Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 71

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

Please add texts in File:Kim Jongin's press conference in 2016.jpg as below:

{{delete|reason=This image is still protected by copyright.|subpage=File:Kim Jongin's press conference in 2016.jpg (2)|year=2018|month=September|day=15}}

Thanks. --Garam talk 12:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The page was protected to prevent this exact edit from being done. Jcb (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Garam: Please accept the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jongin's press conference in 2016.jpg as kept.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: This is in accordance with -revi's advice. Thanks. --Garam talk 14:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Garam: What? No. No it's not. A {{subst:LRW}} was added in 2016 and added correctly as was discussed in the DR. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Garam: I find your persistent attempts to get this file deleted to be disruptive. Please stop.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I already said in revi's talk page, that image is not free. But user Taivo do not agree with it. So, now I hope to create new DR. Thanks. --Garam talk 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Garam: You may not revert admin actions which are made in line with the policy and editwar, no matter what is written on some talkpages. Please follow due process, otherwise we have to take actions such as blocking your account in order to prevent you from other dirsuptive actions. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Since that time I do not revert it. And that time I hoped user Taivo to create new DR like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Moosung and Moon Jaein in 2015.jpg, not revert action only. Thanks. --Garam talk 17:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
What I suggested to him is to open a new DR case and present their rationales in that DR. I am not intersted in the DR itself, except that I stand by my License Review made at that moment. — regards, Revi 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
This DR has been created already; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jongin's press conference in 2016.jpg (2). None of the recent revisions linked to it as far as I can see, but the page now needs to link to it. Taivo, will you remove the protection, or will you add the DR template, or will you let me do one of those? It's inappropriate to have a DR running for a specific image (or a tiny group of images, as here) without tagging all affected images with a link to the DR. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not being in Commons yesterday. At moment all files in the DR are appropriately tagged. Taivo (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Summarize

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Жопа Хэнка.webm --Sergkarman (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Overwrite a protected file

I request an administrator to upload a new version of File:Flag of Honduras.svg on this basis. -Kes 47 (?) 19:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kes47 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 On hold The file is upload-protected due to old edit warring about the color. Before we overwrite this file again, we need to see a clear consensus that your version is correct. We also need to know specifically which color code (#FFFFFF) you are proposing. You can of course upload your preferred version at a different filename. Guanaco (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have serious doubt about the validity of this--a one-time user claims to own the logo of a UK radio station. The font certainly is legit, meaning legitimately the radio station's. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Hi,
No copyright issue, but may not be in scope. Should be SVG anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. I nominated the logo for deletion: maybe out of scope. Taivo (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Problematic cited domain, leading to series of flag images

Hi. Needing a second opinion here.

Contributions from 125.24.111.41 was the adding a download link for the domain krigsspil.dk which when checked by me was throwing a string of browser warnings, and not behaving nicely when trying to back out of the domain. They were linking to a series of flag uploads. I subsequently have reverted the relevant additions.

Further exploration shows that this is a series of uploads by Krasnaya Imperii. These uploads look problematic in themselves in terms of sourcing and quality. I am guessing that they are at the url that was being added, though wondered whether others are able to more safely check the domain, check the quality of the images, and whether these are something within scope. Thanks if anyone can.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,
I nominated all files tagged as "own work" for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Krasnaya Imperii, and added a warning to the uploader. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Facebook Metadata

Hi! Following discussion on User_talk:Arthur_Crbz#FaceBook_MetaData (in French). Are Facebook metadata a sufficient rationale for speedy deletion? --Arthur Crbz (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances I think. Jcb (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No. I had to undelete a case like this recently, see User_talk:4nn1l2#File:Monuments_at_the_National_Mall.jpg. I'd suggest putting them through the regular deletion review process, unless they meet another speedy criterion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies for butting in, but per this discussion last month, I would argue no. Most images that are illicitly taken from Facebook are effortless to trace back to their source and demonstrate that they are a copyright violation. The meta data is a reason to investigate whether the image is non-free; but I don't think it is a sufficient rationale for speedy deletion on it's own in the absence of any corroborating evidence. Many people like my wife upload images directly to their Facebook from their mobile as a type of personal cloud storage, and then may delete the original from their mobile to conserve space. If the image is no longer available on Facebook but was redownloaded by the creator from their own profile in order to upload their original photo here, the meta data is still totally consistent with own work, albeit with an unfortunate string of events prior to upload to Commons. GMGtalk 12:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A proper DR is better, but we should really discourage uploading anything from Facebook. I would request anything with FBMD should get an OTRS permission, and I would ask to upload the original files whenever is possible. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree these should be discouraged. (I think Facebook should be discouraged, full stop.) But I think that any way you cut it, these should not be speedied in the absence of any other rationale, which again, in the vast majority of cases, is effortless to find. GMGtalk 13:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
+1, I have speedy deleted almost all files that I have deleted, but if I remember well I opened regular DRs for the files that had "FBMD" in the metadata. In the extend that there is of course no other issues that could justify a speedy deletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If I am processing a Facebook metadata-related speedy deletion tag I convert it to regular deletion request if I can't immediately track down the source. With regards to my own deletion nomination practices, I do not use speedy deletion for such files. I usually treat Facebook Metadata as evidence of previous publication and nominate via the regular deletion process. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nfsport for a recent example. —RP88 (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Kanaemiz

Bonjour,

Je viens de commencer à utiliser Wikimedia Ccommons, mais apparemment ce n'est pas de tout ce que j'attendais, donc je voudrais effacer mon compte et partir. Pourriez-vous m'aider pour ça, svp ? Et, par l'averti du monsieur qui s'appelle Patrick Rogel, la photo de mon conjoint que j'ai prise a été supprimée, par la raison qu'elle était sur Facebook (avec mon nom. Je suis photographe.) J'ai un doute sur votre idée sur le droit d'auteur, et le monsieur était très agressive, donc je voudrais absolument partir de Wikimedia Commons, et ne veux laisser aucune trace ici.

C'était une expérience très dommage pour moi.

Merci beaucoup d'avance pour la suppression complète.

Bien Cordialement, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanaemiz (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Answered on her talk page in French. Yann (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Lock My User

Hi There, Kindly lock my user Amina Al-Madhi (WMAT) as of tomorrow! Many Thanks and best regards,--Amina Al-Madhi (WMAT) (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Commons cannot lock users. Commons administrators can block you, even indefinitely, but this applies only for Commons. Only meta can lock users and you should ask for lock there. Taivo (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please review the conclusion of the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Douaumont ossuary. Files were initially deleted by @Jameslwoodward: following a DR and then subsequently undeleted by @Yann: two years later without following COM:UNDEL. Per the processes at COM:DR, I re-nominated the files for deletion. Although having stated an opinion on the deletion, and was the party who undeleted the subject files, Yann closed the discussion. I don’t view this as a terribly appropriate admin action given Yann is not a neutral/uninvolved party. If an uninvolved admin comes to the same conclusion I am happy to consider the matter closed, it just came across as inappropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Labattblueboy: Are you aware that you are contesting a decision by the Cour de Cassation (equivalent to a French Supreme Court)? Your argument doesn't stand evidence and a long pratice on Commons. I have no benefit to keep these images, except for the benefit of Wikimedia projects, so your description of my involvement is not appropriate either. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Then allow an uninvolved admin to close the matter. As stated, I am happy to consider this issue closed if an uninvolved admin comes to the same conclusion. However, I don't believe an admin closing a discussion for which they have taken a strong opinion is terribly appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I find inappropriate your insistance to delete these files dispite customs and legal evidence, as you would have a personal interest in their copyright. Don't you have anything better to do? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't be the only one who would see a problem with an admin undeleting an image without discussion (got it COM:UNDEL is flexible in this matter, but no discussion with original closing admin?) and when said image was re-nominated (per the laid out process) not only participating in the discussion in the associated discussion but closing it as well. I can't be the only one which would see this asa chain of inappropriate use of admin tools.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The DR was closed after 7 days, and you are the only one arguing for deletion, while @Jean-Pol GRANDMONT: agrees with me. You are the one who creates problems here, not me. While I agree with you on some of files, I made a balanced decision, based on past Commons closures and legal evidence. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad Flickr account 2

Please add 48973657@N00 to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users.

While it has a CC-BY-SA license, the description says (not just for this photo):

"You may syndicate this content for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute credits to me. Commercial usage will be considered on a case-by-case basis."

So it's actually more like CC-BY-SA-NC. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"48973657@N00". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a good idea. The DR is leaning towards keep and there are lots of people who disagree with you on this matter (dual licensing etc.). So let's wait until the DR is officially closed. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: is okay for me. Do note the photographer also responded in the DR and said "These are my photos. I have licensed them with CC-BY-SA for non-commercial use". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, but it has also been noted that the way he did it may have been ineffective in legal terms. Flickr does have dedicated NC and ND Creative Commons licenses to choose from, e.g. [1], [2]. De728631 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: (please ping me, I don't read all the boards all the time) even if it is legally ineffective, we may want to avoid importing any more from now on. But waiting for the outcome of the DR works for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Can be archived as far as I'm concerned. The Flickr user now seems to be using CC BY-NC for new uploads and hasn't bothered to respond further on the DR or change the license for old photos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies if I've put this in the wrong section, but I'm unfamiliar with what to do, and I had tried to search under FAQ but couldn't find what I wanted. The issue: I noticed on Images for Powerhouse Museum page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Powerhouse_Museum) that the link is no longer correct. Instead when I went to the link it says "Sorry, the page you requested is not longer available. Go to MAAS homepage." The new page link is: https://maas.museum/ and it's not the Powerhouse Museum but the "Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzali (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the link (and grammar) on {{Flickr-Powerhouse-Museum-image}}. LX (talk, contribs) 21:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Main page issues

We have had the user I eat bananas 101 playing around with MOTD which all displays in the main page, which we apparently have not suitably secured for administrators. I am doing a quick repair job to remove the deletion templates, though cannot spend much time there resolving issues, as it isn't really my editing time. Can others please assist, especially in language checks, and look at our protection mechanisms. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Racconish: seems you have been doing work there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
See also COM:VP#Picture of the Day caption, 24 Sept.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, EP emailed me. And UTC vs local time probably had me working on 24th rather than 23rd. 24th should all be good.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jdx: who has been involved intranslations and may have an opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I did go hard at what seemed to be problematic editing, and it seems it was lack of knowledge rather than malicious intent. I have removed my temporary block on the user, and asked them to not edit in the MOTD space at the moment. They are editing out of their knowledge space.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yeah, my opinion is the same – this is not a vandal but an inexperienced user. I noticed him about a week ago when he was messing with MOTDs. --jdx Re: 06:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The Main page is protected with cascading protection. Any template transcluded into the main page is in turn automatically protected, including the MOTD. I think the issue here is that the MOTD for the 24th was modified the day before it appeared on the Main Page and nobody noticed. —RP88 (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks RP88, repatriating took my attention. Maybe we need to set up a static pseudo-parent page for the day ahead and protect that so we can at least have a day's protection and wriggle room. I am so not familiar with MOTD operations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The MOTD is invoked by transclusion of Main_Page/motd, which depends upon the LOCALYEAR/LOCALMONTH/LOCALDAY2 magic words. We could indeed set up a cascading protected "tomorrow's MOTD" page that transcludes just the content for the next MOTD, but these variables frequently show when the page was cached rather than the current time (due to MediaWiki and WMF caching). Presumably this is not an issue for the main page due to how frequently it is refreshed, but unless we setup a bot to routinely reload the "tomorrow's MOTD" page the protection would not be reliable. Maybe we could load "tomorrow's MOTD" content from the main page in a hidden div? —RP88 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've created Main Page/motd tomorrow which transcludes the content used by Main_Page/motd. I've applied cascading protection to it. Caching may prevent this from being effective unless we take additional steps as I mention above. —RP88 (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thanks RP88 As this is the first experience of a late update sending it pear-shaped it simply may be an example of a rare event. I am just wary of both sets of our proficient and opportunistic vandals and LTAs giving it a red hot go. Let us see how it works, and if it is insufficient, we can just up a bot job to purge the parent on a regular basis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good Billinghurst. I too am not familiar with the day-to-day running of Commons:Media of the day, but it appears that discussion at MOTD is not particularly active. If necessary the MOTD implementation could be changed to one that requires some sort of admin review before MOTDs are eligible to appear on the main page. —RP88 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Billinghurst, just now I noticed that tomorrow's MOTD should have been protected, but was not. Just visiting Main Page/motd tomorrow (no purge necessary) was sufficient for MW to notice that the cached page was stale, regenerate it, and thus apply cascading protection to Template:Motd/2018-09-30. —RP88 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@RP88: Thanks. I have set user:wikisource-bot to touch the page Main Page/motd tomorrow on an hourly basis. I wouldn't normally get that bot to act here, however, it is an inoffensive (hopefully) act. I will check it over the next day to ensure that all is playing fair and as expected, and hopefully tomorrow it will have the desired effect and benefit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Attempting a touch (i.e. null edit) should work, and given that User:Wikisource-bot doesn't have an admin bit this should be entirely safe since it doesn't have the rights needed to actually modify the page even if it tried. You could instead add a -purge flag to the Pywikibot command line (so that it only attempts a purge, rather than a null edit) as null edits are slightly more dangerous than a purge (a race condition can recreate a page deleted at the same time as a null edit). If you are feeling paranoid you could change the bot code that calls page.touch() to instead call page.get(force=True) which just reads the page (even less onerous than a purge). —RP88 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin please look at the file's history for and delete my 20:45, 26 September 2018 revision? The image I uploaded might be a copyright violation. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walk Like an Egyptian: It might not, who took it and where did you get it?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Dennis Brack/Bloomberg. LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. January (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Barcelona on WheeIs ‎

Could an admin look at Barcelona on WheeIs (talk · contribs) please. Their only upload has been used for vandalism at Wikivoyage, where they're now blocked, and the username is concerning. Thanks. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done VOA. Yann (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Obviously this (or a copycat). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi, Delux.delux had signed up today at 13:31, 10 minutes they leave a barnstar for someone at EN and then half hour later they're handing out barnstars to myself and another editor here - Is this a known sock or just a completely random editor ?,
I just find it a bit odd someone would know and use the barnstar feature all within half hour and hasn't been making any edits prior ?,
Surely you'd expect test edits and what not first ?, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That message was added with the "Wikilove" feature, which I guess is enabled by default for new users (it's in the editing section of your preferences). It's pretty common for new users who haven't figured out how to leave messages the normal way to use it for all kinds of messages, loving or otherwise. LX (talk, contribs) 18:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Whoops sorry I meant the Wikilove feature, Amazingly I've never come across anyone who's left random barnstars, I guess I automatically assumed everyone knew how to use the "Add topic" button but I guess not, I always prefer to be safe than sorry and I know in the past socks have done things glaringly obviously yet wasn't obvious to me so wasn't sure if that was the case here lol, Okie dokie many thanks for your help LX it's much appreciated :). –Davey2010Talk 18:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
ResolvedNot a sock, My apologies, Dave. 18:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

File rename gone wrong

Can an admin please rename File:FileFlag of Australia (1901–1903).svg to "Flag of Australia (1901-1903)". I had a bit of an accident with slippy fingers and hit the enter button before I was ready and it went into the rename and now it has a bad file name. Fry1989 eh? 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong version uploaded

Hello. I made a mistake while uploading the following file File:Laurent Phélip-Domenjod 27 sept 2018.jpg (Category:Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale). I then redownloaded the correct file under the same name. Could an administrator please delete the original version of the file (the one with the subject wearing a kepi) so that only the version showing him bare headed would remain? Sorry for the trouble and thank you in advance. Best regards, --Domenjod (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. The first version is hidden. I hope that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you very much. --Domenjod (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling something should happen (I.e. removal) to the giant mass of text below the file. As I’m quite new to commons, I’m not certain what I should do. Vermont (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: I removed the OOS text.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Benutzerseite löschen

Moin Moin zusammen, kann mir jemand meine Benutzerseite löschen, damit diese von Meta eingebunden werden kann? (User:Crazy1880). Moin Moin together, could somebody delete my userpage, because of usage from Meta? Danke. Thanks --Crazy1880 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. Bitte. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of their uploads seem questionable that they took it, as it would require them to basically be with this guy throughout a significant span of his life, and take pictures with different cameras along the way. All of the uploads are under “own work”. A few of them look to be copyrighted (probably) book covers and would require an OTRS verification, where others are pictures of the author and quotes. Anyways, I’m bringing this here because I’m not exactly sure what to do with these uploads. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like advertising for his book so G10. Most of the rest are F10.Geni (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Large numbers of unilateral deletions of DAB galleries

Jcb (talk contribs blocks protections deletions moves rights rights changes) has unilaterally deleted around 800 disambiguation galleries (for example Jura), there was discussion at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Gallery DAB pages but hasn't got any other input. As a general rule if there are multiple galleries with the same name such as Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) and none is primary then a DAB page should be at Mercury. Some may have just disambiguated categories but there were many that disambiguated galleries and a DAB or gallery should exist at the base name. The guideline is quite clear that DAB pages should be empty apart from links and explanations and thus aren't deletable as "Empty or single image gallery". Even if they should have been deleted (which some definitely shouldn't have) it should have been discussed, not preformed unilaterally of which some had existed for over a decade. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrt categories, Category:Mercury (element) and Category:Mercury (planet) have a DAB at Category:Mercury. The two galleries you mention are "pages" within those categories. I can't see why we would want or need to create and maintain two lots of disambiguation "pages", one for categories and another for galleries. I looked at "what links here" for the DAB template, and found only categories. At the other discussion, Jcb kept reminding you this is not Wikipedia. See Commons:Galleries, Commons:Categories and the essay Commons:Category disambiguation. As far as I can see, Jcb is correct that disambiguation should be done via categories on Commons, not Galleries. -- Colin (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
There are galleries (the equivalent of articles) and categories, just like on WP there is a DAB at w:Category:Mercury in the category namespace and a DAB at w:Mercury in the main space. Otherwise we end up with the debate of which one do we put at Mercury. Notice that we have a gallery at Cleveland even though the category is disambiguated and we have Plymouth as the city in Devon with a hatnote to the other 2. In this case if no "Mercury" gallery is primary then a DAB page automatically occupies the basename. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Mercury should simply remain red, so that everybody who adds a link to this page at an image description page will realize that they are not linking to an existing gallery. Jcb (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Should w:Mercury be red to for that reason? I think not. The link then can be fixed to point to the correct gallery. I really don't see why you needed to delete them, there was nothing wrong and you have created a huge mess. It is now more difficult to locate the galleries for readers and more complication on which gallery gets the main title for editors. I don't see why you couldn't have just left them ALONE! Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
How many more times are we going to have to tell you that Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia? Jcb (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
How many more times am I gong to have to point out that you have made disruptive and inappropriate deletions. You have yet to provide a good reason for them. I have provided why they were inappropriate and create unnecessary problems for readers and editors. I suggest you revert all you're deletions and move on. You are the one who has created this problem, not me. I consider such a mass deletion spree as misuse of administrator tools, I suggest you undo. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
You have been repeating this opinion over and over again for the past 5 months and nobody has supported your opinion so far. Keeping a discussion open by just repeating and repeating your opinion over and over again is in fact the part that's disruptive here. Jcb (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
You have refused to revert you're problematic and controversial deletions despite objection (with reasons showing how its problematic to both readers and contributors), that's misuse of admin tools. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, I suggest you undelete or if there is only 2 or 3 galleries that require disambiguation (and 1 is primary) you put 1 at the base name with a hatnote to the other(s). No one has supported you're deletions and people have complained about you're unilateral deletions before, you're most recent de-adminship and a quick search at AN archives shows this. YOU have to take respectability for you're deletions, which you haven't done here, should we file a new de-adminship request. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Colin here, CS. This is not Wikipedia and there is no need for disambiguation galleries. Additionally, your threats to Jcb are unwarranted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Correct we shouldn't have duplicate DAB pages which was the undeletion request in the 1st reply to my comment but those like Mercury aren't. If a user uploads unacceptable pages, such as copyvios they get warned and blocked if they continue. If and admin deletes incorrectly and they refuse to rectify it then the admin privileges get removed, my "threat" was IMI quite soft/late, usually a de-adminship warning/request would be made much earlier. Now at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I like to +1 what Pi.1415926535, etc. wrote. Jcb's actions are in line with COM:CSD. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
How? the redirects and WP suggest otherwise, I see no benefit given, and I have already noted the problems it causes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to be convinced; consensus doesn't always have universal agreement. If you wish to change consensus, trying to desysop someone is probably not a very effective way to do so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Admins,

According to the reworked NAFTA agreement between Canada and the US, Canadian copyright moves from 50 yrs pma to 70 yrs pma. See this article and this CBC Article by an agency of the Government of Canada. So this common license tag will have to be reworked:

Point #3 has to be changed. It says: "3. the creator died more than 50 years ago" to '3. the creator died more than 70 years ago.'

Hopefully few images will be deleted since Canada has FOP. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The new NAFTA agreement (now to be called USMCA) is supposed to be signed by the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the US in December 2018. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's, of course, bad news. I hope, that the law isn't at least retroactive. At first, the agreement isn't signed yet, and at second, there is no known enactment date. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It might be worth being proactive on this, without actually removing the category. There are over 31,000 files in Category:PD Canada and very few of them are also in Category:PD Old even though many of them could be. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename requests

Can an administrator please perform the following renames, moving these files to the endash? I can not perform the renames due to the multiple redirect loops. The effort is to harmonize the files names, and the endash is much more common than the emdash in file names with the dates in brackets.

Fry1989 eh? 17:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are en-dashes already; looks like you want to change them to hyphens. The former is normally preferred for ranges; IMO if consistency is required, the ones with hyphens should be moved instead. (For comparison, em-dash —, en-dash –, hyphen -.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The hyphen and en-dash appear to be the same length to me. I am not opposed to choosing one or the other, the goal is just that we choose one for uniformity and - appears more common. The other reason I use - is because it is available on standard QWERTY keyboards, but the em-dash requires special key-strokes. If the preference is for the longer em-dash, I am ok with that. Fry1989 eh? 23:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok nevermind. Now I see the difference. I'll work on moving those with hyphens to en-dashes in the future. Thanks for the clarification. Fry1989 eh? 17:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I’m ambivalent myself regarding whether or not it’s applicable, but the rationale appears to be based on criterion #4, harmonization of a series. Per the footnote under that entry, is there a template or script that needs to access these files in a stereotypical manner?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for this deletion request, made by an IP. The picture represents a public figure, who was photographed at a public event, so per French legislation about personality rights his permission was not needed. There is no reason to delete the image. Would it be possible to close the request ? Thank you. JJ Georges (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time, JJ Georges just leave it for the seven days to be up. This board is for serious issues that need immediate attention. A bogus DR is not something that needs to be looked at immediately. --Majora (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Majora ok, thanks, I didn't know about that. JJ Georges (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I need to crop out a few rare species from this collage. But CropBot asks to wait until License Review is over. Please help by reviewing it. Thanks, Jee 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done by Pi.1415926535.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

do we allow license-confirmation from the past by archive.org?

The license of this Flickr-sourced image File:ANA B747 and B767s at Haneda.jpg on Flickr was found to be Commons-incompatible and it was tagged for speedy deletion. But this image had been uploaded to Commons in 2010 and, regrettably, the uploader hadn't added the Flickr-review template. When the latter was added today, in between the Flickr-user had already changed the former CC-BY license to CC-BY-NC-ND. Now, when I checked the Flickr-page on archive.org [3] I found a capture from year 2014, which shows the CC-BY license and thereby confirms the license-tag which the uploader had added in 2010. However, do we/can we accept such an a posteriori confirmation of license? --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. -- (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename request

Can an administrator rename File:متحف التاريخ الطبيعي 8.jpg to File:Sophie the Stegosaurus, Natural History Museum in London.jpg or File:الستيغوصور صوفي في متحف التاريخ الطبيعي في لندن.jpg?

It's in Arabic and translates as "File:8 Natural History Museum.jpg". I consider this name ambiguous (it's not a picture of a museum building, and there are several museums with the same name), thus the file should be renamed "to a name that describes what the image particularly displays" per Criteria #2 (Which files should be renamed?).

I requested to rename this file last week, but my request was declined by Discasto. See User talk:Discasto#File:متحف التاريخ الطبيعي 8.jpg. Discasto stands his ground. Last time, he asked to provide a new name in Arabic, because there is some rule to preserve a file's original language (though, I can't find it in the official guidelines). I provided the name on 3 October 2018, but no response has been received so far.--Russian Rocky (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please hide the initial version of this file, for privacy concerns (EXIF). Gikü (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Gikü: ✓ Done, but I don't see a CC license on the given yt source page. --Achim (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: You are right. I requested speedy on the file page and explained how I assumed it was under CC. Please delete. Thank you, and thanks for understanding. Gikü (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting TPA on English Wikipedia.

Hello there. I was blocked at the English Wikipedia a month ago, after confessing that I was a sockpuppet. I am not writing here to appeal my block now. The reason I am writing here is that since I am doing the standard offer, I would like to request TPA. This is so I can appeal my block in March more easily. Thank you. The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You should wait until March and make a request using w:Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. GMGtalk 20:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
What GMG said. Restoring talk page access now would surely result in more premature appeals, which is what got it disabled in the first place. Wait until the six months have passed and go through UTRS. The reviewing admin then will decide whether to restore talk page access for an appeal. clpo13(talk) 20:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Woah! Thanks for the quick response. I was just thinking how it would be easier if I got my TPA back. One question though, how should I word my unblock request? My situation is quite extraordinary, and your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
@Clpo13: I promise I will not prematurely appeal my block. I have stated various times I am doing the standard offer. Thanks again. The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The only thing you can do in my experience in order to increase your chances of a successful standard offer request, is to be a productive and unproblematic user on other projects in the meanwhile. Currently the categorization on en.wikiquote is in pretty terrible shape and needs a lot of work. Here on Commons, we can always use more folks watching Special:NewFiles and catching obvious copyright violations. Alternatively the Simple English Wikipedia is a fraction of the size of the English Wikipedia, and besides writing articles, can always use more editors helping with counter vandalism. That's where I suggest you start, and should you contribute in one or more of those areas until March, it will reflect much better on an unblock request. GMGtalk 20:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-English maps

No clear consensus, many don't seem to be in support of the suggestion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

A number of non-Anglophones users create maps that are not in English. This creates problems for people who don't speak the langauage the map was created in. An example is File:Afghanistan politisch 1989.png. I believe we should make it mandatory for people to make maps in English unless the map is only meant for their non-English language Wiki. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Commons:Language policy states that "Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project." While it is nice if maps are available in as many languages as possible, requiring English versions be available would be counter to Commons being a source for Wikimedia projects in all languages. (Besides, SVG maps can be translated relatively easily.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I am bringing up this issue to make it easier for users of other languages. Yes I can understand what some words means especially since I've read German many times and can also guess from the English cognate. But that's not always the case since I haven't studied German. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Worldwide there are probably more people that cannot read English than people that can. The map in question was originally uploaded to de.wikipedia and later transferred to commons. Following your reasoning such practices should be prohibited: not the original map, but a translation should be uploaded. And then? Should de.wikipedia be forced to use the translated map from that moment on? I think not. Neither should people who are uncomfortable with English be forced to upload images in a foreign language, increasing the risk that the text in an image appears to be English, but actually doesn't convey the message the author originally had in mind. Richard 12:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
English is the most widely-spread and widely-understood lingua franca. And if a person can use the internet even in their native language, some knowledge of English might be there anyway. Example URLs are still in English. If people are intending to use it for German Wiki, it's all okay. There are hundreds of Wikis, even multiple English-language wikis. All may not understand English, but many do. So I suggest making English uploads mandatory unless you are not proficient at English or don't intend to use it yourself on Wikis other than the languages you intended it for. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: No. Commons is a multilingual project. English is not a requirement to participate. We can have any document, including maps, in any language. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Per Richard, better a map in good German, Tamil, Basque, or whatever than a poor attempt to translate that’s made only to satisfy a language requirement. Most users who upload graphics will take requests to create another version if provided with translated text, and there are graphic & cartography labs here and on other projects where volunteers do that kind of thing. Yes, English is probably the most widely ‘translatable’ language as a basis for other versions, and I would support encouraging the provision of an English version or translation where feasible, but certainly not requiring it—not even for user-created work, let alone historical PD material. (At any rate, shouldn’t this discussion be on COM:VPP or somewhere other than here?)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like to start an RfC, but preferred getting admin input first to test the waters. Wouldn't like to start an RfC on something that will be rejected hands-down. I have an alternative proposals: instead make it mandatory to translate only if you intend to use it on English-language wikis, while encouraging others to upload English-language maps. It will be more convenient if a central Commons policy is created instead of a new individual Wiki policy. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Requests for translation is thataway. We don't prescribe what should be used in any Wikipedia, so any mandatory translation is against the core principle of Commons being multilingual. If a map or other file doesn't match your local Wikipedia language it's easy to provide a translation in the thumbnail caption in Wikipedia, or ask the Commons map workshop to make another version. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I already know you can request translations, I'm not new here. Our first and foremost goal is free knowledge and that can't be achieved with a language barrier. Many map-makers here are already burdened and the time can be spent much better than something a map's author can do. If the uploader or author can upload a translated version, he should be encouraged to do it instead of transferring the responsibility to someone else. Maps are often used on more than just one Wiki, it's not about localisation. We can't ask them to make a map for every language, so English version is the obvious solution. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
For raster maps, we could at least ask them to upload maps with no text to facilitate translation.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This is one reason why maps should be in SVG format. A well-made SVG file can be hand-edited by anyone to add a new translation with the <switch> element (Commons:Translation possible/Learn more#Multiple translations within one SVG file, Help:Translation tutorial#SVG files). clpo13(talk) 17:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This hasn't helped. I see there is no clear consensus for the what I suggested. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


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

September challenge voting is not working

The September challenge is not working. Can't vote. The text September is there, but there is no link or way of voting. There are no images either. Please fix. We are excited about this contest.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grethelgomez (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Colin, thanks! --Achim (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Review

I have uploaded this file but no one has review it. So anyone please review it.--√Tæ√ 10:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of OTRS pending files

Hi, Currently OTRS pending files are deleted after one month. However our waiting list is much longer than one month, so I propose to increase the waiting period to 2 or 3 months. It would only apply if the file has a {{OTRS pending}} or {{OTRS received}} template with a ticket number. It is not fair to delete files where the permission was properly submitted just because our OTRS queue is jammed. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Krd: It also would not be fair to punish people with valid permissions because others don't get it. We need statistics on percentage on valid and invalid permissions, but if someone repeatedly submit files with invalid permissions, they should get a warning, and eventually a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    This isn't about any fairness, but about suspect copyvios. If we agree to accept them, we could skip OTRS and upload patrolling completely and accept every file unless anybody complains. I don't think that we want that.
    Regarding statistics, we don't even have the ressources to handle the tickets, no free minute to compile additional data. We want to reduce the backlog, not manage it. --Krd 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is not how we should deal with contributors. 99% of the contributors who send a permission are of good faith, even if they misunderstand something either about the law or the process. This is the wrong way to fix the problem. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Ciell (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the statement by topic starter is incorrect. We do take into account the backlog, please see Category:OTRS pending. As for Category:OTRS received, I am the one who usually processes this category and I always open the ticket before deletion. I delete those files 30 days after our first response, not 30 days after receiving the ticket. If I see a file with the ticket not yet handled, I always reset the timer instead of deleting the file, see e.g. here. There is nothing broken in this deletion process, nothing has to be fixed. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think it is OK. For what I have seen, there is often a misunderstanding about the proof requested. So if we write 29 days after the first exchange, then the file(s) will be deleted even before the client has the time to answer. This is not so uncommon. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If at our first response a file is tagged with {OTRS received}, that means that the initial permission was not sufficient. So if a file gets deleted 30 days after our first response, that means that the customer did not provide a valid permission within 30 days after a human OTRS agent told them what's missing. I don't think it's reasonable to keep a file longer than that. If in the end a valid permission is provided after deletion, we can always undelete a file. We are talking about a handful of files being deleted daily and in almost all cases a permission is unlikely to be received ever. Jcb (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support, per Yann and Guanaco. Additionally it would be good to do two other things:
  1. Enlarge our OTRS team.
  2. Stop suggesting always and only the use of OTRS to uploaders who claim to be authors in every and any case of missing permission: Very often we’d achieve more transparent and fast results by suggesting the putative author to add a suitable permission in their own website (or flickr album, twitter feed, facebook page, et c.).
-- Tuválkin 16:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
2. At least on COM:UDR, it is often suggested to add a free license at the source. 1. Unfortunately, nobody found a viagra pill for OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose and Correction: OTRS pending files get deleted after the value of Commons:OTRS/backlog + 7 days, which is actualy 157 days, or as minimum 67 days. OTRS received files get deleted after 30 days after the volounteer started working on it, which should be enough time when someone is allready activ at a case. --JuTa 19:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Previous discussions: Restrict Video Uploading Dispenser (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It had been created in order to stop flood of copyrighted audio/video files uploaded by Wikipedia Zero abusers who had used Commons as a free file sharing site. Fortunately, some of WP0 contracts have expired (AFAIR all expire by the end of the year) and, as the daily reports show, the flood virtually has stopped since the beginning of July. So my proposition is to turn the rule off because it causes too many collateral damages. What is your opinion? Pinging the people involved: @Dispenser, Zhuyifei1999, Steinsplitter, and Guanaco. --jdx Re: 12:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Indeed, it's a good idea. Leaving logging will allow to easier catch copyvios. Very often even file names users try to upload just shout "it's a copyvio". Although the name of the rule should be changed because WP0 program will be over soon. --jdx Re: 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, as per Guanaco's suggestion, I have turned off "warn" and "disallow" actions. Now the rule just logs A/V uploads from new accounts. Any ideas how the rule should be (re)named? --jdx Re: 17:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request for heubergen

Hi, I'm heubergen and I'd like to request that my account is unblocked on commons. I request the blockade years ago on my own wish. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Heubergen for my request and confirmation. 2A02:AA12:3202:E180:9CB1:7C35:7270:8D4D 15:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, as your account had been blocked 4 years ago per your own wish [4], AFAIK nothing speaks against unblocking it. So, I've unblocked you. --Túrelio (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please could User:Gerardus or User talk:Gerardus be added to Category:Deceased Commons users? Both pages are protected, which is why I'm asking here rather than putting an {{Edit request}} on the talk page. --bjh21 (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't even know of the existence of this cat. Since long time we had Category:Retired editors which was used to collect deceased users. Gerardus is already in this cat since 2012. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
"Retired editors" is for people who have stopped contributing to Commons for various reasons, equivalent to en:Category:Retired Wikipedians, not necessarily because they died, I think? So a subcategory "deceased users" makes sense, I think. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, {{Retired}} is not the same as {{Deceased Wikipedian}}.
Another thing, I think the talk page shouldn't be protected. Protection means that when stupid people add {{No permission}} and other inappropriate speedy tags, photos from this user get deleted for no reason (don't say admins are smart and would never do that - I have numerous examples of stupid admin actions from various admins) and not even talk page watchers will be able to prevent it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Normally, in such cases we protect only the userpage, not the talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only one who can see the elephant in the room with the word "unprotect" spraypainted on it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Finally done checking all deleted files from Gerardus:
Strange, unclear or just wrong
DMCA
That's why talk pages shouldn't be protected.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Several of these files were deleted after a DMCA takedown request instead of a DR, see here. These files cannot be undeleted without consulting the WMF, but I agree that e.g. the FoP-NL files should not have been deleted. I will send an email to Legal to ask them to have a look. Jcb (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I have not yet received a response from the WMF. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I wonder what they'll say. Maybe legal interprets lex loci from a US (where Commons is hosted) point of view. So Germany may have FoP, but Wikimedia is not hosted in Germany, so they can't claim FoP. This would however mean every single image hosted on Commons with FoP rationale becomes shaky ground, so let's hope there's another reason. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
IMO, there is no other thinkable rationale. However, the DMCA request of the claimant doesn't mention missing FoP. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe WMF is intentionally ignoring FoP. Mayby the DMCA claimant is just unaware of the existence of FoP. As far as I know, in principle you have to follow a DMCA request, unless you write a counter DMCA. I don't know the details of this process, but I am sure Legal does. @Odder: has done this at least once if I remember well. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I just received a response from the WMF:

Hi Johan, I took a quick look at this. First, unfortunately, these are pretty old DMCAs. Nobody from 2012 who would have handled this is still working on the legal team, so I'm going to have to speculate a bit about what's going on. So, here's my guess. It looks like all of these files are sculptures in public places. While local freedom of panorama laws allow photography of the sculpture by the public, the sculptor still owns the copyright in the work. Owning a copyright in most countries in the world causes the sculptor to also own a U.S. copyright due to the various copyright treaties in effect, most notably the Uruguay round agreements from 1994. In turn, U.S. copyright permits photos of buildings in public places, but does not permit photos of sculptures in public places without permission of the sculptor. So, probably those DMCA requests were granted at the time because of the limitations from U.S. laws. I suspect this issue is relatively specific to these photos. Many photos of sculptures don't qualify for U.S. copyright for various reasons, and even some that might are permitted depending on when they were taken, what country they're from, and the age of the sculpture. Anyway, these specific ones I would probably not be able to lift the office action on without quite a bit more investigation (and I might find out that my guess is right and they're prohibited by U.S. law), so they probably should be left be. Feel free to share this response in the discussion though. Best, Jacob Rogers Senior Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation

Jcb (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. I knew WMF doesn't blindly grant DMCA requests: To encourage and maintain free speech on our sites, WMF will push back against DMCA takedown requests if we believe that the content in question is actually lawful. It looks like indeed all of FoP is on shaky ground. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Alexis Jazz: "shaky ground" indeed. Related discussion from 2013: Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. Also see {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. The 2013 discussion was motivated in part by the takedowns of some of these very images. I don't know if the topic was ever revisited. clpo13(talk) 22:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done I've unprotected the talk page and changed the category as requested. Guanaco (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding User:Amitie 10g's request for doppelganger account

Hello everyone, I'm here regarding this usurpation request by which Amitie 10g wants to usurp the account Davod and wants to use it as doppelganger account as per their reason for usurpation. I don't see any problem except their indef block on commons. So what is the commons community view about having them an doppelganger account while they are indefinitely blocked here. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's simple. Amitie 10g is blocked here, which means that they are not allowed to edit with any account. I have no problem with the account itself, as long as it is not used of editting here. I saw that Amitie 10g proposed to have the doppelganger account blocked at Commons, so I don't expect problems. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Long term abuse (user:Fouadan)

Hello. Based on this, please speedy delete this and this. The account (uploader) locked globally now --Alaa :)..! 14:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewer

Hello there, some hours ago I happened to click a special page of rights assignment, specifically Alhen's as I was reading his unsuccessful request for adminship. So I was surprised to find I could assign them image reviewer rights, actually thought it was some bug so I gave him the right (with the intention of later removing it if successful). However, I could not. Although I think he may be trusted with the right, it was not my intention to actually give it out and I send out my apologies to both the community and Alhen, whom I encourage to apply for the right. --küñall (nütramyen) 22:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Removed. Strakhov (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User uploads non-free content en masse

This guy Special:Contributions/Oirc_journals. Some seem to be all rights reserved and some were CC-BY-NC... -- Palosirkka (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploads nuked. Final warning given. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I recently requested many photos to deletion from Yongtenf and Yongteng0807. According to the edit history of Chinese Wikipedia, the last edit of Yongtenf was on 2017-12-23, and the first edit of Yongteng0807 was 2017-12-24. Therefore, I can confirmed that two accounts maybe are hold by one person. In addition, Commons has the same issues about these two accounts. If it's right, this person has still uploaded the copyrighted works. Could any admins confirm this situation? Thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 14:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

IP claiming to be an Administrator

There is an IP address, 81.171.26.6 [13], claiming to be administrator and threatening to block an another user in this discussion [14]. This IP address suddenly appears in the discussion out of no where and has made an excuse that he/she has not currently been able to log in his/her Wikimedian account. This IP could be trolling around and not an actual administrator. So if any of you, the administrators seeing my section here, was that IP address, please confirm so that I can be sure that the IP is an actual administrator. Thanks. Mendduets (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather a troll I think. If they would be an administrator and want to act like one, then they must log-in. But threatening with blocks to 'win' a discussion is not allowed anyway. Jcb (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Unable to delete a file

Processing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Herserange fresque hommage.jpg, I intended to delete File:Herserange fresque hommage.jpg. First, I got an error message by DelReqHandler. Then, trying to delete it "manually" twice, that message:

A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.
[W8jxWQpAICAAAIklsMQAAABL] 2018-10-18 20:47:27: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"

What to do? Where to report? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably phabricator. Just to note that I'm getting the same error. --Majora (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I filed a bug report for you. --Majora (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That was quick, thank you! Gestumblindi (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Tagged it with {{Delbug}}. I see this file is not the only file that could not be deleted today. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't even aware that template exists. Today I learned. I also added a note in the phab ticket that this is more than just one file. --Majora (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, this issue is resolved. Thanks everyone. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of Sciences exactes.svg

Hello,

I reworked the Sciences exactes.svg file to make it lighter and to fix SVG errors. Now, this file is upload protected (with admin level) so I can't upload the new version.

You can download the new version here to replace the existing one.

Cordially. --Niridya (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, if I zoom in, the quality of the circle shapes doesn't convince. --Achim (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: in the Google Drive render we don't need to zoom to see pixels^^ But if you download the file (with the download button on the top right corner) the image will be perfect. lol --Niridya (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done, didn't have a closer look, thank you. --Achim (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete category

Can someone delete Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Halmstad Hammers–Nybro Vikings October 12 2018. It have been moved. 7 Machatjkala (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Achim (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Users changing alot of media sources, spam?

Special:Contributions/Albertrex10 Looks very fishy to me. Apparently it is a larger operation involving more users and IPs, including Special:Contributions/Alexdeus1980 and Special:Contributions/88.2.41.220. I found those others by doing a search here for the URL they spammed. -- Palosirkka (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Strange and rather dangerous form of spam-vandalism. He replaced source-entries of existing not-own images by spam-links. if not detected this might even lead to deletions. Reverted all his edits. User:Albertrex10 and IP 88.2.41.220(seems to be stable over days) indef-blocked. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
A candidate for the spam black list? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding links somewhere in file descriptions is quite common form of spam on Commons. And not a new one. @Pigsonthewing: IMO it does not make sense to add these links to the blacklist because spammers rarely add the same link more than once-twice. @Túrelio: Indefinite block for an IP is rather too long. I have changed it to two weeks. On the other hand, I have indefinitely blocked Alexdeus1980. Also please, please use "revert" instead of "undo". IMO there is nothing to explain, especially to spammers. Unfortunately, "undid" edits, which in fact are patrolled, are still listed e.g. in RTRC. "Reverted" edits are automatically marked as patrolled. Yeah, I'm selfish. --jdx Re: 01:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
What's "RTRC"? --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
RTRC, "improved version" of Special:RecentChanges. --jdx Re: 09:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Review

I have uploaded some old images from Ipernity but no one is reviewing them. Anyone please review them. All are located here.--√Tæ√ 08:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please protect the file? An IP and a user are continually adding OOS content to it. Vermont (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done One month protection. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sabotage of community decision

It's well known that Fae somehow regrets that they have taken part in the vote leading to {{PD-old-assumed}}. I have always wondered why so few files are tagged with this license, although several users use this template regularly. I had my suspicions of course, so the last time I tagged a file with PD-old-assumed, I added it to my watch list. And gotcha, my suspicions were correct. Fae is actively sabotaging the usage of PD-old-assumed. In this case they replaced it with a license that can hardly be used especially for Germany. They removed a license that is supported by a community vote, to replace it by a highly doubtful license, apparently just because they do not like the community decision. Fae has started discussions many times at all sorts of noticeboards in an attempt to undo or deny the community decision. Without success. So Fae is perfectly aware of what they are doing, they do it on purpose. All admin, please be aware of this sabotage. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Sabotage" appears strangely inflammatory language from an administrator. Could I please see the following evidence for the claims made above, thanks:
  1. Evidence that I "somehow regrets that they have taken part in the vote".
  2. Evidence that I am "actively sabotaging the usage of PD-old-assumed" as opposed to making corrections (for which there are several hundred examples as this template is misused more often than it is correctly used). One mistake is not evidence of a pattern that could be construed as "sabotage".
  3. A link to the legal case that demonstrates that European law for "anonymous" works does not include cases where the author is unknown and unknowable.
  4. Links for "Fae has started discussions many times at all sorts of noticeboards in an attempt to undo or deny the community decision". I believe the number is zero, apart from an early request that went nowhere. Saying otherwise appears to be deliberate lying or at least spreading a fakenews style bias.
  5. Link to "the community decision" for PD-old-assumed. There was no consensus to implement the template, as has been highlighted many times. Multiple claims to contrary do not make a mistruth the truth.
Thanks
PS, bragging about laying weird traps for colleagues is the same as bragging about spending your volunteer time hounding and harassing other users in my book. -- (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
(EC)This is not this one edit, you do it all the time. It cost me five minutes to see a handful of those edits only today. You replace the license by doubtful licenses, you tag files from the 1880s as 'no source', you do everything to get this template abandoned. You could not convince the community in at least 10 discussions, please let it rest now, the community is not sharing your opinion. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you provide the evidence requested please? If you are not prepared to give any evidence, there is nothing to do here. Thanks -- (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, removing no source templates from files with absolutely no evidence about age or source like this, does not help whatever case against me you are trying to make. Just friendly advice from a fellow volunteer aiming to work collegiately with you, so try not to see everything I do as "sabotage". Thanks -- (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You are not "aiming to work collegiately" with me. It's blatantly shameless to say so. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, you just make it difficult to carry on working with you when you behave poorly. Could you please provide the above evidence and avoid making further unsupported claims about me until you do so? Thanks so much.
It would be much appreciated if you avoided removing no source templates that I add to files unless you fix the actual problems. However if you insist on being bullish about this, then it seems sensible that these cases go forward to a DR, as per the normal process. As an example after one of your reverts of my edits today, I have raised a DR for File:Dekemahuis te Franeker voor gedeeltelijke afbraak.png. Thanks -- (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that one is clearly mistaken. The only reason to nominate this file is to make some point. It's obviously way over 120 years old. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to make your case about the photograph in the DR, so far the only statement you have provided there is that the terminus ante quem can be set at 1900, which clearly means that PD-old-assumed should not be used.
Please provide the evidence for the claims you have made about me at the start of the thread. Without any evidence, this should be treated as any personal attack. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

, in this discussion at the Village pump you clearly voted for the PD-old template with a cut off of 120 years. While there were issues with that vote, your position, supporting a 120 year cut off for that template was clear. Yet later you asked for the template to be deleted and stated it "should not be in use on any file, and should be replaced with established licenses". That does rather sound like "regret" or at least a change of mind wrt your earlier vote. How does "should not be in use on any file" match your comment above "misused more often than it is correctly used". Are there cases where it can be correctly used?

In this proposal by you to the Administrators, no administrator agreed with you that it should be deleted. And no administrator agreed with you that it should not be used on any file. And no administrator agreed with you that it should be "replaced with established licenses".

Fae, it looks like you are on a one-person mission wrt this template. You alone are repeatedly vocally unhappy with the current situation, so it is up to you to get this template deleted or initiate discussion leading to consensus on its usage. Continuing to edit war with Jcb over this, on a file-by-file basis, is simply disruptive. You failed to get the template deleted earlier, and it now does rather look like you are trying, by the back door, by monitoring the category, to eliminate instances of its use instead. Do this properly, with a formal discussion and work to achieve consensus. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of this. Fæ just removes the PD-old-assumed template from files and when that is reverted, he nominates the file for deletion. Here's another example where he replaces PD-old-assumed with an inappropriate template.

The way I see it: PD-old-assumed should be used for works that, as far as we can tell, are 120 years old. We shouldn't require cold hard evidence for that because the whole reason to use PD-old-assumed is typically a lack of information. PD-old-assumed should, I believe, be used when it's technically possible to figure out who the author is. However, if the only way to figure that out is to buy some antique book for $100 (or the book isn't even currently being sold anywhere) without even any guarantee the name of the author of some illustration or photo is even in there.. PD-old-assumed. Or if the only shot we'd have is to go to the village where the photo was taken, ask around, maybe get a name, go bother the only child of the suspected photographer who turns out to be in a late state of dementia and just asks us every two minutes who the fuck we are again and if the Germans know we are here. PD-old-assumed, go back to sleep child, the Germans have been defeated.

Simply put: if the work is over 120 years old, the onus for proving the copyright status shifts from the uploader to the deletion nominator. If it's edit: If it appears to be, as far as we can tell, more than 120 years old, you have to prove it's either not 120 years old or prove the copyright is unlikely to have expired.

Oooh.. and Fæ's fantasy about academics trusting our licenses. Any academic who blindly trusts our licenses is an idiot. Besides all the unwanted copyvios, Commons also willingly and knowingly violates copyright in some cases per community consensus. FoP from Germany may not be valid in the US and WMF legal acts accordingly if they get a DMCA. For costumes the community also overruled WMF, which apparently we can do. And we also pretend all re-users live in the US or the source country. We don't warn re-users in other countries in any way.

For all its flaws, PD-old-assumed is at least one thing: honest. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, "If it's more than 120 years old, you have to prove it's either not 120 years" is illogical nonsense. The uploader has the burden of evidence to provide a rationale as to age, not the rest of the community. This is how COM:L works.
However you appear to be letting off steam for some reason, so I'm not correcting the rest of the unevidenced fakenews, there's little point. If you want to discuss a specific image, provide facts and evidence, rather than offensively worded personal attacks. That would be super, thanks. -- (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Clarified the illogical bit. Other than that, you are not helping in any constructive way. You called my helpful response for a user a personal attack and trolling and false claims. And here you accuse me of fake news. The only fake news I see here comes from you. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
"You wouldn't know respect if it punched you in the face" [15] is not a "helpful response". Most people would class your words as trolling and a personal attack. Please pick fights somewhere else. Thanks -- (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Twisting words eh? This was the helpful response, not what you link. That was just my opinion. Take it as an insult if you wish, but it's not wrong. You are actually the one who is trolling by trying to kill PD-old-assumed all on your own like this. Now, if nobody had a problem with that we could argue it's constructive. Clearly though, everybody has a problem with your actions. You replace PD-old-assumed with templates that are just wrong or remove it entirely, leaving files without a valid license. You are fully convinced you are right, even when you're not, and force your will upon others instead of discussing the issues. Not helpful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, the Admin noticeboard is not the place to discuss how the PD-old-assumed template should be used. And I fully agree with you that anyone, not just academics, who blindly trust whatever claims some random anonymous user makes on a wiki wrt copyright or PD status of a file, is a fool. It's now on record that Fae is being disruptive with his edits to files marked as pd-old-assumed. Admins won't do anything because Fae. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Colin I didn't really start it though.. I could start a parallel discussion elsewhere, but I wasn't sure that would be too helpful either. I'll think about it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I propose a (kind of) topic ban for Fæ. Fæ will no longer be allowed to:
  • Remove PD-old-assumed from any file. Adding other licenses (if Fæ believes they are more appropriate) is allowed, but another user should decide if that's enough to warrant the removal of PD-old-assumed for that file.
  • Tag files with PD-old-assumed for deletion (DR/npd/etc). Fæ can ask another user on their talk page if they believe PD-old-assumed doesn't apply. Assuming Fæ won't abuse this by filing requests for every single file, I'd be willing to take (a part of) those requests. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Data analysis

As a positive response, and as discussion is stale, I am running a fresh one-week analysis of usage of PD-old-assumed starting from today. This will provide neutral data rather than personal views. Anyone is welcome to watchlist User:Faebot/SandboxA, but transcluded here for convenience. I plan to update during the week, but not every day as it requires WMFLabs access from my desktop and takes over half an hour to query. A credible final assessment is likely to take a further seven days, depending on whether actions and corrections are needed on the uploads. -- (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File Uploader Upload date Action or outcome
Analysis of file uploads created with {{PD-old-assumed}} from 2018-10-17 to 2018-11-14
File:Niccolò_Bacigalupo.jpg OgreBot 20181019 Deleted: Interwiki transfer with zero metadata. DR
File:J.h.schirmer.jpg A1000 20181020 Changed: Photograph taken before 1857. Raised at VP/C, changed to {{PD-old-70-1923}} as no assumptions are needed
File:Duomonapoliold.jpg Achim55 20181021 Changed: Photograph taken before 1875. Interwiki transfer. License changed to the country specific {{PD-Italy}} as no assumptions are needed
File:Vassil_Kanchov_High_School_Diploma.png Iliev 20181022 Changed: Certificate with no author, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applied
File:Hristina_Kanchova.jpg Iliev 20181022
File:Withering_Botanischetekening.jpeg Ghouston 20181031 Changed: 1776, {{PD-old-100-1923}}
File:Charles_Leland.jpg Inritter 20181101 Changed: Portrait of US writer, created in the US and IP law there is the only law that applies. {{PD-1923}}
File:Jacobus_Gerhardus_van_Niftrik_1833_-_1910.jpg
File:Jacobus_Gerhardus_van_Niftrik_1833_-_1910_(cropped).jpg
Alexis Jazz 20181105
File:Hannah_Winbolt_(1).jpg Diane Coffey 20181103 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hannah Winbolt (1).jpg
File:Feneos_Lake-Pheneos-Map-1890_Greece-Peloponnese.jpg Ulrichstill 20181110 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Feneos Lake-Pheneos-Map-1890 Greece-Peloponnese.jpg
File:Bäckerhaus_Augsburg_um_1870.jpg Manha83 20181113 Changed: 1870 so safe to apply PD-old-70
File:Df_a_0008869.jpg Plagman 20181114
File:Johan_Lindeqvist_Portrait.jpg WK 20181117 Changed: Before 1865, so safe to apply PD-old-70
File:Lou_Andreas-Salomé,_Arthur_Schnitzler_und_Richard_Beer-Hofmann_im_Prater_(~1895)_OeNB_7264906.jpg Walter Anton 20181102 Redundant: Already marked PD-Austria-1932
File:Helene,_Ludwig,_Hermine,_Paul_und_Margarethe_Wittgenstein_OeNB_5086848.jpg Walter Anton 20181122 Redundant: Death date known
File:Helene,_Ludwig,_Hermine,_Paul_und_Margarethe_Wittgenstein_OeNB_5086848_(A).jpg Walter Anton 20181122 Redundant: Death date known
File:"Pest"_gőzmozdony_1872-ben.jpg Zoli65 20181114 Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Pest" gőzmozdony 1872-ben.jpg, Facebook washing
File:1890's_Graduates_from_St._Angela's_College_Cork,_including_Mary_Ryan.jpg Catherine Orman 20181122 Changed: PD-EU-anonymous
File:GuidoAdler.png Walter Anton 20181125 Misleading: Photograph dated to "before 1904"
File:Marie-Jeanne_de_Talleyrand-Perigord.jpg Enciclopedia1993 20181118 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marie-Jeanne de Talleyrand-Perigord.jpg, pinterest harvesting, source washing
File:Photo_-_Wilhelm_Kienzl_-_um_1877.jpg DALIBRI 20181128 Changed: Estimated 1877 photograph, but published in 1926. PD-EU-anonymous and PD-US-not renewed applied
File:Theo_van_Gogh_1878.jpg
File:Theo_van_Gogh_1878_(cropped).jpg
File:Theo_van_Gogh_May_1878_back.jpg
Alexis Jazz 20181129 Changed: 1878 photograph by studio, so PD-old-70 applies
File:Elliott_factory_1876.jpg Cheesepoet 20181106 Changed: 1874, PD-US
File:Theo_van_Gogh_in_1873_back.jpg Alexis Jazz 20181130
File:Lorgnette_Humaine_(2920370185).jpg Luisbrudna 20181204 Changed: 1897, PD-UK-unknown
File:Mawlid_an-Nabawi_SallAllaho_Alaihi_wa_Sallam_Celebrations_in_Cairo_in_1878.jpg HyperGaruda 20181206 Changed: 1880s, PD-Egypt applies
File:Karte_von_Deutschland_(1893).png Habitator terrae 20181210

The above table is limited to new uploads created within the time frame. Old files with PD-old-assumed being added are not included, for example File:SakalathatvaDharpanamu.pdf. -- (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by Fae

Despite this report, Fae has repeated their behaviour today, so that they have received a warning. This has to stop here and now. Jcb (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say this Jcb, but the change I made was as discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dekemahuis te Franeker voor gedeeltelijke afbraak.png and suggested by @Vysotsky: . Using the best copyright statement for the file is something you should be supporting as an administrator, and working collegiately to resolve deletion requests and licensing problems.
Reverting the change and making the file sysop only, then giving me a formal warning (for exactly what?) as pointed out to you by @Pigsonthewing: is misusing sysop tools and to "issue warnings to users you're already in dispute with".
{{PD-anon-70-EU}} is justified based on the evidence available, replacing this with the weaker and much harder to justify {{PD-old-assumed}}, without even bothering to engage in the community discussion on-going in the DR, is a disservice to this project.
Keep in mind that you created this complaint against me with no meaningful evidence. If you have evidence of your complaints go back to the start of the thread and provide it. Without evidence you are simply on a childish crusade, and now appear to be using sysop rights to "win" your irrational one-sided argument.
Thanks
P.S. As of today, I have uploaded 4,294,515 files to Wikimedia Commons. Being called a vandal is ridiculous. Put down the stick please Jcb, I'm the last person you should be trying to hurt. -- (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, this is the stage where you start playing the victim. You should be thankful to pigsonthewing for probably preventing you from being blocked over this, by causing the file to be protected. As for the license, no, you have not provided any evidence that this would be an anonymous work. The only valid rationale to keep this file is still PD-old-assumed. Jcb (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You are going by feelings, not IP law in the Netherlands. If you want to discuss the case, do it in the DR, not by grandstanding with a pointy and childish argument on a noticeboard. Thanks -- (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Fæ, I can produce a list of edits in which you have removed PD-old-assumed. I predict it'll be long. Anything to declare before I call your bluff? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Please do, feedback is welcome. There are probably between 100 to 200 files since March 2017, where I have replaced the template with a more correct one, or the file has since been deleted as a copyvio or unsourced, please be systematic rather than cherry-picking examples.
It will be an interesting way of trying to justify the claims by Jcb that I am a "saboteur" and "vandal", causing serious harm to this project so that I ought to be blocked, based on evidence of making simple improvements to licensing over the last year and a half. Improvements, apparently, that were so disruptive that nobody noticed until now. Thanks -- (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The only person grandstanding (4,294,515) here is Fae. Quite why your bot upload count should be in any way relevant to this discussion is beyond me. Shifting bytes from one part of the internet to another. Meh. You have a bee in your bonnet about this template and are targeting files to eliminate its usage since you've failed to get community backing to delete it, as you freely admit 100 to 200. Considering that your filespace edits are 99% concerned with your own uploads, I wonder why this template should interest you so much. Ah, yes, Jcb. This is a personal vendetta. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Jcb's protection of File:Dekemahuis te Franeker voor gedeeltelijke afbraak.png has been removed by a bureaucrat with the comment stepping in--this is not vandalism. Jcb's claims of vandalism above are not credible. By definition Jcb's action is either misuse or incompetent use of sysop privileges against the requirements of COM:Administrators. -- (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just give Fae his last warning, because he is continuing to remove all usage of PD-old-assumed, see e.g. here and here. This has to stop here and now. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Using rollback to revert a seemingly appropriate edit without providing an explanation to whoever is watching the page is an abuse of the rollback feature. I ask Jcb to refrain from using his sysop bits for a few days until he remembers how they're supposed to be used. Thanks, Nemo 10:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Jcb, if Fae remove the template again, you will block them? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • With regard to these templates... Has anyone considered the possibility of using both of them at the same time when "user A)" prefers {{PD-old-assumed}} and "user B)" thinks is more convenient {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? After all "multi-licensing" (PD-old is more "tagging" than "licensing" though, isn't it?) is possible here... Strakhov (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • T Cells I think we have reached the point where Fae is deliberately provoking Jcb into an "involved admin action", so they can start another de-admin. So I would advise Jcb to realise he is being trolled and stop at the warning but not proceed to using tools. There's really too much bad blood between you guys for you to survive using the tools against Fae, and he's just poking you so you do it. There's more important things to worry about. I would urge Jcb to recognise the different between an edit war with a POV pusher, and vandalism. Choose your words more carefully. Do not use your tools (protection, blocks) to resolve an edit war you are involved in. Bad move that. -- Colin (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Month-old protected edit request

Greetings. Could someone please respond to the protected edit request at Template talk:ByCat#Proposed change to entry for "order"? It has been there since September 20. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

License change by user who is not the uploader

I'm not sure, are those changes OK or not? The user is doing this at many images. --Migebert (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

They are correct in changing to a PD license. However, they should be wrapping it in {{PD-scan}}, and I don't know why they are signing on the file page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Mon commentaire concerne l'image citée en sujet.

Je crois qu'il serait nécessaire, à tout le moins, que cette page comporte une mise en garde.

Cette disposition est utilisée de plus en plus rarement. Ainsi à Montréal (Canada) la grande majorité des concerts des deux orchestres symphoniques principaux se font dans une autre disposition.

Des chefs, tel Yannick Nézet-Séguin dont je suis la carrière, n'utilisent jamais cette disposition. Leurs raisons sont historiques et acoustiques.

J'ai fait carrière plus de trente ans dans le domaine de l'enregistrement de musique classique, je peux affirmer que c'est, selon mon expérience, la plus mauvaise disposition pour l'enregistrement.

De plus, beaucoup des grandes oeuvres références du répertoire symphonique, n'ont pas été écrites pour cette disposition. Ainsi les historiens de la musique savent que Mozart, Beethoven ou Schubert ne connaissait pas cette disposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorl (talk • contribs) 23:00, 23 October 2018‎ (UTC)

  • @Majorl: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
My comment concerns the image cited in the subject.

I think it would be necessary, at the very least, for this page to contain a warning.

This configuration is used more and more rarely. Thus in Montreal (Canada) the vast majority of the concerts of the two main symphonic orchestras are in another arrangement.

Conductors like Yannick Nézet-Séguin, whose career I follow, never use this configuration. Their reasons are historical and acoustic.

I have had a career in classical music recording for more than thirty years, and I can say that it is, in my experience, the worst configuration for recording.

In addition, many of the great works of the symphonic repertoire have not been written for this purpose. Thus historians of music know that Mozart, Beethoven or Schubert would not recognize this disposition.
 
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Corrected some translation errors above.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Majorl: this isn’t a matter for administrators. Feel free to add {{Inaccurate}} or {{Disputed diagram}} to the file page, and/or to comment on the Talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Majorl: You could also upload a different file with a better / more popular configuration.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion requests by User:JulianVilla26 for own images

This user filed DRs for mostly own files claiming he uploaded better versions of them. Many of the files are in use, there's no link to the claimed better image. Please review these DRs and speedy close them as invalid. --Denniss (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ruthven and Didym. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Rights

Hello everyone I have requested for FileMover rights at [16] but no it was declined I have commented on declined reason but there is no reply. If anyone thinks that I am eligible for the rights please grant me the rights.--√Tæ√ 07:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Forum shopping isn't going to help --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean?--√Tæ√ 08:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Administrators' noticeboard is not a right place to request rights. Taivo (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But now what I have to do? No one is replying on the RfR page.--√Tæ√ 08:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Use {{Rename}} for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm just wondering the copyright status of images under [17]. Either way, they're under the wrong license, but I'm wondering if it's even able to be on Commons at all. Some of them look to be simple shapes or plain text, but others like the Unity logo and Android logo, which are extremely low-quality, I'm unsure about. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely sure if they're useful. GMGtalk 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Android robot is Creative Commons. These images may be useful when you want to use them without scaling. (which seems to be the reason they were uploaded) For example, compare: . Can't even see the antennas on the large png and svg ones. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

File rename.

Can an administrator please move the file name for File:Flag of Australia (1901-1903).svg to File:Flag of Australia (1901–1903).svg. This would correct the hyphen to an en-dash, bringing it in line with other file names with ranges in values such as years of use and per the wiki article Dash. An administrator is required to perform the rename because of several redirects, otherwise I would perform the rename myself. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request for pages created by blocked sockpuppet

A blocked sockpuppet account User:Afia Bi created many pages and atlases for places (even non-existent ones) for POV pushing and vandalism. The master was blocked for the same reasons as well (User:Zeshan Mahmood). I was trying to correct some of this and adding speedy deletion requests but I realized that it will take too much time and most of the edits are vandalism. In the best interests of the community I believe all edits of the above account should be deleted/reverted. Please see what can be done about this. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Can you please have a look at this? Gotitbro (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I deleted 123 pages, broken redirects and empty categories. Maybe more deletions are needed. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also deleted those cats etc. which were tagged for SD. Thanks for tagging them. --Túrelio (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo: @Túrelio: Thanks, I have tagged and am still tagging pages by the vandal pages by the user. I have also noticed IP addresses with the same editing pattern (not sure if these can be reported as sockpuppets). I am trying to tag vandal pages by these IPs as well. Gotitbro (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Block and Nuke User:Egy writer

Hello.Because of his mistakes mentioned here and ignore this section, please block and nuke (User:Taivo deleted only five) User:Egy writer.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Month-old protected edit request, 2nd request

Greetings. Could someone please respond to the protected edit request at Template talk:ByCat#Proposed change to entry for "order"? It has been there since September 20. I previously requested this, but that request got archived with no reply or action. If this is the wrong place to request this, please let me know. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: This is the right place, we just have a shortage of Admin attention to Category:Commons protected edit requests. I would be more attentive, as I'm sure you would.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks. I'll keep watching the request. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to mass delete all contributions of this user in Translations namespace? --jdx Re: 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You could use AWB, it has a delete button. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I completely forgot about it! --jdx Re: 21:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --jdx Re: 21:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandal begging to be blocked

Special:Contributions/Fika_Laka. Let's make his dreams come true. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Is already globally locked. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Tweaks to protected templates

See Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Splitting up Commons:Copyright rules by territory. The first phase of this project is complete, moving out all the rules from the main list into sub-pages like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan. As part of clean-up, links to sub-sections in the main page should now point to sub-pages. I have done that for several templates, but need help with three protected ones:

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time just file a {{Edit protected}} request on the talk pages. I monitor that category. --Majora (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That should let me see the other links that need fixing.Aymatth2 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought the image is from Lithuania, turns out it is from Hungary where there is FOP. Thanks --im temtemhOI!!fsfdfg 06:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --jdx Re: 07:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-standard move

Please restore File:CIMG1471.JPG and merge its history with File:Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague.jpg. Seems to be a nonstandard move from 2008-08-20T17:19:52, the original file with its original history was removed on 2008-08-22T03:55:03 by Cecil with a reason "Was in category "Duplicate", exact duplicate". The original file was approved to be moved but was removed and uploaded instead. --ŠJů (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Kay Ivey

Could an administrator have a look at this picture file? It seems that it's only being used for vandalism edits to replace a BLP's main portrait on Wikipedia, as seen here. The file isn't linked to any other pages. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done COM:DW. Other derivatives also deleted. --Majora (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted speedily all remaining uploads of Jackmarshall052104 (talk · contribs) as hoaxes. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This file has the following vandalism: "A Bonobo (Pan gvbjjpaniscus)" which should read: "A Bonobo (Pan paniscus)". --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Vandalism reverted. --jdx Re: 15:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Hasive

User:Hasive already block Bengali and English Wikipedia for his paid editing. Please block him. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.30.35.12 (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no such policy as paid editing on Commons. The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors. Unless you can provide evidence of violation of Commons policy or WMF's term of use, there is little we can do here at Commons. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
However, please see m:srg#Global lock for Hasive.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not a valid reason for a global lock. Can you provide a link to where he has been globally banned? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@T Cells: They have been violating m:Terms of use#paid-contrib-disclosure.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
That is for the WMF to discuss with the contributor, if they wish. There is no consensus locally. -- (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons does not have paid editing disclosure requirement: Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy — regards, Revi 05:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add

Category:White clothing, female to File:Sharon Stone 2002.jpg (currently protected). TIA --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete old version

Hello! Is it possible to delete the 1st version of this image, featuring a little girl: File:Portrait JYG.jpg? The picture was most likely taken in France, where parents have to give explicite permission for their kid's photo to be published / used. Plus, we don't know this little girl's name, she doesn't seem important regarding this man's biography, she just seems to be there for the signing session. Thanks. --Titlutin (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Review request

Could an admin please review the license validity of these uploads by a new user: [18], [19], [20]. The uploader username is an organization name! and the author-credit seems to be a photographer. Thank you. Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

hide a photo version

Hello,
I beg to hide the former version of the photo file:Neukirch-Lausitz, Lindenweg 9 (3).jpg. It contains personal data. I uploaded a newer version of the photo with an edit of the detail to hide. Thank you.
Ich bitte darum, die erste Version des Fotos zu löschen. Das Kennzeichen des Pkw soll nicht zu sehen sein. Danke! Alternativ kann auch das ganze Foto gelöscht werden, ich würde eine bearbeitete Version danach hochladen. --Tommes 00:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC) --Tommes 00:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Danke! --Tommes 09:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it against Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia policies to allow people with Asperger's syndrome to edit ?

I would like to ask that, Is it against Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia policies to allow people with Asperger's syndrome (an autistic syndrome) to make edits on these sites ? Mendduets (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please point to particular accident(s). Unless project's rules broken, personality traits are irrelevant. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
No. Refer to https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en -- (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I have been aware of a user who could have suffered from some autistic syndrome in which this user appears to be obsessed with a certain idea and created abnormal maps. But currently this user has not made any disruptive edit on Wikimedia yet. So maybe I just ignore this user next time. Mendduets (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It is against universal Wikimedia policy for anyone who is not a unicorn to edit.
Seriously, though, why would you think that would not be allowed? That would be a HUGE discriminatory offense on the part of the WMF, or any organization, if it were explicitly disallowed. Good thing it's not in the universe we live in. Actions, not types of people, are what matters.
(But aren't most of us here at WMF projects on the spectrum...?) PseudoSkull (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, people with some kind of autism probably form a majority here. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
And you're not only medically qualified, but qualified to make diagnoses based only on observing an unaware inividual's participation in online projects? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
That and I must point out the misconeption, which is unfortunately rather common, that all autistic people "SUFFER from" their differences. Autistic people SUFFERED when they were locked into insane asylums during the 1940s, and when they were tortured and killed during the Middle Ages because they didn't conform with strict social norms. I once read a quote on Wikipedia that speculated that "an autistic caveman probably invented the first spear." Please be more considerate. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd also remind User:Mendduets not to make personal attacks on fellow editors, as here, and here; especially as the former came just a few hours (and the latter, two days) after this warning for the same issue, from User:Túrelio. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your answers and warnings. I will keep that in mind. However, I want to clarify that I saw this particular person on other webpages cross the Internet, not just on Wiki. Mendduets (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
That is not a convincing reason to discuss someone's physical/mental health issues here unless voluntarily disclosed by that user. Otherwise it is Oversight-able (and blockable if repeated) offense. — regards, Revi 05:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

HMDB.org

Would someone kindly review Village pump/Copyright#HMDB.org? Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Felix Montana

Self-removal of a speedy deletion template and notice commented as "Unexplained reason from unknown user", without really clarifying the issue. Both had several lines of explanation, while "unknown user" should not matter at all. User already has numerous copyright violations at Commons, EnWP and at least one at RuWP; received a "last warning" at Commons, with two (including mine) new cpyvio notices after that. Tatewaki (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked two weeks. Uploads deleted. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding a gadget on Commons

Hi. I don't if this is the correct place to put such a request, but I honestly don't know where else to put it. Long story short :

  • the 2006 wikitext editor was removed, ~last week.
  • As a consequence, the old customizable edit toolbar, a tool I used quite heavily here, has disappeared (and frankly the alternatives are especially bad).
  • Among others (but louder than others), German-speaking Wikipedians have protested to get this feature back, but given the answers of the WMF employees in the thread, it does not seem likely it will ever come back. Instead, they seem to encourage to resolve the situation locally, by implement local gadgets.
  • A fr: Wikipedian has developed a gadget which is currently working on fr.wp, an alternative officially recommended on the MediaWiki wiki for the case.

Could this gadget be imported on Commons? The procedure is quite simple and is described here, but needs to be done by a sysop who can edit the Mediawiki space. Thanks by advance. Rhadamante (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of my own original content under false premises

User @Jcb: has been removing my original images including File:PTR-91.jpg and File:Star BM Unloaded.jpg under a false premise of violating copyright. This cannot be the case, as they are both my images of my firearms, making his removals questionable at best. When I attempted to have them restored he just deleted them again. This is annoying as the images were used on their respective wikipedia pages. I kindly ask that my images be restored and his unruly censorship dealt with. Drassow (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If you are really the author, please contact OTRS. You will typically be asked to send the original file from your camera for verification, especially because camera EXIF is missing for both files, your other uploads were blatant copyright violations and File:PTR-91.jpg is all over the internet at full resolution. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I can upload multiple images of the exact firearm, and no, the PTR-91 I uploaded has the highest resolution available: [[21]] You are blatantly lying. Past that, I doubt I will be able to find the original exif file, as I have since moved and am unsure which camera was originally used. The best I can offer is multiple photos of the same firearm to prove they are mine, and the licence for the pistol that includes the exact model. Contacting OTRS is unnessesary, as per the page: "I created the file myself, it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright." Drassow (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Reuploading the same image after it was deleted is not the way you should be going about this. Images that have been previously published, without accompanying proof such as EXIF data, cannot be confirmed to belong to you. Those images will be deleted. That is simply the fact here. We cannot take your word for it. People can say whatever they want. That is why we have a system in place. The images were properly deleted. --Majora (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You declare my image to be breaking copyright despite the fact that I can prove they are mine and it's physically impossible for the photos to belong to someone else? All on the premise of the original camera being lost? That is the most bass-ackwards logic I've seen in a while. Drassow (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: Jcb is digging his own grave here. Obviously the real author is 18plusadultwebcamjobs.com (no joke, 18plusadultwebcamjobs.com/highly-praised-308-battle-rifle.html is one the image search results). All the other results are wikiclones and total bullshit, but that's good enough for Jcb. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rjZgjXdS81cJ:18plusadultwebcamjobs.com/highly-praised-308-battle-rifle.html+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us is nothing like the current scammy content.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:
<a class="work-popup" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/PTR-91.jpg/1200px-PTR-91.jpg" title="" target="_blank"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/PTR-91.jpg/1200px-PTR-91.jpg" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" title="PTR rifle - Wikipedia" alt="">
Jazz out *drops mic* 00:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Flashmob_DieRevolutionRollt_1918_in_Hannover.webm - deletion of first version of file

I'd like to have the first version of File:Flashmob_DieRevolutionRollt_1918_in_Hannover.webm deleted.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f6/20181106160905%21Flashmob_DieRevolutionRollt_1918_in_Hannover.webm

--C.Suthorn (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the need for the revdel? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I uploaded the file yesterday, so courtesy. Also the timed text matches better with the second file version. --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there any problem with the request?? --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535:  ? --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done Revdel is for issues like personal information, copyright violations, and other content that is legitimately problematic. We don't revdel merely because a file was overwritten for minor improvements. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Then delete the file according to Commons:Courtesy_deletions#Period_of_grace. Please inform me, then I upload a new version right away. --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Next time, just file a DR. This was not worth wasting my time on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Cascading protection doesn't stop me from overwriting files

File:Great British Swim Finish 2.jpg

This file is protected because it is transcluded in Commons:Auto-protected files/wikinews/en which is protected with the "cascading" option enabled.

Indeed, annoyingly, I can't edit the file description or add categories.. but I can overwrite it?? To make sure this doesn't have anything to do with me being autopatrolled, I just did the same thing with my sock account. And that also worked.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just tested and only reverting works. I can't upload File:Toaster.jpg over it. That's good. Still, why can I revert.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Well...I'm assuming it has everything to do with the fact that Commons:Auto-protected files/wikinews/en isn't a file page. It doesn't have the option to upload protect. No upload protection on that page means no cascading of upload protection. The cascading of edit protection disables the "upload a new version of this file" link but it apparently doesn't disable the revert link. Which is obviously a problem although I'm guessing a rare one that just wasn't caught before since the protected file would have had to have multiple versions to play around with. Still, a phab request should probably be filed regarding this if one isn't already sitting somewhere on there. --Majora (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is phab:T140010. TL;DR? No one wants to fix it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Shocking...

Perhaps we should rely less on the cascading option and just have an adminbot protecting these files properly? --Majora (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

maybe my wording is bad.. I mean, no one has enough 'willingness' to make such a security sensitive patch, or get such patch reviewed and merged. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah. Well that is too bad. At least a fix is in sight. We just have to find someone whose willing to finish it out. Shouldn't be too hard after two and a half years right? --Majora (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske, Rillke, McZusatz, and Krinkle, @Steinsplitter and Legoktm: You run adminbots, what do you think?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a bug in the mediawiki which should be fixed upstream. The broken cascading protection should be fixed (and extended to add new features). I don't think is it a good idea to build a bot (which is not coded in a few minutes) just to work around a bug. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The suggestion for a new adminbot was before I knew there was a ticket. Although said ticket seems to be stuck in production hell since nobody wants to review it. After two and a half years of waiting perhaps we should just cut our losses. Of course nobody probably thought such a thing would take that long to implement but two and a half years would have been plenty of time to code, test, and put in place something that would have protected these files properly. In any case, I'm fine waiting, and hoping, for someone to approve the proposed changes so the fix is actually done properly. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Could an uninvoked admin close this one. The subject is pestering at OTRS for a closure. TIA, Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: ✓ Done. Please reply to Ticket:2018081010008952. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Sealle

The administrator Sealle of the Russian Wikipedia came "ru:Однополые браки в России" and began to delete images under various pretexts: File:Pavel Stotsko and Evgenii Voitsekhovskii are marrying in the wedding office of Copenhagen's Town Hall.jpg File:Official marks in passports of citizens of the Russian Federation on state registration of same-sex marriage.jpg File:Slava Mogutin and Robert Filippini.jpg When contacting the administrator Sealle with a request to clarify the deletion, the administrator is frankly rude and gives unreasonable warnings. In the absence of a rational position and argument, I consider such actions a manifestation of homophobia --Терпрп (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. I see no rude behavior, no homophobia, no unreasonable nominations for deletion. Although I'll keep the image, circumstances were indeed dubious and Sealle decided correctly, nominating the image for deletion to clarify authorship. Taivo (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Rename request

Hi, Could someone please move File:Nandorfehervar.oga to File:Nandorfehervar.ogg - When I moved the file it went from .ogg to .oga and even tho File:Nandorfehervar.ogg doesn't exist the rename tool tells me it does exist and wont allow me to move it over,
I don't know if there's any difference between .ogg and .oga but I would assume file extensions should remain the same, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, oga is the correct one (MIME type mismatches file extension, the script is correcting wrong extension while moving a file). See https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Steinsplitter, Oh wow this tool is clever I'm impressed! :), I just assumed I did something wrong somewhere but guess not, Okie dokie many thanks for your help :) –Davey2010Talk 17:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done Apparently no need to do anything. Taivo (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request error

On 09 October 2018, I uploaded photo File:Labradorite from Madagascar 2.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Labradorite from Madagascar 2.jpg) in error. I wanted to delete this photo and I used the "Nominate for deletion" tool. I think this is the wrong type of deletion request and I think that "speedy deletion" (reasons 1 or 7) is more appropriate. On the file description page, the "nominate for deletion" template states "Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed." Please can an administrator delete or close this nomination? This would then allow the file to be deleted by "speedy deletion" instead. Thanks GeoWriter (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Next time please use {{G7}}. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. GeoWriter (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange uploads

In category:images requiring extraction there are few of the same kind than File:2014 Sadisdorf P+H Holz Stein Metall.jpg from the same [user]. I do not understand if they are spam and so can be extracted or copyviol of printed advertising. I suspect are copyviols--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I made a mistale, are pictures made in FOP. No copyviol. Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

change file description

The File:Woolsey Fire evacuation from Malibu on November 9, 2018.jpg is auto-blocked due to its use on the main page of Wikipedia:EN. Please change the wikilinks in the description to [[w:Malibu, California|Malibu]] and [[:w:California State Route 1|Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)]]. Thanks.--Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please make an edit request at talk pages of the protected files for future cases. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Corrected version uploaded as new file

Hi. Please take a look to File talk:Total Solar Eclipse 8-21-17.jpg. Briefly, there was a mistake in a featured picture, it was fixed but the user uploaded it as a new file. I think this is an excessive complication, I supported (nobody there opposed) to upload a new version, so I gave instruction for that both there and by email but apparently he did not understand.

So what do you suggest? Should we delete and upload as a new version or should we keep two files this way? If we keep it as as separate file, we have to remove for sure the "quality barnstars" from the old version and change the image used in all the language editions manually. Personally, I still think this is too much unnecessary work and that the best way is to upload a new version, than ping again all the involved users for a final discussion about the results of the old procedure, I don't think is useful to have two separate files. If you agree, this of course require a deletion.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Por qué no se publica mi articulo guardado en Viki

Mi articulo: FORO de POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS de Entre Ríos, Argentina quedó guardado en https://es.vikidia.org/wiki/Redactar_art%C3%ADculo_enciclopedico Por qué no se publica en Wikipedia? Jorge Edgardo Cura (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Jorge Edgardo CuraJorge Edgardo Cura (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Bild ändern auf Berber (Pferd) im Auftrag des VFZB

Liebe Admins, ich bin von der 1. Vorsitzenden des VFZB Verein der Freunde und Züchter des Berberpferdes, Frau Petra Jürgens, gebeten worden, auf der Informationsseite über das Berberpferd das Bild der Fuchsstute Zafira el Saida mit dem Foto der Berberstute INCI auszutauschen und desweiteren eine Galerie mit Fotos hinzuzufügen. Das erste Bild, dass ich hochgeladen habe, war zu groß, das habe ich nun bearbeitet, jetzt kann ich das Bild aber nicht mehr hochladen. ich habe eine Meldung bekommen, dass meine Aktion schädlich sei und ich mich bei einem Admin melden soll, wenn ich der Meinung bin, meine Arbeit sei konstruktiv. Könntet ihr mir bitte weiterhelfen? Danke und VG Anja Lee Benutzer AnMaLe — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnMaLe (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done here, f'up on user's tp. --Achim (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:2018 07 30 Fürstenberg KZ-Ravensbrück final.PNG

Kann wohl mal jemand dieses Bild löschen? Es ist falsch beschrifttet (Ravensburg statt Ravensbrück), eines mit richtiger Beschriftung existiert schon lange, aber jetzt sollte der Unfug wirklich gelöscht werden, um nicht länger zu irritieren. Gruß, --Anselm Rapp (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

File:An-Typhus-erkrankte-Soldaten-Strassenszene-in-Mainz-aus-dem-Jahre-1814,1541488146001,soldaten-1814-fleckfieber-mainz-100~ v-16x9-M -9b77a8b857ec60d020a53cd4b3c103319acf5283.jpg

Bitte den Dateinamen File:An-Typhus-erkrankte-Soldaten-Strassenszene-in-Mainz-aus-dem-Jahre-1814,1541488146001,soldaten-1814-fleckfieber-mainz-100~ v-16x9-M -9b77a8b857ec60d020a53cd4b3c103319acf5283.jpg einkürzen auf File:TyphusdeMayence1814.jpg. Leider zu schnell geklickt. Gruß Martin Bahmann (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 14:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Especially if you love art, please take a ride in that category, there are maybe one or two of the 1000 list of paintings to see in you life and almost 60 presumable copyviols :) to remove--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

starting from his recent copyvio upload of the norwegian frigate one should investigate his other uploads of which all look suspect due to low res, missing exif and saeveral webfinds predating upload. --Denniss (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As File:HNoMS-Helge-Ingstad-7.jpg has been deleted, can any administrators close Commons:Deletion requests/File:HNoMS-Helge-Ingstad-7.jpg?廣九直通車 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The figures in this picture are I believe William Mainwaring. He fought in all the Peninsular war campaigns and was the last survivor of Waterloo. He was a Chelsea Out Pensioner and lived with his wife Mary in Llannon, a small village in West Wales near Llanelli. He died circa 1863 and is buried in Llannon churchyard. He was a trooper in the Light Cavalry and charged the Old Guard after they had been repulsed by the Guards. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:C7F:AE15:1700:C8D9:AF78:FD2:2E0D (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please login and source those claims. Pinging @Romanceor as uploader.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Move request

Could someone move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/おほ^~ツク海 to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/おほ^~ツク海? Thanks, 153.215.50.203 07:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do here. Long descriptions are not wrong, until they are not too long. References are not written into description, but into source field. Current description and source are acceptable. Nothing important should be in text of article only, because Commons must be independent from local projects and not every photo in Commons must be used. Taivo (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I apologize for having to use Google Translate, but I do not know English well. Let's get into the subject ...

La Commons, Dahn is added a photo taken from the book Matatias Carp, Cartea neagră. Suferințele evreilor din România: 1940—1944. III: Transnistria, Dacia Traiană (Socec), Bucharest, 1947, planșa X, p. 250

At this page the author described the photo: After a convoy, between Bîrzula and Grozdovca. In my opinion, this text should also be mentioned in the Commons on the description of the photo.

The user who brought the photo to the Commons came up with a detailed description that is an interpretation of statements made in Carp's book. Quote.

The first convoy, after arriving at Bîrzula, arrives and stays at Grozdovka. On the way they suffered the beatings and mockery of NCO Tarca, under whose command some deportees were shot and now at the stop, they are in the hands of a corporal who is called the commander of the Grozdovca camp and who takes them in the reception, counting them by blows with a iron, on the back of each. The convoys always leap out on special roads, but each with the same unfortunate run.

I have raised the following issues:

1. It does not result from nowhere that those dead are shot. It does not appear that they were shot by the NCO's Tarca. It does not even follow that they were found on the road between Bîrzula and Grozdovca. We do not know the author of the photo. Did Carp do it? If so, when did he do it? Has the photo taken from someone? If so, how does he know the details? The author gives no detail. Taking into account the Wikipedia policy on verifiability of sources, we must be cautious. The problem is that although there is a close collaboration between the Israeli and Romanian authorities in this area, there is no historical work, no historical study, nothing, nothing, nothing to refer to the existence of the Tarca NCO and implicitly to the crimes committed of it.

2. In describing a photo, as is the case here, how is it right to proceed? Do we use the description made by the author of the source or do we use a detailed one? I have raised the issue that the second option would involve mentioning the reference, but it is absurd to put references in the description of a Commons photo. In my opinion, the photo should have a very short description, preferably the one from the source, and the details of the situation captured in the photograph should be included in the text of an article. In the latter case, reference may also be made to support the detailed description of the photograph.

Am I wrong? How should it be done in this case?

I apologize if I raised the issue in a wrong place. If so, please bring me to the right page.188.26.11.77 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not actionable by admins. The quote you have offered is quite short, the description takes into account at least one page of the book. If the information is correctly summarized, there is nothing to change about the description. Also, the IP smacks of Holocaust denialism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
If the information is correctly summarized...188.26.11.77 11:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Rename File:Paul Deussen.jpg

Can someone rename File:Paul Deussen.jpg? On Photobucket it's called Paul Deussen (which means nothing..) and the Russian who uploaded it, well this is not even their script so they probably believed Photobucket.

Over the years several Wikipedia users complained about this and said it's actually Carl von Gersdorff. (like TransporterMan)

Either rename the file to File:Carl von Gersdorff.jpg or, if we now suddenly need rock solid evidence while previously we believed a Russian and Photobucket, rename it to File:Black and white photo of unknown but likely German man.jpg or something like that. At this point, it seems very unlikely this would be Paul Deussen. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Same image as https://nietzscheano1.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/carl-von-gersdorff/ and http://www.friedrichnietzsche.de/?REM_sessid=&action=22&pnr=176, both say Carl von Gersdorff Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I forgot: I also suggest redirecting File:Paul Deussen.jpg to File:Paul Deussen (1914) (cropped).jpg, which is an actual photo of Paul Deussen. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Taivo (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at this

Over on enWiki I approached User:Sheldybett regarding images he has uploaded -- see this. His responses are unhelpfully vague. I believe many of his uploads are problematic so I am posting this here for you experts to have a look. I have notified him at enWiki that I am doing this. moriori (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs uploaded by Sheldybett. Bidgee (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Image without notice

An image I had posted was deleted without notice. Is that a common practice? No reason given.

The deleted image was from a book printed over 138 years old, Publication of the Harlean Society. It was arbitrarily deleted without notice to me. Also there is no pinging of users on the commons wiki page, so I have to bookmark each page to keep up with response.

I believe that the same person deleted an image from an 1880 publication by the Harlean Society, The Visitation of London. That one I am pretty sure fits within the requirements since it's source is over 100 years old. Meanwhile these images are posted and apparently approved: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Coats_of_Arms_of_the_Crown_of_Castile.

I would like to know what is the source of those images. How are they OK and why my image

This is a picture of the Farrer Coat of Arms, from the Visitation of London. Farrar CoA is same sans the Gorget

It is almost impossible for a user to determine what kind of image is OK for posting on the commons. The following choices don't do the job The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license The copyright has definitely expired in the USA This work was made by the United States government Another reason not mentioned above The license is described by the following wikitext (must contain a valid copyright tag):

I found it on the Internet — I'm not sure I believe this work is freely licensed or legally in the public domain. I understand that if I do not add the necessary licensing information in a timely fashion, the file may be deleted.

The deleted image was from a book printed over 138 years old, Publication of the Harlean Society. It was arbitrarily deleted without notice to me.Apparently by user:Alexis Jazz. How is that an image from a book over 138 years old https://archive.org/details/visitationoflond01stge/page/n9 is not legal and images such as these are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Coats_of_Arms_of_the_Crown_of_Castile

Someone please tell me the source of these images, and why they are OK to upload and use, and the above isn't.

I also had an image deleted that came from a government website, Farrar's Island Today.jpg, without notification. What does a person have to do to get it approved. Clear instructions as to what is in the public domain and copyright free are needed. How can one prove that something is not copyrighted.

When I received an image taken by a relative, from a photo that he took of a document in a public file in Surrey England, and he tells me that it is OK to use it, as he took the photo at my request, why can't I use it, how do I prove that it is OK to use. The document was a letter, dated 1930, from a man who died in 1940, and it was in a file held by a municipality (County Surrey, England). I do not understand why that is not permissible to use, and an explanation has not been given. The file was Westwood-Letter from Lord Farrer.jpg

The man,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Farrer,_2nd_Baron_Farrer, has been dead over 70 years.

Your requirements are not clear or intuitive. I don't understand. I see many examples of images, almost identical to mine, and apparently from the same source, yet mine are deleted. One such is Farrar's Island Marker.jpg

I am asking for help because I honestly don't understand. I am trying. I just became a user a week ago, and am doing my best. Consider please that I am 79 years old, recovering from removal of a brain tumor and have some deficits. I understand that internet communications are anonymous and there is a tendency to think that one's correspondent is operating at the same level of knowledge, background, intention. This is not the case in any instance.

For instance: user:one may be a 26 year old male with a technical background, impatient and with little in the way of interpersonal social skills and communicating with user:two at his level, while user:two is a a 80 year old woman, patient with social skills who doesn't even know how to use a cell phone, but can fumble her way around the interwebs with email and even learning to post. Apparentlly that's a bridge impossible to gap.

Also there is no pinging of users on the commons wiki page, so I have to bookmark each page to keep up with response. Caan that be fixed? I have resorted to bookmarking pages like this, as otherwise I get no notice of a response.

Thank you and sorry for the bother Alvanhholmes (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't get it, File:Westwood - Letter from Lord Farrer 1930.jpg hasn't been deleted yet. --Achim (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alvanhholmes: You have three deleted uploads in your upload log. All were deleted as copyright violations by @Magog the Ogre. File:Farrar's Island Marker.jpg was deleted citing evidence from http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM4RYP_Farrars_Island, which implies that user Taluss on waymarking.com holds the copyright to the photo. Please review COM:L.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Before anyone else responds, let me say this.. forumshop. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alvanhholmes: thanks for your edits. I apologize if our process is a little bit too cold. Can you tell me, did you take those photographs that I deleted? You put the source as another website, which leaves me to believe that someone else took them. If that is the case, we do not accept third party images, since we have stringent copyright requirements. We make an allowance only if the original photographer signs a specific waiver.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of version

Hello! Could you please delete the 2nd version of File:Josh Dun (cropped).jpg? A new user uploaded it above the previous one without changing the information, and I don't really know where this pic came from. Thanks --Titlutin (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you for request! I blocked EthanRossie2000 (talk · contribs) for a week. Usually previous warnings are needed, but he uploaded multiple copyvios over existing free files, which robots nominated for deletion with free old versions. I considered this an emergency situation and blocked Ethan without previous warnings. Now I'll clean the whole mess. Taivo (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Admins or trusted users,

The 156 images in the category above All appear to have been uploaded and reviewed by Fae. Fae created the category. Since an uploader cannot review his or her images, do they all need to be deleted...or is there another solution? I checked the picasa sources of these images on Internet Archive and they date to 2016 when the copyright owner presumably changed his image license to ARR like this image. But these 156 images were uploaded in 2014. I ask this question based on this DR where the image was uploaded and reviewed, I assume accidentally, by Fae. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be useful to remember to ping the uploader...
These were uploaded in 2014, as far as I am aware we had no policy at that time that an image reviewer could not review their own upload projects. Later changes in policies or guidelines are not normally applied retrospectively.
For this batch upload the license checking was automatic. I still have the original code sitting on my desktop and the relevant check is strict and clear:
if not re.search("ATTRIBUTION_SHARE_ALIKE", lic):
	skipthis = True
FYI lic was extracted using the ast module from metadata named 'cc'.
As the checks were fully automated, and over the last 4 years none has been demonstrated to have been incorrect, there can be no significant doubt as to copyright status of the photographer's work, however deletion may be perfectly reasonable on other grounds. -- (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Large unused image set from Flickr from User:Artix Kreiger 2 (Sockpuppet of User:Winterysteppe)

The sockpuppet User:Artix Kreiger 2 has uploaded many images, is there any way to delete them and other images created by Winterysteppe systematically, such as deleting all media that is currently not in use? The dumps generally take up a lot of space, aren't being used, and clutter up many searches, especially if your search term happens to hit upon one of the reoccurring title parts, such as with Nepal [22] (I couldn't figure out how to correctly format the internal link, so here it is as an external). The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to delete every single unused image - some of their railroad-related mass uploads, for example, have a pretty good signal-to-noise ratio and are worth the time to slowly clean up. But I agree that many photosets are almost completely useless. The easiest way would be to dump bad/out-of-scope uploads into a category so they can be speedy-deleted as sockpuppet creations by an admin using VFC. (After doing so, please check for the accidental inclusions of in-scope uploads and those currently in use.) I'm happy to do the deleting once you've done so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply! How would one go about putting them into a category for deletion as sockpuppet creations efficiently, and does such a category already exist? The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I would just create Category:Bad uploads by Artix Kreiger 2 or something similar and dump the bad files in there. HotCat works on search results, so you can just search for whatever terms have a lot of bad files, and add to the category from the search results. Do be careful to only add bad files, though - files that are in scope and useful are worth keeping. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't carelessly delete whatever is "not in use". Images may have been cropped and the cropped file can be in use, in such a case the original should not be deleted. Also think of the mw:InstantCommons users. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


Who are you? This person's contributions raises questions about sockpuppet as the person makes this thread in his 4th and 5th edit while his contributions on enwiki number at 302. not even the basically extended confirmed edit right. So he's either a very astute reader, or even , a returning user. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.90.85 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You have even fewer contributions.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hiding photo file version

I beg to delete or hide the the first version of each of both photos (22. Nov. 2018, 21:51 and 21:53) because they contain personal data associating a parking car to a given address.

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Obscene photo and hacking attack on en-wiki

We are having an issue with hacked accounts (including admins) and IPs uploading a vulgar picture on Commons and using them for vandalism on the English Wikipedia. The Main Page has not been saved either [23]. The photos are being deleted but keep getting re uploaded under different titles. You may wish to see recent w:WP:ANI threads for more info. I also brought the issue up on meta:Stewards' noticeboard. funplussmart (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear exactly what can be done about it on this end. I don't believe we can technically prevent the uploads of certain photos, only certain titles. If I'm mistaken then someone please correct me. And anyway, if they have access to a compromised en.wiki sysop account, then they can just upload locally, and override any attempts at protection or deletion until the account is locked. GMGtalk 20:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I remember at some point it was not possible to upload a photo identical to a deleted photo. Apparently, it is possible now?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm told on IRC that this is still a thing but is pretty crap. GMGtalk 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It errors if you try to do so but you can bypass the error with a simple acknowledgement and the notice only happens if it is exactly the same down to the pixels. One pixel different and it doesn't notice. The best we can do is notice the image quickly, delete it, and block the accounts as soon as possible. --Majora (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't software be used to try to detect degrees of similarity? Of course there could be false positives, but I think there is software that could detect things such as a reupload of a deleted picture with only one pixel changed. 24.5.8.227 02:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack pages

The three biased dossier-like pages in question were deleted. There is wide consensus that such pages in user space are considered disruptive and toxic. The administrative boards and in particular COM:AN/U are the right place to raise concerns and to hold admins accountable. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Do we allow personal attack pages like User:Alexis Jazz/Jcb info and User:Alexis Jazz/Admin accountability Jcb? See also this nasty attempt to convince an admin to assist personal warfare. Jcb (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Also
While Commons has no equivalent of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Attack page policy, the essay Commons:Attack page does indicate such pages may be speedy deleted per criterion 3. Further that policy states the user creating such a page may be blocked. It is one thing to post a list of claims about another user at a dispute forum, which may then be challenged by others, but to maintain a private list of claims in user-space, with notes to say only certain members of a clique may edit them and certain enemies may not, is by definition unaccountable, non-collegiate and anti-wiki.
  •  Support Block (week?) Alexis Jazz for creating attack pages. Followed by topic ban on creating essays or user-sub pages. (User's previous essays were trolling/out-of-scope and deleted.) Alexis is advised to stop viewing people as enemies and to heed the advice they have been given. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The user pages should be deleted, but User:Alexis Jazz should not be blocked. User:Jcb should not have closed those DRs (essays by User:Alexis Jazz: 1, 2, and 3). There are 225 admins on Commons who can close DRs. He clearly knew that his closures of those DRs and his deletions of those essays would only escalate the situation and make more drama. Nevertheless, he went forward and closed the DRs exactly after a week, while there are still open DRs from 5 months ago. These two users should avoid each other if they cannot cooperate positively. Otherwise, they should be banned from interacting with each other. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Toxic contributors should be banned and those attack pages deleted. "No drama allowed" should be an official policy. --küñall (nütramyen) 17:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the pages and stop harassing the user. Admins who want to be above criticism, please then behave above criticism: It’s not by chance that this kind of (attempted) scrutiny is directed at Jcb and a few others, but never at Guanaco, Jim, Hedwig, Ellin, odder, P199, among many others. -- Tuválkin 17:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between open scrutiny in a public forum, and an attack page. Perhaps Tuvalkin should read the wiki policy to learn: "keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". Commons does not exist in order to keep grudge lists and protected zones where users may make derogatory, defamatory and basically dishonest comments about others in user space. As for interaction issues, this appears to be onesided as far as I can see, where Alexis is getting themselves into trouble and then keeping a list of "enemy" admins and other users who have ever criticised them. It is clear from the now deleted essays and these user pages that Alexis is seeking to create trouble rather than trying to get along with people. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I deleted three pages under criterion G3, the fourth is just a link to a difference, but I do not intend to block the user for the moment. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Guanaco: the problems are even bigger than I thought.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: I do think there's a fair point about having it in user space rather than a neutral Commons page. We might want to find a procedure for evaluating admin actions in the long-term. All of us make mistakes, and it isn't good for morale to watch someone jot down your every error or questionable decision. We handle blatant misconduct like deletion sprees and wheel warring well enough. But taken alone, none of Jcb's actions come close to warranting this. It's alleged that over time, hostility and errors have outweighed the good work he does. Judging this is not a light undertaking, and both sides should be represented fairly. And it has to be done without keeping a bitter debate open for months at a time. Guanaco (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Guanaco: it was a list of things that stand out, positive or negative. So anything outside the "just doing the job" spectrum. In case of Jcb, it's not my fault I can't think of anything positive that stands out.. But others could contribute those things. Majora and Yann for example were going to have positive entries. Further notes to comment on Jcb and Colin: there were no "notes to say only certain members of a clique may edit them". Three users (Colin, T Cells and Jcb) and IP-editors were banned from User talk:Alexis Jazz/The Dumpster Fire (which didn't do the actual admin judgment, it was just a meeting place) but also instructed to share their suggestions on my talk page. This is AN, clearly not my talk page, so Jcb clicked the wrong link. User:Alexis Jazz/Jcb info was an outdated version of User:Alexis Jazz/Admin accountability Jcb (it had a soft redirect). For the latter it wasn't defined yet who could edit it. The rating system (which has no official meaning anyway) wasn't published yet, but did include options for admins to redeem themselves. And admins with a neutral or positive rating would be given an option to be hidden from the overview page, but all this was still in the works. Lastly, there is nothing to stop Jcb and Colin from pointing out everything that is awesome about admins. I'd even link that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And by the way, Jcb didn't even notify me of this thread. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • And any admin would have been permitted to delete those attack pages and block you without even starting a thread. There is a reason why our policy on such pages say they may be speedy deleted and the users blocked. Please take this as a strong warning that you are close to being blocked. You need to stop arguing all the time when people criticise you, and start taking the comments on board. You need to totally 180 turn about your motive towards other people on this project. Can you make it your aim to get along with others, and to move on after disagreement. We're just here to create and curate educational media, and those pages suggest you are spending too much time thinking bad thoughts about others. The fact that you can't find anything good to say about Jcb, suggests you really have the blinkers on and a red mist before your eyes. Just a glance at his contribs show a high level of admin actions that are beneficial to the project. We have plenty admins who are largely inactive. So this is the problem with trying to judge Jcb's mistakes or instances of bad behaviour/attitude -- his high activity and number of deletions performed guarantee a large list of people he'll have annoyed over the years. How to separate genuine concern from bad faith grievance? That job certainly requires someone with better judgement, impartiality and wisdom than your user sub-pages demonstrate. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it makes a big difference if admins' actions and facts are just listed or if these are commented/assessed in an attackable pov. --Achim (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Achim55: it was very much a work in progress. I can't help being biased in this (Jcb also attacked me) and my general style tends to drip through everything, which in itself should not be considered an attack. User:Alexis Jazz/Admin accountability Jcb was mostly a list of verifiable observations and I'd be open to getting help to document everything in a more neutral way. And (as I said above), I intend to also include positive actions that stand out. I just didn't have any examples of that for Jcb. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The above responses and Alexis's comments to Christian Ferrer demonstrate the problem is still ongoing. When asking Christian to undelete the pages, the edit summary says "lifeline offered", as though now Christian is on the list of enemies and is being offered a chance to save himself. Further he said wrt Christian deleting the pages "You haven't calmed down the situation either. You just poured gasoline on the fire" IMO is further evidence that a block is required. Alexis is not listening, is continuing to view Commons as a battleground divided into enemies and allies, and claims to be brewing something disruptive. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

If he really "brewed" something disruptive, then it would be dealt with. But speculations and interpretations are uncalled-for. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The only person here who is constantly calling for blocks is you, Colin. Commons is not a battleground (or shouldn't be), but you clearly treat it like one. I am not exactly happy about the division either, but when people can't be held accountable for their actions through any normal peaceful process, you end up with division. And the solution for that appears to be "silence the opposition". The Dumpster Fire was merely set up as a meeting place and has, ironically, been burned to the ground. By the way, I had a green light to document stuff. I suppose the one who gave me that green light is just next in line to be silenced? I won't give names at this point because if Commons wasn't a battleground already, it now clearly is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz I didn't see the deleted pages but you listed my username among two other users. What's going on? That I disagreed with you does not mean I have anything against you. Why was my username mentioned? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@T Cells: Things you have said and done certainly make it look like you have something against me. Glad to hear that you don't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)



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

Deletion request to be closed

Could the deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scout cruiser Sparviero (Mărăști).jpg be closed please? This is blocking a good article nomination on enwiki. L293D (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done The nomination is withdrawn. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)}}

Any administrator or LicenseReviewer please review the above file so I could know that the license of the file is valid or not and help the Commons to keep clean out of copyvios.--√Tæ√ 08:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I passed the image and tried to categorize it. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--√Tæ√ 10:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate template is broken

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

The widely used {{Coordinate}} template is broken since this edit of Module:Coordinates. My analysis of this problem can be found at here. Jarekt has been notified but has not been active since this update at 05:47 this morning. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a workaround. Not sure if Jarekt will like the change but gotta fix some widely used module asap :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! --AFBorchert (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is another problem with Module:Coordinates which appears at category pages like Category:Nasir-ol-molk Mosque or Category:Pinneberg (Heligoland) where local variable declarations for link3 and link4 are missing at line 593. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This has now been fixed as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Old deletion request

This deletion request has been left open and has made no new updates to the discussion in the past four months. Can an admin please close the deletion request and delete per the responses. Thanks BreadBuddy (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

We have DR's open from over 5 months old. No need to give this specific DR somehow priority. Jcb (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The decision would greatly help over at English Wikipedia. These pictures are used in a high traffic, high controversy article sanctioned by ArbCom, and the very questionable copyright status leaves some gray area on whether or not the pictures are usable at all. BreadBuddy (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@BreadBuddy: Which article and sanction?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: This article. There are ArbCom discretionary sanctions in place in order to combat the plethora of sockpuppets and POV pushers in that article, and the images used in that article have been an active area that have been a frequent target of the aforementioned two groups. The images have been contested on many occasions throughout the page's history, and the fact that they are likely unusable leaves a lot of hindrance.BreadBuddy (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@BreadBuddy: Thank you. What would you suggest as a replacement infobox image for en:Nair if File:Nair woman.jpg is deleted?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: This one would be one good option as historical portraits tend not to invoke controversy.BreadBuddy (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb I'm sorry to bother the admins here if I am doing so but any help on this matter is very, very appreciated. BreadBuddy (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
STOP bothering us. We have about 8.000 files in old DR's. We are busy enough without people visiting our noticeboard and tagging us to get priority for a DR. Jcb (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
My apologies BreadBuddy (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Jcb offers bold allcaps single word replies to a request of someone from a sister project. (Glad that those meanie user pages were deleted now we can all sing kumbaya in a detoxified environment.) -- Tuválkin 12:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please moving replacement requests to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thx --2003:DE:711:1849:3C0A:F0F4:34DA:7A01 21:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It usually clears up from every few hours to one-two days. It's already cleared now. — regards, Revi 10:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "unblockself" right from admin and 'crat toolkit

As a result of some recently compromised accounts on the English Wikipedia the ability for admins to unblock themselves if they are blocked by another admin has been removed globally by BWolff (WMF)/Bawolff. This includes 'crats. You will still be able to remove self-imposed blocks but otherwise you will be stuck if another admin blocks you. Since this is a fairly significant change that was not advertised here (or anywhere else besides enwiki's village pump) I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I came over here to update the blocking policy, but I see that it doesn't say anything about unblocking one's own account, aside from an implied statement in requiring unblock requests to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Do we have any other policy pages that discuss this concept? If so, they may need to be updated. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. Commons's policy pages have always been rather pared down in comparison to other projects. I doubt anything needs to be added to the page considering it was never there to begin with. --Majora (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure; the implication should be enough. I just meant that we should update any other page if it refers to unblockself, especially if it says "you can do this, but don't". But if COM:BLOCK is the only page, no action needed. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This would have been useful for User:INeverCry last year. But other than a compromised account or rampage, I'd say admins can be trusted to unblcok themselves, but considering the points about it taking a while to remove admin privileges or block, it may make more sense to have no unblock. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, I wanted to apologize for failing to communicate this change properly. I believe the previous behaviour was only widely used because it was a default, and that its a poor default. Hence I thought it prudent to change the default. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @BWolff (WMF): . Could you create a RFC or proposal so the community can vote and discuss this change please? How admins use the tools is a matter for the community, not lone WMF developers, though I am sure you are very clear on the distinctions. Thanks again. -- (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@BWolff (WMF): Can a blocked admin unblock a colleague? If not, this change may be very dangerous, because that would mean that a compromised account could be used to shoot down the entire admin team if they are quick enough. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If so, this change may be very dangerous, because that would mean that a rogue blocked admin account could be used to unblock the entire rogue admin team if they are quick enough. Imagine if INC could unblock Daphne or vice-versa.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that if it is necessary/desired to have a community discussion about this, we just wait until WP have discussed it and folk thought through the various options. See Wiki discussion and Phabricator ticket. Jcb's question already covered multiple times, and there's no point in us repeating the same arguments. I saw one proposal that a blocked user could block the admin who blocked them. Then, in the scenario where a bad/compromised admin account managed to block all the other admins, any of those admins could fire back and block the rogue. So I think that given the number of people already discussing this, some viable options will be proposed. Then Commons could have a simpler discussion. There doesn't seem to be any rush whatsoever to discuss this here, since it isn't a frequently used featured. Even though Commons has a smaller community than WP, the effect of vandalism to images that are widely used could be just as rapid and extensive as a vandal on Wikipedia, indeed it could affect multiple Wikipedias, so arguably we're worse. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@: : You aren't going to like this answer, but... I believe that one of the roles of the security team should be to ensure that good defaults are used. I don't believe that unblock-self is really ever used non-maliciously. While I agree that changing something for a specific wiki, or something that has a large impact should require consensus - I don't believe that every change in defaults requires community consensus. After all, hundreds of little things in Mediawiki change every week. The main thing here, is that I want to ensure that any wiki that doesn't really care about unblockself is using (what in my opinion) is the more sane default of not having it. I have no issue with a community deciding to revert back to the old behaviour after gaining consensus. My primary concern is with all the wikis that do not care one way or another. (You could argue that's unfair, because its always harder to get consensus to change anything, so requiring consensus to change back is totally unfair as that's a much higher bar. And you would be right. I don't have a good response to that line of argument).
@Jcb: At the moment no. We have a plan though to change it so you can block the user who blocked you. That way in the event of a malicious admin blocking everyone, the people s/he blocked can block him/her back, thus resulting in a stalemate where everyone is blocked (until they are all sorted out by stewards), which seems like the best case response in the event of an admin compromise. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, I do not like your answer. Not for the same reasoning you provide, as I have no problem with the security team taking necessary immediate action, but I do have a problem with WMF representatives then evading normal consensus building procedures for sysop policies.
Make the change, then propose policy changes with a credible explanation of why the change was necessary. Cutting out the community means cutting out colleagues who may help the WMF with creating more robust and secure underpinnings for our projects and help to test out further improvements.
Your responses make a statement that views and support from unpaid volunteers are unwelcome, because WMF staff have complete authority, fully control these projects, and always know better than pesky volunteers. I see no reason for volunteers to work collegiately, say using Phabricator, when faced with this realpolitik. -- (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@BWolff (WMF): It may be worth considering to also make the wiki read-only as soon as e.g. half of the admins has been blocked. Imagine what may happen if all admins are down, including the compromised account, but the offender turns out to have another non-admin account and starts using a vandal bot with that account. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@: I'm sorry you feel that way. I consider the community to be an important partner. Security takes everyone working together. With that said, having a multilingual discussion with 300 odd communities is a huge time commitment. If we did that for every change, there would be no time for anything else. There can also be misaligned incentives at time - people only care about security when bad things happen, but only fixing things when bad things happen is a bad idea - additionally often security decisions can often be for the protection of people other than the person inconvenienced by the decision (Not in this case, but for example in the interface-admin case - should enwiki or scowiki be free to make decisions that undermine the security of commons and other projects?). So in truth, I don't believe all decisions should be subject to community consensus, but balanced against other potential interests. To make it concrete in this particular case: Given that the only policy being changed is the implicit policy mostly set due to default behaviour in mediawiki, that in practise nobody (non-maliciously) uses, I think the compromise of changing the default, but allowing communities to decide that they want something different is reasonable. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You appear to have ignored what I actually wrote and are replying based on your preconceptions of what unpaid volunteers think. "Security takes everyone working together" seems especially ironic in light of your refusal to do any more than announce your changes and appear to expect the community ought to shut up and be grateful. -- (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


To those who say "when does this happen anyway": have we forgotten Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 69#URGENT: CHANGE PW / ENABLE Two-factor authentication already?
"Can a blocked admin unblock a colleague? If not, this change may be very dangerous, because that would mean that a compromised account could be used to shoot down the entire admin team if they are quick enough."
If there's no ratelimit it can be done in under 30 seconds.
"We have a plan though to change it so you can block the user who blocked you. That way in the event of a malicious admin blocking everyone, the people s/he blocked can block him/her back, thus resulting in a stalemate where everyone is blocked"
@BWolff (WMF): so, block a sockfarm and wait for other admins to unblock you x times? The solution seems so simple. Ratelimit blocking/unblocking of admins and desysopping to two actions per hour. Ratelimit sysopping to one action per hour and also disallow it if the admin has blocked/unblocked/desysopped another admin in the past hour. Whoever is the first to figure out why that last exception is absolutely necessary gets a cookie. At those rates, it would take a rogue admin days to block the whole admin team. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There's no need for such complexity. As I already stated, and BWolff repeated, there is already a proposed solution that handles the "all admins blocked" situation. This is why if anyone has bright ideas, go read the wiki thread and phabricator ticket and join those discussions. There's really no point in Commons rehashing the same old. And I have sympathy with WMF having to read 1001 suggestions on this. As for Fae's angst about WMF not going through procedures to propose policy changes via community consensus -- well we don't actually have any policy on this matter. So, like, nobody cared or gave this a moment's thought until WMF changed the default state. Really, if we want to have an argument about WMF overruling community policy, it helps to have one in the first place. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Kwangmo uploads various files about South Korea's fire services, mostly located in Category:Firefighting in South Korea. However, I found quite a number (estimated thousands) of them (Example file) are without proper permission. Is there a way to nuke such files with Template:no permission since? If can, can any administrator help to ? Thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow. His talk page is so full of templates, that they have stopped working. One could use the Visual File Change script, but I think it will crash before one can get all his files up. I think this might be a task for AWB - I'll have an explore. Not sure if this will work. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: Oh, this will take a while, there are 96290 images uploaded by this user, I had to use the "No Limits" plugin to get them all. I'll try and reduce the list by removing images that are valid. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
42185 with duplicates removed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I found OTRS Ticket:2015063010008898 where a lot of files uploaded by the user were on behalf of Seoul Metropolitan Fire and Disaster Headquarters. I would guess this still might be the case. Once we have a full list of images with no permission, there looks like there will be a lot from the same source - maybe the user thinks the old OTRS ticket still applies? We may need to get a Korean OTRS agent to re-open the ticket to get further permission. AWB is running at 60 pages a minutes, so the full list won't be ready quick. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have left a message on COM:ON#Uploads of User:Kwangmo to notify OTRS members.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't trust OTRS tickets submitted by him: I recall him submitting false copyright claim to OTRS (can't find which ticket was it, it was 2014). Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-07#6000 files to restore (which was (surprisingly) valid permission) suggests he is not interested in learning about our practices. I gave up after that incident and stopped caring about him - I have lots of other productive stuff to do! — regards, Revi 08:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Well This is a rough breakdown. If you are going to tag all the images then it will need a check - but it takes a while on my connection. See User:Ronhjones/Kwangmo. However seeing the comments of User:-revi, maybe we should just delete the lot. Need some more input from others. It's obvious he never reads his talk page, (thanks to User:Jeff G. for adding the archive code - I went to do that and found it done!). The list should not include any with "own work" or an OTRS ticket (though I think AWB missed a few...). More comments anyone...? Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: You're welcome. The first cut at archiving with a 31d limit didn't archive enough, so I slashed it to 3d to get to the notices from the 14th UTC.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
My reading of ticket:2015063010008898 is that it covers all photographs where Seoul Metropolitan Fire and Disaster Headquarters is the exclusive copyright holder that do not include identifiable people. My recommendation for Seoul Metropolitan Fire and Disaster Headquarters photographs:
  • without identifiable people: keep
  • with identifiable people: delete for lack of permission
The ticket does not cover photograhs copyright by others. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
On that basis, that could be 1353 to tag as "No permission" and 17688! to check, I would therefore suggest that ALL images for Seoul Metropolitan Fire and Disaster Headquarters be put in a category for review. When all the "good" ones are removed, we can tag the rest. Yes? Also I note there are a few that have http://eungdapso.seoul.go.kr/Community/viewLongText.jsp?key=CD852A52B4760F9E09DBF27ABCB137A3AB33F5A7F1FF35C5B135421B870AD652 (as goo.gl/Zavar9 which wiki won't allow as a link!) as a "permission" - perhaps User:-revi could comment on that page? It's a bit much to ask Google, it might not be accurate enough. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
That link is basically same as JJMC's ticket analysis. (Disclaimer: I am editing on mobile [desktop view] and did not check ticket details for now. I'll take another look after I wake up tomorrow.) — regards, Revi 17:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
That link is part of the ticket. — JJMC89(T·C) 18:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've worked out an Api call to get a better breakdown of the uploads (Special:ApiSandbox#action=query&format=json&prop=&list=usercontribs&ucuser=Kwangmo&ucnamespace=6&ucshow=new (Kwangmo contributions, in File space, New edits only). I plan to make a python script to generate an improved breakdown based on content.
Question for all - if we have a large list of pages (such as User:Ronhjones/Kwangmo/Seoul Fire and Disaster Headquarters, once improved!), is there a quick way of adding them all of them to a category? or do we have to edit every page? Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Provided you have a list, I can work with mw:Manual:Pywikibot/category.py and append the category, either as -revi or with Revibot. (I can split them to some batches if needed) — regards, Revi 10:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Please note The "identifiable people" matter as you mentioned is a Non-copyright restriction. According to the related page, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." also, there is no problem in this case since the example image depicts the persons' normal business. Puramyun31 (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That is true, but in this case Seoul Metropolitan Fire and Disaster Headquarters has only freely licensed the photographs without identifiable people, which is their perogative. — JJMC89(T·C) 08:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

List

OK, the python script ran for quite a while and it has separated the files into 10 lists at User:Ronhjones/Kwangmo based on some criteria as follows (a file should only appear in one list, once it was categorised, it moved on to the next file)

  1. 9908 Have an OTRS ticket - BUT there is a lot of photos with people's faces
  2. 17986 "own work" - if these are own work, then this guy has more cameras than David Bailey...
  3. 46 "Alumni of firefighting officer candidate" - found "소방간부후보생 동문회" in text
  4. 665 Found "Fire Prevention News" or "소방방재신문" in text
  5. 245 Found "Gangwon Fire and Safety Headquarters" or "강원도 소방안전본부" in text
  6. 11829 Found "Seoul Fire and Disaster Headquarters or "서울특별시 소방재난본부" in text
  7. 102 Found "Seoul Metropolitan Government" in text
  8. 309 "Gyeonggi Province Firefighting School Instructor Yang Jae-young" - found "경기도소방학교 교관 양재영" in text
  9. 10 "Ministry of National Defense Emergency Room" - found "소방방재청 대변인실" in text
  10. 78 "Misc" - what was left

My views...

List 1 and list 6 (21737 files) need to go to a new category to allow editors to check that there is no identifiable people.
List 2 ???????? - tag the lot as "no permission"?
All the other lists (3/4/5/6/8/9/10) as "no permission"

If User:-revi can do the first part (my bot account is not approved here on commons, I can only write to my own user space), I can do the last part with AWB (1500 files is OK for that). What do we do with the "own work" claims? Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, can you give me a name of the proposed category? (gets out of bed) and I want to confirm that I should add User:Ronhjones/Kwangmo/Seoul Fire and Disaster Headquarters and User:Ronhjones/Kwangmo/otrs? — regards, Revi 17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. Category:Maintenance:162a243ed45323405af0d117b98a2038 for User:Ronhjones/Kwangmo/Seoul Fire and Disaster Headquarters.
  2. Category:Maintenance:e74353cc7135e3c763210600a342e93a for User:Ronhjones/Kwangmo/otrs.
I just started the bot to run thru those files. — regards, Revi 14:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll start sorting out lists (3/4/5/6/8/9/10) as "no permission" tonight. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
1425 files tagged (some files were already tagged). I used one file to add the banner to the talk page and a link to the full list of tagged files - User_talk:Kwangmo#File_tagging_File:(1966-04-04)김현옥시장_기자회견.jpg. Could -revi translate my short text on his user page into Korean, so the he knows what is going on? Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Maintenance:162a243ed45323405af0d117b98a2038 is complete now. (It took bit long time since I needed to do it on my laptop.) Now starting Category:Maintenance:e74353cc7135e3c763210600a342e93a. — regards, Revi 10:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Also Ronhjones, I've told him to review the materials in this page. (It's clear that he can read and write English, I think I saw him writing some English in the past) — regards, Revi 10:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks -revi. I've added a bit of text to the top of Category:Maintenance:162a243ed45323405af0d117b98a2038. It will take a while to process all those files! Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones, The second batch is also done. — regards, Revi 16:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: Many thanks. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Another Marco Verch account

Account added by Hedwig in Washington, files deleted by A.Savin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

160866001@N07

For Commons:Questionable Flickr images. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by Marco Verch#Files in Category:Images by Marco Verch 5 (can be speedied). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


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

I have transferred the above file from en.wiki. On wikipedia page, there was an OTRS ticket given but when I transferred the image to Commons it indicate the Tag:OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member. So, I want to know that transfer of images with this tag by non-OTRS member is right or not.--√Tæ√ 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's fine as far as I'm concerned. The filter that does that looks for edits that add that template. Uploading is technically an edit so it treats it that way. You're fine. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: I think an OTRS member should reconfirm the permission in this case. There is no way to tell if this permission was forged or not. I trust Tæ not to have forged it, but there's no way to tell. Something kind of related: we have an abuse filter that tags "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member". Can we also have a filter that tags "OTRS member added OTRS permission"? Because now in order to verify I have to look at the history and check if the user who added the permission is an OTRS member. And if not, I have to check if they were at the time the permission was added. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The ticket is properly done and the tag was added by DeltaQuad. There is no reason to recheck all transferred images. The reason they were transferred was because they were OTRS confirmed so they were good to be on Commons. Unless there is reason to suspect there is a problem with the image that just adds unnecessary work to OTRS members and questions about such images would go on COM:OTRS/N anyways. As for the second part of your request it is already done for new edits. Edits made after January 5, 2018 using the PermissionOTRS gadget will add the PermissionOTRS tag and mark it as such in the history. The log of these changes can be found here. I'm not aware of any way to go back and add such a tag to things easily unless it was done via a bot. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Administrators, there are five requests at User_talk:FlickreviewR/bad-authors and the oldest is nearly two months old. --B (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

How about redirecting that to Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo delete

I would like to show some updated Photos because of my situation. The common photo shows my wife and me in a situation that we are together but we are not longer a couple. So I would like you to delete all Photos together with my wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanfranzx (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Stefanfranzx, please tell us the filename. By now you did upload File:Stefan Franz alone.jpg only. --Achim (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I found it, File:Stefan Franz m Ehefrau Anja Kneisel.JPG, uploaded by User:9EkieraM1. You made a regular deletion request, so we can treat it as ✓ Done here, follow up Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stefan Franz m Ehefrau Anja Kneisel.JPG. --Achim (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose @Achim55: see Category:Stefan Franz. Another celebrity who thinks updating their photo on Wikipedia involves deletion of the current photo. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, what kind of admins' action is now required aside from handling the pending DR? Did I miss something? --Achim (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
None, I ran into an edit conflict and hadn't noticed your message from 14:55. Well there are 2 DRs now to handle, but that's nitpicking. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)