pages by inexperienced users is done as intended.

These quality problems are concerning, and I am wondering is it would be best to only allow access to the tool for users, who are members of a certain access group, which indicates they know what they are doing, whether the tool should be made more intelligent, and/or if cropped images should have a mandatory {{CropTool review needed}} template added, such that the file pages are double checked? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As far i can see you stared a discussion here, here and here. Thus i don't see the need to post it here on AN as well, needless to say that admins can't help here - you have to contact the tool developer regarding the bug (not copying specific templates). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I posted here to get some opinions on what the administrators think of these problems - like if usage of the tool should be restricted or not. The talk page of some tool is often not watched by many. But I agree it is perhaps best to provide comments on the talk page of the tool to keep the discussion centralized. Maybe some admins also have some good ideas of good ways to resolve the problem, or increase chances that the tool is used as intended. The problem cannot solely be solved by the tool, there are too many things to consider, a human review of the tool user or some other user is needed as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Help needed...

This is an absolutely wonderful map...BUT it takes forever to load in the 20,834 × 12,620 pixels size. And that size is the only one where you can actually read the names.

It is a collage of 6 different maps, (and the single maps are not uploaded to commons). My question is: Is there anyone here who could divide it into the 6 different maps (keeping the max 20,834 × 12,620 pixels size), and then upload those 6 maps to commons? I would be eternally grateful.....Huldra (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra: Possibly, though as a 'quick fix' I added {{Large image}}, which links to the tool on labs. Revent^talk 20:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Thanks! As soon as I figured out how it worked, it worked very nicely... I would still love to see the 6 different maps uploaded, though. Typically, if you work on articles in the region, you only cover a smaller part. I, e.g, works on places in Israel/Palestine; I hardly ever edit outside the bottom centre map and the bottom left map.....So those two would be of great interest to me. While, say, the two left most would be of interest to those who edit Iranian subjects, etc. Huldra (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra: I agree, I just can't really do it. You'll probably have more luck if you make the request at COM:GL/M. Revent^talk 21:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Thanks again, I have done so, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This Category

Images in the above category are not PD since the artist died in 1947. They could be deleted...with a notice saying restore in 2018. But...if they were painted before 1923--as the uploader states--would an Admin wish to pass them? If not, the only solution is delete. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ireland has the PMA+70 rule, but without the 'end of the year' part. So the works of this artist will be in the Public Domain from 2 March 2017. So we could delete them and then undelete them after 2 months, or we could just ignore them and everything will be fine from 2 March. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently our own overview was at fault, see here, so apparently copyright will expire 1 January 2018. Jcb (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

domofoto.ru

Hell.There are 136 images from domofoto.ru, Are these images free?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The first three files on that list don't have a verifiable source. (I've tagged them accordingly.) The fourth comes from http://domofoto.ru/photo/33410/, which states under "Информация о фото" (information about the photo) in the box on the left-hand side: "Лицензия: CC-BY-SA" (License: CC-BY-SA) with a link to the 4.0 version of the license. The footer of the page also states "Материалы на сайте распространяются под лицензией CC-BY-SA, если не указано иное" (Material on the site is licensed under CC-BY-SA, unless specified otherwise). (The GFDL claim on the example file seems to be made up, so I corrected it and tagged the file for license review, which should be done for all such files.) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Problematic editor

I'm reporting Bajesus. On the main English Wikipedia they created a hoax page for a non-existent cheese museum. It looked to have been done as a joke, especially as they tried to claim that a dog was its curator.

On WC they've uploaded several images, some recently and some back in 2008. In several of these images they try to claim that they created the works in question, however the content has been posted elsewhere and the claims that they created the work looks to be false, especially given their recent nonsense. I've blocked them on the English Wikipedia as not being here to edit in a beneficial fashion and I think that it'd be a good idea to block them here as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Sorted and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

disambig template

I'm not, is someone able to improve {{Disambig}}? If there are very many files in a category like Category:Football which now contains 1,881 files there is an error message (I guess because of the "," in the number). That's no problem but subsequently it doesn't show up on Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories so that one hardly ever becomes aware of such an overcrowded disambig cat. --Achim (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done —LX (talk, contribs) 20:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you! --Achim (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Even DELBUG won't work

Greetings all: Today I found an undeletable file File:Build and Deploy Applications with the Microsoft App Platform.webm, and when I tried to add {{DELBUG}} it returned "A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.[WGVRLwpAEKkAAAo6Dz4AAABC] 2016-12-29 18:09:04: Fatal exception of type "DBQueryError" " Would someone with a bigger mop please take out this file? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You have succeeded to delete it in the meantime. I have experienced this problem several times in the past few days, including not being able to add {{Delbug}}. Jcb (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I think this is just simply that, oddly, larger files take longer to delete. That's a massive file, and it's likely that Apache timed out while the file was still being deleted. It was 'eventually' deleted, and then gave you errors because you were trying to edit something that no longer existed.

I'm rather 'kibitzing' here, but I've seen similar cases when deleting or undeleting 'large' files that were a lot smaller than that one. Revent^talk 18:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The time in your quoted error message was a couple of minutes later than the logged deletion time... you were probably hitting the buttons on a cached copy of the page. Revent^talk 18:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, you should get a other error output in such a case. Whiteout looking in the error logs it is impossible to tell whats happen here exactly. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the weird errors when deleting huge files may be caused by the deletion process to be ongoing. Last days we have had to delete many files of several GBs. Maybe the system is just not designed for that. Jcb (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, When restoring the file (for a test) i get: Could not acquire lock for "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/0/0f/Build_and_Deploy_Applications_with_the_Microsoft_App_Platform.webm". But then the file was restored more then a minute later. When re-deleteing i get the same error as ellin. Which means, the file storage backend stucks, but that is nothing new... sigh.--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all, I just wanted to be sure it didn't fall through the cracks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Skip to top and bottom

Can anybody import Template:Skip to top and bottom to Commons, please? Jee 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Steinsplitter; it works fine here. Have a wonderful 2017! Jee 03:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please delete

Can someone please delete Commons:Administrators/Requests/SpacemanSpiff‎. It's obviously some sort of nonsense from a sock I blocked at en. (I even got thanked for speedy tagging the page! —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Krd 10:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked User:Help2005 as a sockpuppet of User:Jhony jhony ha ji. (@SpacemanSpiff: See the latter page for an explanation of that user's behavior.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Srittau, now blocked on en too. I can usually identify him quick enough but the first few edits here were a break in pattern. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Unqualified {{Cc-by-sa}} change

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cc-by-sa&diff=228118564&oldid=12667878

Can we get this change reverted, as it's causing trouble. See Commons:Village_pump#Another_bulk_process_to_delete_large_numbers_of_licensed_files Even if we decide to delete 2007 files licensed as {{Cc-by-sa}} because "we" have decided that it's now an invalid licence, it needs to be considered more carefully first. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Done by Yann. No need to crosspost. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Russavia

After a period of silence, Russavia woke up. Please be careful that we do not let him disturb the project. Jcb (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And it's a shame how Ymblanter responds, an admin unworthy. Jcb (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• What's shameful is your refusal to undelete files you delete in error, merly on the basis of what a banned user thinks of it. What's shameful is your disturbance of not admiting your own fault merly because a banned user may have pointeted them out. What's admin unworthy is deleting files which are ok. It is true that we should not engage with russy, but that does not mean that we should stop listening to other users and admins when our faults are pointed out...-_- (t) Josve05a (c) 09:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the case Russavia is one thing, his politely reported arguments a different one. --Achim (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• In fact, the first who requested an explanation for your admin action was Me, much before the Russavia's comments. Shameful is how you're using Russavia to leave away any responsibility for your administrative actions.

Yes, the editions by Russavia violates the WMF TOS, but your actions violated several Commons policies that We (the Community) decided and accepted, and it is even more disruptive than anything that Russavia done during his ban (he don't have the Admin tools, you have, so, he can't "disrupt" Commons as an user with admin tools can). You can ignore Russavia's requests, but not the Community ones, and, again, the first who requested explanation and actions was Me. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• See this and this. Jcb insist to use Russavia to leave away his responsibilities. Russavia is a problem, but the deletion of files is another different one, and the solely responsible for these action is Jcb. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I wish to quote a recent comment by Revent: " I reject the idea that admins are responsible for what they do not respond to..". Admins are free on whether or not to respond in a particular case irrespective of from where the request is coming. Other admins are free to take that responsibility if they are interested. No need of more drama here as it seems the case is already handled by other admin. Jee 12:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• And I wish to quote a comment by Nick of your comment at the latest INC Desysop request «administrators are required, when challenged by any user, to explain the rationale behind any administrative action that they have taken.». If an admin "trows the stone and hides the hand" (using Russavia to leave away his responsibility), then, we shoundn't trust him anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• He already given the reason: "All three files had a clear watermark, with the names of the photographers. Jcb (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)" Later Huntster commented: "I've already restored the remaining two files. Enough of this. Both are from Mil.ru, and files from that domain are licensed under {{Mil.ru}}. Given that the original source URL was the cyrillic version of the site, I can understand the original deletion request, but it's no longer valid. Mil.ru and минобороны.рф are mirrors, and the cyrillic URL should be added to {{Mil.ru}} as an alias. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)" So Huntster understood why those files originally deleted by Jcb; but no others? Jee 13:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've edited {{Mil.ru}} to also mention минобороны.рф, since it has the exact same license statement. Revent^talk 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That comment of mine was in a completely different context.... it was not in respect to an admin choosing to ignore criticism of their own actions, but instead in regards to commenting on 'one case' while not commenting on statements by someone else in a different thread. Revent^talk 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Russavia should respect the WMF terms and avoid any edits to WMF hosted projects. The profound silence from the WMF about the reasons for the block, apart from WMF employees making bad-faith threats against other volunteers for even accidentally talking to Russavia, along with no process for appeal or access to evidence, has not helped his frustration. However this does not stop him from approaching Wikimedians for help off-wiki, for example on IRC which the WMF has no legal authority over. Russavia wanting to be helpful is a good thing, and unlike Wikipedia, Commons has no thoughtless "banned means banned" policy which could result in copyright violations or mistaken admin actions being glossed over in the rush to ensure that Russavia is consigned to a permanent damnatio memoriae.

Russavia has a WMF Office block, this is not the same thing as a Community agreed ban which at some future time the Community may wish to reconsider, there being nothing lawfully to stop the WMF from commuting a WMF Office block to a Community ban where no criminal activity is involved, so there is always hope that the WMF might improve (they are obviously not infallible). If there was any hope for this, then there would be a reason for Russavia to comply with the WMF terms of use.

As a general reminder, all administrators ought to recognize the ethical value of having a system that encourages reform, rather than treating people as exiled for life. The latter does not stick in real society for good reason, and systems of governance that rely on this power have always ended up being exposed as having abused it, or been mistaken in their use of secret evidence. It's nearly 2017, so here's looking forward to a bit more thoughtfulness, maturity, a more common understanding of what transparency means in the New Year, and a mellow approach for helping contributors that struggle to comply or understand our project policies and norms. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, there are very good reasons Russavia is banned, and he knows them very well (unless he has a split personality and he doesn't know what his other half is doing, which I don't believe). I see that you have still not accepted the ban, and that you keep coming asking non-sense. At the very least, everyone needs to recognize that the ambience here has much improved since Russavia is banned.

This all said, I also agree that Jcb should apologizes and fix the consequences of his wrong deletions. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think Fae's above comment is very reasonably. But things happened at Amitie 10g's talk should be avoided. And it very disgusting too see other people who seems to have previous issue with Jcb tries to take benefit from it. Ymblanter's last ANU report was a serious mistake and I politely corrected him. Another user, LX used a bit more harsh words. But instead of accepting his mistake, he made a retire threat here and in his user page. The words he used on his user page were very ugly. He later deleted it. We expect admins will act out of emotions and in a neutral manner, which is terribly missing here. Jee 13:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• The deletion malfeasance linked by Amitie 10g is indeed worrying. If Jcb is unable to reduce or correct his own mistakes for some reason, he should step down as an admin. Nemo 13:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

He will not. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Nice I will add Russavia to my wag the dog list, wait a second... it could be in my personal Scapegoating-Drama list for careless admin. --The Photographer 15:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletions needed

I've just done a mass upload from Flickr. I inadvertently included some (near-)duplicates, and some images which, though open-licensed, are clearly third party stock images, rather than tagging all 65 individually, I've put them in Category:Temp: Pigsonthewing uploads for speedy deletion. Could someone delete them, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:  Done. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Srittau. I've added a few more; that should be it, now. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Isabel Borrego

Please can someone rescue the old version of File:Isabel Maria Borrego Cortes.png, which was recently overwritten by an entirely different image? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought about doing it, until I looked at entire gallery of uploader which is now nominated for deletion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

{{DRnav}} missing for Deletion requests in 2017

Administrators,

I noticned that the DRs for 2017 has been not pre-created with the {{DRnav}} header, that caused it is missing from the latest DRs. Could admin run a bot to create them? --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert of i18n

Please revert this corrupting edit of Template:On Wikidata/i18n/cs. The system obstructs a simple revert and link to a translation tool but I didn't find how to revert with the tool. --ŠJů (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be corrected now. However, the impossibility of simple reverts of vandalism is a problem. --ŠJů (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Flight427 wreckage.jpg

Can an admin please remove any personal names from this pic's medadata. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNegative (talk • contribs) 03:28, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

@DrNegative: Please upload a new version without metadata, we can then version delete the old version. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As requested, thanks. DrNegative (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@DrNegative: Unfortunately it seems the latest version still contains meta data with personal info. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection

I think this template should be fully-protected against vandalism. This is a highly used template.--ILWC (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It is used six times and there is no evidence that it is a target of vandalism.  Oppose. Storkk (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Storkk thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILWC (talk • contribs) 11:54, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Request by vandalism sock. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Influx of files with embedded data (CSD#F9) – continuation

Previous discussion; Abuse filters: JPEG, PNG, GIF, large newbie uploads and Zero uploads; Bot Request; Reports: Absurd overhead, Wrong Extension (zero pixel check)

 Info I am writing to let you know that pirates have switched from JPEGs and PNGs to GIFs: Special:DeletedContributions/Windowuploaderminmya1996. --jdx ^Re: 10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the GIFs are multi-frame usually, and the old algorithm may no longer work. :( --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why I have created Special:AbuseFilter/165 for GIFs with coefficients chosen according to the "rule of thumb". BTW. Due to wide flux of fake PNGs, two days ago I turned on "disallow" action for rule #162. It seems that a valid PNG has not been rejected yet. --jdx ^Re: 11:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

May I ask what is the story behind this? MechQuester (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@MechQuester: some pirates discovered that we are a fast, free and anonymous file host if they just append their archives to JPEGs, PNGs or GIFs. See the archived thread and phab:T48921. Storkk (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not regular pirates, but Zero pirates. See phab:T129845 for more history --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW. I've just noticed that Abuse Filter has a (new?) variable called user_wpzero. It is not mentioned on mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. --jdx ^Re: 10:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: That's gerrit:280468 (phab:T131211), implemented within mw:Extension:WikimediaEvents so not part of the standard AbuseFilter installation, and therefore not so good to add to mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format that documents a standard AbuseFilter installation.

Regarding the use of that variable, many of the Zero pirates do not use Zero themselves; one reason may be that being tagged by Special:AbuseFilter/149 may have their uploads deleted sooner. Eg. Special:AbuseFilter/149 did not catch Windowuploaderminmya1996. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I did work years ago in User:Dispenser/GIF check to check the compression ratio and found a GIF with PHP exploit code. Dispenser (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Question Could a video guru look at File:Arottegoesercom.webm, especially "Transcode status" section? I've tried to reset transcode status three times, but without success. Also, isn't the size somewhat too big for a 17 seconds video? Of course the file has been uploaded by one of these guys who try to upload fake images. --jdx ^Re: 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

phab:T153488. I'll look into that file size shortly --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Video remuxed. I honestly don't see how AF is gonna work here. The bitrate of videos are very arbitrary depending on the quality. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see it either. It seems that a full blown validator is needed for validating files during upload. :-/ --jdx ^Re: 08:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO, uploads of accounts uploading fake images/videos should be deleted straight away and the accounts blocked indefinitely. The accounts are not here to provide useful multimedia documents. Investigating each of their uploads is a waste of time and energy. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked into possible recognition of such videos. I was unable to find a way to detect (and truncate) the file ending precisely similar to the old PIL method. But I see one method might be use ffmpeg to remux the file, and use strace to find where ffmpeg starts to read the input file but produce no output at all. This should be able to detect such a file. However, junks smaller than 32768 bytes may be difficult to detect with this method. I'll try to get a proof of concept working soon.

I tend to AGF towards these uploaders if it weren't for Zero abuse. Files can be tagged with "no permission" safely after truncation/remuxing for uploaders to prove their innocence. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I would AGF only if the account has an history of uploading useful stuff. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It was a six year old youtube video - deleted on copyright violation Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Question Are we not treating the symptoms and not the disease with all these filters? It's a bit like a Hydra, as we chop off one route, two more appear. I would like to suggest one of the following.

1. Range Block the entire Telenor range - we might need a check user to tell us the range - I've added all the ones I've blocked to Category:Sockpuppets_of_Wunnakyaw1 - I suspect there may be more though! If we did that I would go back to Telenor at ticket:2016120310005375 and tell them. That I would hope get them to make a FUP and stop this farce.
2. Do some sort of "auto-confirm" like en-WP - maybe 20 uploads of less than 10MB and 30days before confirmed.

Any other suggestions? It does not look like it's going to go away, and the more they try then the more likely they are to find a loophole that we would struggle to filter out. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this is pretty hopeless. Like I said a couple weeks ago, when you plug this up for one file format, you'll just get the same problem with another. Perhaps we haven't gotten any archives embedded in, say, PDF files, but it's only a matter of time.

Big range blocks, or contacting the user's ISP to get them to send the user a sternly-worded letter, could work. Or, from the technical side, as a last-resort we could prevent unprivileged users from downloading original versions of files. (We'd still let everyone view transcodes and thumbnails and such, which should limit the inconvenience to legitimate users and the damage to Commons' principles, but it's still something I'd feel quite uneasy about.) Matma Rex (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Matma Rex: How about preventing downloading original versions for users in Zero range only? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I imagine it should be technically possible. No idea how that would sit with the specific Zero provider agreements. I actually have no idea how they work, but wmf:Wikipedia Zero Operating Principles promises "A full Wikimedia experience", which this really wouldn't be if we applied this limitation to Zero users only. It's something that would have to be consulted with WMF Legal (or whoever else is responsible). Matma Rex (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket correspondent didn't get back to me as promised, so I used that opportunity to remind them and explain that we are getting overrun with this issue. I'm hoping it will enable a FUP to be applied. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Question Telenor have replied, asking what we think a reasonable daily cap should be? As far as I can see the uploads have been in the range 250 to 800MB in size. I was therefore thinking in the order of 200MB max per day. I asked if they could just cap wikimedia.org and not wikipedia.org - I think that would impact less on normal usage. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Update. Good news is that Telenor is setting a daily cap of 150MB for all users, unfortunately it is unlikely to be functioning until second week of January. That means that not only will they not be able to upload the files (unless they use another route), but Telenor users won't be able to download them anyway. Obviously we still need to keep the filters on and watch for uploads, but this should, when active, block a large hole. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. They are unable to apply to just Wikimedia, so the cap is for all usage. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the 2013 48x48px thumbnail audit (21,435,219 requests), it averages 2.5 KB/icons. Now looking at the mobile website with Chrome's Inspector, I see about ~100 KB/page, ~20 KB/page with cache, and ~100 KB/image in media viewer. So 150 MB/day gets you about ~1,500 articles/day or 1,500 images/day. Mind you these pirates manged to cram a 67 minute porn movie into a 62 MB file, so its only a little deterrent. —Dispenser (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info Telenor users are using some VPN for bypassing ip block and to upload on Commons, and then download via WP0. Here is their method. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 05:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, very typical of Zero abuse. Pinging @Teles, NahidSultan, and Gunnex: as they might be interested --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info Please take a look on Loader mm's uploads and Smalleryuper89's uploads. These may aslo contain embedded data in invalid ogg files. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 07:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info It seems they have moved to OGG now: File:Deccoryyu.ogg ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

99.1% of files on Commons are under 25 MB (68–95–99: 68% <2.4 MB, 95.6% <10 MB, 99.7% <85 MB). Request Abuse filter to flag upload > 25 MB and accounts under 100 edits? Dispenser (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for doing the queries. IMO a new AF rule is a good idea, especially that I was going to create one for audio files bigger than 100 MiB. --jdx ^Re: 19:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me, It gets my vote. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Flagging >25MB is ok, but will give us quite a few false positives (0.9% is still quite a few files). I'd suggest starting out with the limit significantly higher (200MB?) - they don't seem to be trying to upload many smaller files (yet). It can always be decreased if necessary. Storkk (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we could set up three thresholds: for video, for audio and for remaining files, i.e. for still images + PDFs and DJVUs. @Dispenser, could you do appropriate queries? --jdx ^Re: 20:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

SELECT CONCAT(img_media_type, " ", img_major_mime, "/", img_minor_mime), CEILING(img_size/1024/1024*10)/10, COUNT(*) FROM image GROUP BY 1, 2;

Commons File Size (Megabytes, All users)

Type	Mime	Files	84.1%	97.7%	99.0%	99.9%	99.95%	Largest
AUDIO	application/ogg	688,839	0.1	5.2	13.4	68.1	117.6	279.7
AUDIO	audio/midi	4,800		0.1		0.3		0.4
AUDIO	audio/wav	2,445	49.3	214.6	319.0	696.2	801.0	1,093.8
AUDIO	audio/x-flac	2,682	26.2	256.3	355.6	550.0	567.4	715.3
BITMAP	image/gif	147,313	0.3	2.6	4.9	23.0	32.2	133.0
BITMAP	image/jpeg	30,862,391	4.8	10.7	14.3	26.5	35.0	709.3
BITMAP	image/png	1,846,587	0.7	6.3	11.8	41.1	58.7	627.6
BITMAP	image/tiff	723,926	63.6	173.4	207.0	344.6	412.4	3,251.9
BITMAP	image/vnd.djvu	48,327	29.9	79.8	94.4	180.7	211.0	939.9
BITMAP	image/x-xcf	927	6.2	35.1	41.0	69.1		104.7
DRAWING	image/svg+xml	1,065,736	0.5	5.6	9.6	11.6	12.7	85.1
MULTIMEDIA	application/ogg	316	2.4	27.3	42.9	55.9		74.0
OFFICE	application/pdf	314,193	8.0	46.2	66.9	239.1	344.1	1,206.5
VIDEO	application/ogg	60,856	32.2	97.2	210.3	1,193.1	1,643.8	3,292.0
VIDEO	video/webm	29,657	136.8	674.2	949.9	2,576.3	3,209.7	4,079.3

@Jdx: Annoyingly manual. Excluding established users (100+ edits) should cut the noise. Dispenser (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Thanks! But I have a few questions:

1. Shouldn't the header of the 5th column be 99.7% (μ ± 3σ)?
2. What does 84.1% mean, given that 68.2% is μ ± σ and 95.4% is μ ± 2σ?
3. Just out of curiosity, WTF is type="MULTIMEDIA" + MIME type="application/ogg", given that there is type="VIDEO" + MIME type="application/ogg"?
4. When you write MB you mean MiB, right?

--jdx ^Re: 00:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: I'm bad at statistics. This is a survey—not samples. I've added largest size to make this clearer. I used numbers from w:File:PR and NCE.gif, but that's wrong if the data is not normal (a good possibility). I look at as 99.9% = 1 in 1,000 files will be flagged. But a good method for screening as only 2.5% of files >25 MB are uploaded by users under 100 edits (compared to ~50% <25 MB).

application/ogg (MULTIMEDIA) is Opus. Also, MediaWiki misMIME-types audio/webm as video/webm

Yes, MiB. Base-10 computer units are for liars.

Dispenser (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added a 99.0% column. If I added a 50% column it would be median rather than the mean (μ) as I erroneously thought. Do not assume a normal distribution with this data. Dispenser (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The block duration for 37.111.0.0/20 (Telenor ip) is set to be expired on 29 December 2016. I would like to suggest to extend the block duration until the Telenor set the bandwidth limitation. Currently, the users are still uploading pirated data as ogg (simply changing file extension) and webm files via VPS/proxy. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 15:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ninjastrikers: Since Telenor's daily usage cap is expected to start the 2nd week of January, I pushed this out to the middle of the 3rd week (the 20th). Revent^talk 15:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look File:Kjukiloja.webm. 30 seconds duration with 640 × 360px occupied 373.64MB. Another type of embedded data file? Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 16:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Almost for sure it's a fake. E.g. today's media of the day is 7+ times longer, it's FullHD (i.e. it has 3× bigger V & H resolution) and its size is less than 1/3 of the size of the file you mentioned. --jdx ^Re: 17:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed and Deleted. About 968455 bytes of valid webm, and about 390821355 bytes invalid (that's 99.75%). MIME detection shows RAR archive. (I don't have rar extractor so idk what's inside) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

How about Morganfreeman007's uploads? Less than 20 minutes duration and the file size is nearly 1GB. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 07:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else this does seem to be an ongoing issue. In the past 24 hours I've deleted a number of this type of file. In some cases it looks fairly obvious to me that puppet accounts are being used in this and I've blocked these. In passing - thanks to @Ninjastrikers: for their work in tagging these files. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This is sick. I'll code an adminbot for auto speedy deletion and get it running in January; sounds like a better plan than last one? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Err, I found some unusual tif files with large file size. Please take a look here. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Or for those of an admin inclination... here ('cos they've gone now ;-) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI I blocked a couple of accounts for "Uploading embedded data.". Yann (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be easy to get rid of these if we can get an automatic hidden category added. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting new twist - User:Oscar2099 uploaded 13 webm videos (all with youtube as source, so I deleted them as copyvios), at same time tried to upload very large jpgs with data (triggering filter 160). Maybe trying to hide their uploads in a sea of "normal" uploads? Trying to test filter to see how big they can upload? User is, of course, now blocked. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info Yesterday I created rule #166 based on the data provided by @Dispenser (see the table above). So, please watch its log and delete suspicious crap. Ideas how to improve the rule are welcome. --jdx ^Re: 20:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Any extra filter must be better, 166 has triggered 3 and one was bad - other two had large upload log, just big images! In general if it's their only contribution, then that is a bad sign. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

In most .ogg files it is the same audio file wich is being uploaded with the embedded "copyvio". Could that audio be extracted somehow and find a way for us to match against that audio upon uploads? Since they are most likely just adding "their file" after the audiofile in the source code...? [Josve05a question moved here by jdx from rule #166 notes]

@Josve05a: AFAIK AbuseFilter can't do this because it has no access to file content, it has access only to basic metadata such as file (MIME) type and file size. --jdx ^Re: 22:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Commons:Bots/Requests/Embedded Data Bot --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I like it. --jdx ^Re: 23:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: How about adding a user registered within a month condition to the Special:AbuseFilter/166? Another false positive, File:Woburn-abbey-panorama1.jpg, is uploaded by a user registered two years ago. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Sure, it's a good idea. I would even say that a week, max. two is enough. But I'm busy in the next few hours and later I'll be drunk. --jdx ^Re: 12:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Special:AbuseFilter/history/166/diff/prev/1379 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Two false negatives by the filter, just under the threshold --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we not change filter 166 to just deny uploads, the amount of false positives has dropped right off with change to a week old account. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See my previous comment. I'd rather have my bot delete them on sight rather than having a AbuseFilter set with disallow. Btw: that filter literally finds all sorts of hour long videos, even at low resolution and without appended embedded data (eg. File:Kskskw.webm). Just for comparison, video2commons has a requirement of autoconfirmed (user age > 4 days) + 50 edits. If we need to add disallow here, I'd suggest lowering the requirement, as many pirate's very first edit is the upload that triggers the filter. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Btw: When that filter catches something large that my bot doesn't, I'll download it to Labs to do the analysis (my own internet connection is too slow), in order to check if the pirates used new tactics that my algorithm can't detect yet (I know a few ways to workaround the checks, and keep the overhead at the same time). Downloading to Labs require it to be undeleted, as pywikibot doesn't seem to support downloading deleted images. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the accounts are always very new, even 4 days would trap them. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The filter should be renamed "Large files uploaded by a new user" to avoid admins deleting false positives. Lower: FLAC/WAV/XCF to 84.1%, these are unusual files on Commons. Raise: JPG/PNG to the 99.9% or 99.95% since we have better filters for them. MIDI to 0.5 MB (100%, still too small to be useful). Everything else raise to 99.0% from 97.7% level. The function should be inverted, so approve sizes and formats fixing the catch all, !( ... & file_size < int( ... )). Dispenser (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)