Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Admin power to delete without consultation, notification or request

I noticed that one of my recent public domain uploads was deleted based on a vague rationale of "better quality images exist on this topic", without providing any notice, not in reaction to any external request, or a Deletion request. I would like to confirm if this is now an expected behaviour for Admins on Commons? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide the file name. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I foolishly took it off my watchlist and can't track it down now, it was something to do with flowers and may have been part of my public domain uploads from ReusableArt. I'm asking about the principle rather than the example file (which I have no doubt was probably a bit duff in terms of quality, and so I would have probably agreed that Commons may well be better off without it) as the next time this happens, I would like to know how wise it would be to challenge the admin on their unilateral action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you read this listing or is it empty for you? --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so cannot see that list. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean one of these files? --Didym (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, File:Beautiful red flowers in garden.jpg which would have been uploaded from public-domain-image.com on a suitable PD licence with the photographer named in the release. The image is not great, but it is 1600x1200 pixels and realistically of an educational purpose. This out of process deletion was neither notified to be by the deleting admin (Pitke (talk · contribs)), nor was there any deletion discussion or process that I am aware of. Again, I would appreciate some advice on whether I ought to complain in such a scenario, or whether this should be considered normal behaviour for Commons Administrators. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fæ, after looking into it, yes, this deletion seems to be out of procedure. If happening in single (or few) instances, a direct contact to the deleting admin might be best (which I've done now). Only if that doesn't help or if it concerns a huge number of files, a AN complaint might be justified. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That red lily pic (as linked above) is a rough quality, but more importantly, an unidentified cultivar and such merely a 200th image we already have of "beautiful red lilies", and clearly in the lower end when it comes to clarity of subject. (The lily-specific ctegorising is in its early stages, but it'll come together later on. For now, I'm combing through Cat:Flowers) Keeping/restoring files for user's personal use, whether they are facial portraits or something else, is rather questionable, especially when those files already are freely available elsewhere. --Pitke (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fæ, on the principle admins delete without review a lot of files, generally files without proper licence, proper permissions, obvious copyvios or even out of scope images. Personally I believe that notifying the contributors is the good thing to do so I generally tag, notify and delete. As we are humans and have a huge backlog to process, we may forget to notify sometimes. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with Commons:Administrators#What is an administrator?, this includes deleting files in certain circumstances, but specifically does not include deleting files based on a personal assessment of quality in the list of typical actions. The scenario I am raising was not a copyright problem (the file would have been public domain), the source would have been good and there was no other explanation other than the Admin thought the file was of a lesser quality than other images on Commons - a deletion rationale that I would have expected to require the support of a Deletion request or similar consensus process. Could you point to a guideline or policy that includes such a scenario and advises as to the norms that apply here for the behaviour of administrators? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, File:Junior.jpg this is the type of quality that gets deleted on the spot on grounds of "unused, low quality, personal". I'm pretty sure no one objects to that as long as it isn't being used for a wikiuser's (modest) collection of personal pics. --Pitke (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So Fæ, how does this apply to Whambo ? :) Penyulap ☏ 13:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. This was out of process deletion of a public domain photograph. Your custom derived work fell under the provisions of Blocking policy with regard to harassment and under Photographs of identifiable people with regard to defamation. You may wish to consider how much and how often you want to be seen to be taking discussion on AN off-topic. Of course if you want to build a reputation for doing this, that's your call. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Penyulap, If you do not have anything relevant to say, it is OK not to say anything. --Jarekt (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, I would agree with you here. While Admins can and do delete obvious copyvios, exact duplicates, etc. without notice, a deletion on the basis that the image is out-of-scope is one that absolutely ought to have gone to an RFD first. But I agree with the comments here that a note to the Admin in question would have been the appropriate first step when faced with what appears to be a questionable deletion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly a mellow approach of asking the acting admin is the way to go, and this thread was about the current norms for admins rather than this file (which I had lost track of anyway). I don't believe there is any pattern of behaviour here to worry about. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that was not proper action, and image is reasonably usable. --Jarekt (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the image. If someone still wants for it to be deleted, they will need to open a COM:DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a wikibreak from Commons for a few days, at the very least regarding 1) Cat:Flowers, 2) the Princess Meridia uploads. I've been deleting too hastily, probably also being too aggresive in other ways if not in as clear-cut ways. If anyone wants to help with breaking down the overpopulation at Cat:Flowers (catting to species cats/unidentified plants, and if good quality, to close-ups of [taxon group] flowers and [coloured] flowers), it'd be great, because there are nearly 3000 files over there and it seems it's being uploaded to frequently. --Pitke (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Porn images of children

According to the certain image descriptions User:Enzo1999 uploads porn images of children. I suggest to stop that. -- Ies (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, oversighted and account lock requested at Meta by various folk. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

strange upload pattern

Over this month I've observed a number of similarly filenamed (Lead Photo For ...) uploads from different new 1-file-uploaders. What these uploads also had in common, was the missing description, such as in File:Lead Photo For Reiki0-4810496724676341.jpg. Most have been deleted already. I wonder whether these uploads are really coincidental or what might be behind them. Would it merit a CU?

--Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the upload logs, you'll notice that they are all tagged with "(Mobile edit)", so it seems to be related to mw:Mobile QA/Commons uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If it increases the number of new editors, it must be good. Thanks WMF! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you you like the mobile app so far?

We have so great self portraits like these:

some obvious copyvios like these:

and some useless images like these:

I'm sure there have been some good images uploaded through this and there will eventually be more, but I fear that there hasn't been enough effort made to steer people away from uploading images that will just get deleted (and suck up volunteer time) or are copyright violations (and/or violations of applicable laws about photographing people). In the case of File:Lead Photo For Suffa0-5284407073631883.jpg (an obvious copyvio) it was uploaded and added to w:en:Suffa with no caption, probably in one easy, user-friendly push of a button. I think this issue might merit more attention before the app gets widely adopted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Back in November, Mattbuck kept telling me that I had to file deletion requests for files or files could not be deleted when I listed a number of copyright violations here during a discussion about a pattern of copyright violations. Now, Mattbuck has deleted four of the seven images I listed above, without any deletion discussions. For one of them, his deletion comment was simply "Useless". For another, he writes "Test page or page with no valid content" although I'm pretty sure there was an image there when I listed it. I thought images couldn't be deleted without deletion requests (unless they are copyright violations) and those discussions are supposed to stay open for seven days. Did the rules change again, or do they just not apply to everyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's think about when are lawsuits usually issued? It's when 2 or more parties do not agree with each other. As long as everyone is happy, usually nothing happens. Do you oppose the deletion of these files? Did the uploader complain? Were they in use so something broke? Of course I do not call the proper procedure in question: Out of scope media should be deleted only as a result of a deletion request. If you now like to make a point demand their restoration and then nominate them for deletion. Happy editing. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Rillke, it is hard to disagree that an image is "useless" if one can no longer view that image. I find it odd that Mattbuck would take it on himself to decide which images were not useful on Commons, but not delete the copyright violations. In any case, if he's now willing to delete images I list here, I'll post some more:

Of course, some of these might be considered "personal images" for users who may go on to contribute featured image quality photos taken from their smart phones. Who knows? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeez - words fail me - fabulous collection... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Forces external to the active Commons community continually strive to lower the barriers to uploading with little regard for our quality standards or for our problem domain's inherent complexity. We therefore have a growing number of upload interfaces over which we have no influence and which omit more and more necessary checks and instructions. Consequently, the share of irrelevant and illegal uploads is growing.

According to policy, obvious copyright violation should be deleted on sight, while content that is merely out of scope should generally go through a deletion discussion process. However, our policy also supports speedy deletion for content that is very clearly outside of our project scope. When our processes were set up, the number of daily uploads were orders of magnitude smaller than today, and we had a significantly higher signal to noise ratio. Meanwhile, the body of regularly active volunteers dealing with the effects of these open floodgates has not increased at a corresponding rate.

It should not be surprising, then, if attitudes are shifting towards more frequent invocation of the key wiki principles of being bold and ignoring rules in cases where their strict application would stand in the way of the good of the project. Deletion discussions are one of the most time consuming and labor intensive processes we have, so taking up the community's time with deletion discussions where the outcome is blatantly obvious from the start is just plain wasteful. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck chose to ignore the copyright violations that I pointed out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignore is a pretty strong word. He participated in the discussion and (unlike this time around) did not delete the files you brought up. There may be several reasons for that. For example, one case may be more obvious than the other, attitudes may have shifted, or one may not always wish to deal with files of a certain nature because of one's surroundings or because of the drama that deletion of such files tends to attract. For some reason, deleting unused, overexposed, camera phone snapshots of the faces of non-notable subjects seems to be much less controversial than deleting unused, overexposed, camera phone snapshots of the genitalia of non-notable subjects. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the three examples of obvious copyright violation that I posted above. Mattbuck chose to ignore those, while deleting images that he deemed "useless". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So please support bugzilla:19565. This would allow us (besides the check for Google as a source) also enforcing use of {{Information}} (or Artwork, …). It is simply exhausting checking a few thousand uploads a day (and the watchlist incredibly grows and it's hard to keep track of all of them). -- Rillke^(q?) 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have checked now quite a number of "Lead Photo ..." filenamed uploads: copyvio-rate is not higher than average, but trash-rate is very high. However, what puzzles me is that even WMF-accounts such as this and this and even icons as Brion Vibber use this bad upload mode. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First genitalia uploaded via mobile app?

Are these the first images of genitalia uploaded via the mobile app? If these are the first mobile dick pics, I think this is an important event in Commons history and these images should be preserved despite their mediocre quality and lack of anything to make them different from the thousand or so images of penises that Commons already has. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately not a big decision as they are truly crap images. As I have stated over other bad images you would not even keep them to show photographers what to delete after a photo session. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

Please delete File:Flag of Germany and Austria.png: I'm going to move File:DE AU.png there. --Ricordi samoa 09:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly mean the SVG is completely sufficient and both PNG can be deleted. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 10:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also the alternate version. --Ricordi samoa 10:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a Commons 'Proposed deletion' (PROD) process

I propose that Commons established an alternative to full Deletion requests to cater for increasing numbers of uploads which are highly likely to be out of scope but appear to be valid under Licensing. I suggest similar rules to en:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, in that Proposed deletions are:

To be created within a maximum of 7 days after image upload. Images older than this require the DR process or are otherwise identified as a policy violation for speedy.
Automatically notified to the uploader's user talk page, placed in a backlog category, and a dated notice is left on the image page, but there are no other actions on creation.
On request the contributor creating the PROD must provide a full policy based rationale for deletion, explaining why this is a highly likely rationale for this particular image.
To stay open after PROD creation for a further 7 days, after which the image is flagged for non-controversial deletion by an Administrator.
Easily removed by the image uploader if they object, by removing the image page notice. Alternatively they can escalate to a DR if they prefer a discussion*, or can convert to a speedy deletion* if they prefer not to wait for 7 days (* - preferably by clicking a link on the page notice). The uploader need not present a rationale to remove the PROD, though anyone can escalate to a full DR as the next stage, if they wish.
One shot deals, if a PROD is removed by the uploader it should not have another one replacing it.
Able to be created by anyone, however if misused in a way that appears intended to disrupt, in a pattern that shows a misunderstanding of deletion rationales, or systematically creates a hostile environment for any contributor, the ability to create PRODs may be denied by Administrator action.
Only to be used for images out of scope for "mild" reasons of being unlikely to be of educational value. They are not intended to limit the number of images of any particular topic (such as Pendulums, Penises or Pennsylvania), they are not intended to encourage spurious reasons for deletion not covered by an unambiguous policy rationale and they are not intended to supersede the use of speedy deletion where a 7 days window is unnecessary (such as personal rights or copyright issues).

This scheme should make it much easier to delete large numbers of spurious uploads by new mobile phone contributors or others. Patterns of rapid PRODs, might also result in an uploader being flagged for the attention of an Administrator, or automatically blocked for 24 hours, if the pattern is severe (such as 20 or more PRODs in one day for non-established users). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great, but what is a "mildly" out of scope image? Do you have some examples? --Conti|✉ 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose seems unnecessary to me without more examples. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the mobile phone based uploads mentioned above on this noticeboard. If that's not a real issue, then I'm happy to revisit this as a proposal when it is. No hurry. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, examples please, preferrably several. Until then Oppose. Also explain please why this process makes it "much easier to delete large numbers of spurious uploads by new mobile phone contributors or others" when we already have the option of making a mass deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, surely that's only for large numbers from the same user, or the same category, rather than a flood of newbies on their iPhones taking photos at parties and mistaking Commons for Facebook/Twitter-pic/Flickr? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What's being suggested isn't clear to me. Are you essentially saying as that {{Nsd}} is to sourcing, {{Npd}} is to permission, and {{Nld}} is to license, there should be a new "{{Nvs}}" (no valid scope) template? And, as the proposal deals with uncontested cases, I suppose I don't understand the difference between waiting 7 days to close an uncontested PROD and waiting 7 days to close an uncontested DR (assuming validity, of course). It's essentially the same amount of admin work, and the proposal -- as it is currently articulated -- seems merely to add an extra set of process and rules without really explaining what is truly gained over the current system or indeed why the latter is inadequate. Эlcobbola _talk 18:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- The DR queue is quite cluttered enough. There is certainly value in making it easy to separate out new, low-quality images and deleting them before they've hung around long enough to attain "we probably shouldn't delete them in case someone's using them, even though they're pretty useless" status. Rd232 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for making this proposal here? Commons:Requests for comment/scope seems rather relevant, or COM:VPR or COM:VP would be more usual routes. In addition, I wonder if a longer-term solution isn't to take up an idea someone mentioned recently to have new uploads go to a "staging server", and only moved to the main Commons database when either (a) they're reviewed and approved by someone other than the uploader as being educationally useful and OK copyright-wise or (b) are in use on a Wikimedia project. A staging server can behave differently in a number of ways, eg files could be permanently deleted from there, and files could also be (at user's request) excluded from Commons searches, etc. At least for mobile uploads, I think this approach makes a lot of sense! This is a lot more ambitious, of course, but setting up a PROD process is also a fair amount of work. Rd232 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I find that the regualar DR queue operates quickly and efficiently enough for scope issues. Usually nobody even bothers to object, and the image is summarily deleted after 7 days. --99of9 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if that's not a burden, a fair approach. However the PROD process as described, means that this is equivalent to a DR but we skip the part where we have to write out a DR rationale. One could imagine a PROD with a standard tick-box for certain types. Now, imagine how easy it would be to do 100 of those tick-box actions on 100 different users in one day, and how much of a hassle it is to create 100 DRs for 100 different users. Oh, and the deleting admin would not have to "read" a DR nomination, they would only glance at the image. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a custom PROD process focussed on scope issues could potentially be much more efficient for handling those cases, and also avoid cluttering the DR queue. The end result might be a lot more scope-related deletions, which some people would not like. Rd232 (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

One can imagine a tool that would offer a standard tick-box with reasons for DRs, too, no PROD needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The only this offers is reduced oversight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment This is arse-about, it tries to fix the problem after it occurs, rather than to fix it at source. If we have problems with the uploading that we are not getting the right detail at the beginning, then fix that bit, not an extra layer of bureaucracy. My comment is that I would rather have an inferior image, than no image, IF an image us required. The decision whether to use or not use an image is the job of the sister wiki, not ours. I am more sick of the deletion requests for used works that someone here has decided are not up to the quality level. Meh! — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

**Support** good choice of venue and great idea. **Penyulap** ☏ 10:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague

I'm sorry for the cross posting both on the village pump and here, but I don't really know where to go with this (en.wiki has much more defined procedures and many more noticeboards than commons, here I feel a little lost). The discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague has been going on for about a week now, and I don't see a solution in the future without the input from others.

The problem comes down to the way the photos of Trams in Prague are categorised. Currently there are categories within Category:Trams in Prague for specific tram models such as: Category:Škoda 15T in Prague, but that category doesn't have any pictures, instead it just has one category for each individual vehicle (listed by number, a complete list is at: Category:Trams in Prague by registration number) this makes finding pictures incredibly hard. There are over 1000 categories containing 2000 pictures, most categories contain only one or two pictures, with many containing only other categories - another tram number that that vehicle has been renumbered as, but no explanation to that.

When I raised a proposal to upmerge all pictures it was opposed, I have tried to bring up numerous solutions where the categorisation by number system could sit side by side with a "all Tatra T3 photos in ONE category" system, but it is opposed no end. And all possible solutions I've brought up have been called "incorrect nor nonsensical" and "fundamentally incompatible with categorization principles". I don't feel that the editors in question want any change, and as such will argue tooth and nail against any change. This is why I would appreciate outside voices to weigh in, there has to be a solution in there somewhere, I just don't feel I can get one by myself. Can some admins have a look and maybe make a proposal or decision to solve this quandary? I hope that this dispute can be solved in a way that makes all happy, but don't see it happening without the input from others. I would also ask what precedent this highly detailed level of categorisation sets for the commons as a project (it really does make it unworkable trying to find pictures unless you are looking for a picture of a specific tram, which I'm not), it could/would apply to all rail vehicles by number as well as aircraft, ships etc, it is about on par with sub-categorising cars by colour ("Blue BMW M3s" etc) or by registration number. Liamdavies (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While we categorize ships down to the individual ship, there are several good reasons for that -- that we are likely to have several images of most ships and many images of well known ships, and that ships are, by and large, not built in series, so that most ships are different. (I do understand that some ships, particularly cargo ships and tugs are built in small series). We categorize airplanes down to model and, in some cases, actually combine different variants of the same model, for example Category:Boeing 737. We use a similar system for locomotives, going only down to series, not individual units, even where it might be logical, see Category:Union Pacific Big Boy.

With that understood, I don't see any reason to categorize trams down to the individual unit, but I wouldn't object to it if, and only if, there were also a category that captured all of the units of each particular model or series -- "all Tatra T3" as you suggest. Except for some tram-fans, I don't think many people will come to Commons looking for a photo of a particular unit, but rather a photo of a particular series. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama — we do not use good argument/documentation

I have been looking at the arguments that we have made to restrict Freedom of panorama, specifically for Slovenia, and Belgium, and to my view we have documented our cases and evidence very poorly. Very hard to challenge a close to non-existent argument without names, or clear reference to specific parts of the legislation, or case law. To these two reviews that I have done I have put questions to the talk page of the above, and I would appreciate those who did the earlier reviews, or have an opinion to express it. From my reading of the legislation, we block two countries with little evidence, just opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Further, I believe that if we are going to block something based on interpretation on legislation then we should be clearly referencing and maintaining a clear list of the legislation, and the specific sections. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand. In the case of countries where there is no FOP at all, then there is nothing to reference. You cannot cite a section that says "there is no FOP" in the law of those countries, because FOP is an exception to the general rule that copyright applies to everything. That is the case in Belgium. In order to show that there is no FOP, you have to read the whole law to see that there is no FOP exception. When you know that, then you know that everything is covered by copyright.

~~In the case of Slovenia, there is an FOP clause, which is cited and quoted. Unfortunately, it is for NC use only, so it is not useful to us. I don't see what more there is to say about Slovenia.~~ . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Having read the two discussions on the FOP talk page, it's clear that my comments above, while accurate, miss the point that billinghurst is actually raising and, therefore, aren't useful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User for Discussion (UFD)

As far as I can cross-check the public database identifying the user behind this vague message on my talkpage with the everyday encounters associated with the work here in the passing year, it's again to remark that this user, who has now apparently mumbled to me about their innermost pulses of instability, runs an account of which most of the edits are reverted regularly, or disputed by editors; utilized for causeless abusing of this website's interface with a hardcore long-time observed disruptive conduct that has left no guideline unviolated. This is rare that a user earns having their "User contributions" on my watchlist for routine monitoring. It is thus asked why we as an idealistic collective of wiki-devoted editors have to ongoingly withstand such under-helpful patterns from an account who has had questionably any sensible contribution while dedicated only to survivability, continuous personal bias and harassments. Please see how we can get this cleared out to assure the ruturn of the Commons we know and safe environment & integrity for millions of daily readers and users. Orrlingtalk 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to make your point a bit clearer if you want people to understand you. Are you implying that most of Foroa's contributions are reverted? The contribution list you link to does not support that claim at all. --Dschwen (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the account in question is regularly monitored to brake incorrect edits and it's safe to say that most records are eventually either rolled-back (directly or indirectly) or are a subject of multiple-editors' contest. At the ground of my point, is the callout for our administrative-level functions to identify the ill situation brought about by what seems to be an abusive account focused at making the life of prolific, good-faith editors unbearably tough; Countless examples have been given previously throughout the year or so, please attend my links here for a start. Orrlingtalk 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow on of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_33#User_talk:Orrling_and_mass_renaming_of_vehicle_categories and item below. --Foroa (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Lock category please

Hey guyz. Please see if it's OK to apply a lock to the page of Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights now that it turned out that the principle of preferring a discussion over editfight was rejected by my counterpart on this theme - leaving the category subject to unilateral recat ignoring many explanations. The category talk page can show you what's on. From my own side, it's about an insistence to incorrectly overparent this geographical category. When approaching to lock, please be sure that the older version is top. I'm so hopeful that the user then begins to discuss sensibly. Thankz! Orrlingtalk 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Lock doesn't appear to neccessary, it takes two to edit war and since Orrling is blocked for two weeks (on another matter) it is unlikely that the edit war will resume any time zone.--KTo288 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

KTo288, I am sorry to say that I have a lot of bad experience with Orrling. Orrling himself need to be blocked. There is no way to reason with him. For him the only way is his way see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 32#Category:Fatzael archaeological site how wrong he was. also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 32#User Orrling - Blocking. Orrling insist to impose his political agenda every were, this is bad for Commons. All the Archaeological Categories in Israel which I created are Geographical Categories. I do not care if there are also political categories, but they do not and should not replace Geographical Categories. I need your help also in Category:Archaeological sites in Samaria, Orrlling insist to categorized it as sub sub category again and again. It does not make any sense. I saw your solution in Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights and it is a good one. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Is File:Woman in orgasm.jpg identifiable?

I've started a deletion request about the image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman in orgasm.jpg. The user who uploaded the image (User:Ohconfucius) says that there is no need to ask the subject of the image for permission to use the picture since she is not identifiable. I vehemently disagree with that (and so does COM:PEOPLE). At the deletion request, Ohconfucius says that he'd like an administrator to weigh in on whether the subject is identifiable or not, hence my notice here. Any comments would be much appreciated. --Conti|✉ 12:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

well, I was brave enough to take a look as this request has been here a while. (the picture just shows topless woman)

I'm not an admin and it doesn't really make a difference, it's about the policy, which is to say if you can identify the person in the picture, then in some cases it needs permission. To the question is this person identifiable, the answer is yes, certainly. Her mom, dad, next door neighbour, colleagues and so on would recognise her and if the picture was on the noticeboard in her local area that would be a problem. In a public place it's not much of a problem, people expect that sort of thing. (are there 17 CCTV cameras for every person in the U.K. yet ?)

In this case it is especially important that there is clear permission and consent for publication. Penyulap ☏ 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet uploads

Shkvoz (talk · contribs)

Shkvoz has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Darmahjgari (talk · contribs) on en-wiki. Meaning that the account has been confirmed as being connected to Category:Sockpuppets of The soso. Since Shkvoz has also made a number of uploads here on Commons, all fitting the pattern of previous socks, you might want to take action here too. Thomas.W (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tomas, if these are likely to be copyright violations, then you can raise a single deletion request against one upload and point to the rest of the uploads from this account. There are not that many uploads, I have just looked at 2, and these would make me wonder exactly where the images of guns came from. Being uploads from a sock account, is not of itself a reason for deletion, let's not get into knee-jerk deletions, but it may lead the community to take a further look. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

5 seconds of Googling led me to this and countless other places that had hosted the uploaded images long before they were uploaded here. Can we please all spend those 5 seconds of googling before spending a minute defending a throwaway sockpuppet account? --Conti|✉ 12:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, on English Wikipedia, pages created in any namespace by banned or blocked users evading their ban or block are candidates for speedy deletion. That seems like sound policy, and the omission of a corresponding provision in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion seems to be more of an oversight than an intentional decision, as there's no discussion about it on the talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Now proposed at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Content added while evading a block or ban. Please comment there. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Done blocked indef nuke all. Clearly every file I've checked on google were not own work and were not free. Let's move on something else. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Chamath237 (talk · contribs)'s uploads

This user has uploaded a large number of currency related images, similar images are flagged as non-free on enwikipedia. The uploaded claims them as their own work, but they are not the copyright holder. Werieth (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of {{Rejected}}

Can people have a look at Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary please. On the talk page there's no consensus for adoption, so marking as a guideline would be wrong. There's no consensus to not reject it either. There has been no activity towards adopting that page for 2 years, and the only "recent" discussion is about non-approval. Therefore, I tagged it as {{Rejected}} because "a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion." Foroa disagrees, saying "no vote, no consensus", presumably because he sees marking rejected as implying consensus rejection.

"Consensus to reject" is a different thing from "no consensus to adopt". I don't that stale proposals with no active discussion and no consensus, either way, should be marked as proposed indefinitely.

This suggests to me my initial tagging as {{Rejected}} is correct and there is no benefit to keeping a {{Proposed}} tag in place. The exact phrasing of the template may need a tweak - perhaps changing "The Commons community has rejected..." to "The Commons community has not adopted..." - but I cannot see benefit to keeping such pages like this marked as active proposals... I'd point out that on en.wp w:Template:no consensus and w:Template:Rejected are both redirect to w:Template:Failed, which doesn't have the negative connation of a "rejection".--Nilfanion (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two topics here, I think.

Use of {{Rejected}}. I think it should be used with care. There is are clear differences between

Accepted policy
No consensus to accept as policy, but also no consensus to reject.
Rejected

Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary -- I would just leave it open. It belongs to the second category, not the third.

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that your 2nd category is really two seperate categories: "no consensus either way, but one may develop following further discussion" and "no consensus, either way, at present or likely in future". Stale proposals should not indefinitely be tagged with {{Proposed}}. If discussion of a proposal peters out with no conclusion, because of lack of interest, then that's closure of sorts and it shouldn't be marked as an active discussion.

en.wp policy lumps no consensus and active rejection together - what matters most is the non-approval of the proposal, not whether it was resoundingly rejected or splits the community. An example here is Commons:Sexual content which had no consensus either way (it was almost exactly 50:50).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A "proposal" that has been around for years and discussion has become stale has failed, and it can be marked as {{Rejected}}. If anyone objects, they need to move things forward in some way, so that the discussion is no longer stale and the proposal is "live". It may be helpful for such cases to make {{Failed proposal}} with appropriate "if you want to revive this" instructions. Rd232 (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Report a file (feedback) tool

I started a discussion about implementing an alternative solution to the Article Feedback Tool that we could use to gather feedback on images from anonymous users. If you would like to get involved and help improve it (or criticise it), comments are welcome at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Report a file (feedback) tool. Thanks, odder (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Chuch"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=chuch – Would anyone like to help rename these files? Instances of "chuch" should be changed to "church". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. Incredible. Many have "chuch" even in the description. Surely an atheist conspiration ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Fæ. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

IP unblock

From a request on ru: wikipedia [2]: please unblock 85.26.184.65 (log) - major cellular network. Retired electrician (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the records it is an open proxy and we do not allow IP edits from open Proxies (users can still edit via them). For me to have blocked it it will have been abused (it seems probable that it is a mail server so has no business being involved in editing actually). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Digging around - it may not be an Open proxy per se however it has been used abusively to create spam bot accounts. I can argue that whoever owns it has "fixed" the software now so it could be unblocked. However the absence of rDNS suggests the owners are rather shy (major cellular network?) and this suggests that if we do unblock it it will simply get blocked again sometime in the future (honeypot is effective and reliable). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice thing this honeypot! My current IP has a log four screens long (although no recent beeps). Retired electrician (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Records rot, it happens. Myself I run into this bad IP warnings about once a month, but with a cable connection the solution is just a flick of switch away. Retired electrician (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean but the record (of abuse) is fairly extensive. I don't know about Russia but no western cell company would have no rDNS as far as I know. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, it's quite odd. But then perhaps it should be on a global list. Retired electrician (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dorothy Levitt

Could someone please review and transfer to Commons 6 (out of 8) pictures from the English article Dorothy Levitt? Two of them are already here but the rest are tagged to be possibly transferred since about a year and they're still awaiting for the transfer. Thank you in advance for your help. ~ KKCO Sol Jaguar | Let's talk 21:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Done You might want to tweak the categories Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I already added a couple categories to the main one. Cheers! ~ KKCO Sol Jaguar | Let's talk 09:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename to Barbara Maciejczyk

Please rename picture File:Justyna Moniuszko.jpeg to Barbara Maciejczyk. You can check the grave photo File:Barbara Maciejczyk grób.JPG - there is this picture of Barbara Maciejczyk. --Lowdown (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete request, tag help

Would some kind person please delete File:Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai low res.jpg? It contains what appears to be copyright data in the extended information, though I don't myself know where that came from. I tagged it for deletion several days ago, or at least I thought I had, but it seems still to be there. I have uploaded a version that is (I believe) without that data at File:Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai.jpg. I notice that although that file was uploaded following faithfully all the steps proposed by the Upload Wizard, it still has some kind of a "missing permission" tag on it. Could the upload wizard perhaps be set up to upload stuff in such a way that it doesn't need further attention, or to give some warning if the upload path chosen will cause a tag to be applied? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Done as Commons:CSD#General_reasons#7 "Author or uploader request deletion." Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the template for you as well - PD-Art needs a parameter for the US as well. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for both actions. My question: would it be possible to modify the upload wizard so that it either supplies the necessary parameter (which if I've understood correctly, seems to be "1=PD-old-100"), or else gives a warning that the parameter will be required and must be manually added? Obviously anyone who is familiar with the tag parameters will be able to this without being prompted. But perhaps I am not alone in not having sufficient experience to resolve this problem without help? Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So sorry, but a further request: would some kind person consider whether it is appropriate to delete File:Giovanni di Paolo Rucellai low res.jpg given that I have uploaded a better-quality image at File:Giovanni di Paolo Rucellai.jpg. Unless there is good reason to keep it, I would like it to go. Thank you again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:CSD says an unused image, less than 7 days old can be deleted by request of the author. Image deleted. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio and sock puppetry

These three users, very likely the same person, are uploading copyright violating images from the same hotel chain website. They are also (with other users) creating low-value promo articles for the hotel chain on en.wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Blocked all three indefinitely as Likely sockpuppets. Also found

Yadavnagendra (talk · contribs) - blocked indef
Varun.nandav (talk · contribs) -- the earliest account on Commons -- blocked for one week for multiple copyvios and spam, gave stiff warning.

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. Hopefully the same accounts will get sorted an en.wikipedia as well as the spammy articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in Picture of the day caption

Could someone please correct the caption on the picture of the day April 2nd? Måbødalen and Eidsfjord are located in Hordaland, not Sogn og Fjordane. - 4ing (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, --A.Savin 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) The same error appears in the file description on File:Måbødalen, 2011 August.jpg. - 4ing (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

edit request

Someone, plz full-fill this request. thanks --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done --moogsi (blah) 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Also , here - Template talk:Welcome/lang#bn

Not done, please translate {{Welcome/bn}} before it is added to {{Welcome/lang}}, as both pages should be protected while they're in use. Thanks --moogsi (blah) 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok ;) --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation Completed. Now, add this {{Welcome/bn}} in {{Welcome/lang}}. Thanks --Aftab1995 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done - thank you very much! --moogsi (blah) 17:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker

Hi, the user does not move files since 2013-03-27. → User:CommonsDelinker/commands CommonsDelinker recent replacements. Can you fix them? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 06:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Siebrand fixed it. --Denniss (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Media of the day

Hi! Selecting media of the day does not conjure up much interest so I want to ask: if it happens that no medium for the day was selected and the day is close, could please an admin make an edit to fill the slot? The cascading protection prevents users from putting in a medium on the very day it should appear on the main page, if I am not mistaken. No need to let it come to that, though. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up «Proposed Change of Rules»

I like to let you know that now AbuseFilter/105 (as proposed in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 39#Proposed Change of Rules) prevents some page creation by anonymous users. Please help to translate and improve MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-new-pages-by-anon-users so our page is less frustrating and also encourages new contributors and wiki-gnomes to join us.

To create a translation, copy the contents of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-new-pages-by-anon-users, paste them into MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-new-pages-by-anon-users/YOUR-LANGCODE (LANGCODE eg. nl or es) and translate the heading and the text. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A few more datails on what is now possible or not (see also Special:AbuseFilter/105):

Only anonymous users (IPs) are affected. As soon as they create an account, they can create pages.
Only page creation is prevented. Edits to existing pages are still possible.
Talk namespaces are not affected (they can be created by IPs).
IPs can still create category-pages, timed-text and deletion request subpages

-- Rillke^(q?) 11:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've added a note at Commons:User_access_levels#Unregistered_IP_users. Rd232 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page of bn lang

Anyone. please make this page as Semi-protect Page. Thanks --Aftab1995 (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done --moogsi (blah) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue raised in Commons:Deletion requests/File:ATM jEFF.jpg‎

(moved from an/u)

This DR closed with deletion and Jim's statement "Aside from the notability issue, and the messy watermark, we have an uploader who claims to be the subject and the copyright holder -- that seems unlikely." I don't dispute with deletion per se - my only point is "we have an uploader who claims to be the subject and the copyright holder -- that seems unlikely."

- Hypothetically, X gives his camera to his friend and asks her to take a pic of him, he's not likely to be copyright holder?

-Or only when X take pics of his friends, then and only then, he's deemed copyright holder?

Hindustanilanguage (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

there would be many cases where the subject owns the photograph, self-timer, remote trigger, professional portrait in some but not all cases, or asking someone as you say to take it on your behalf. I don't think tourists who own the camera and ask passers-by to take a picture of them for them wouldn't own the photos. There are always exceptions and loopholes for rules. Penyulap ☏ 14:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you get someone else to take a photo for you, you're not the copyright holder unless you're the employee of the photographer or you have a written contract assigning the rights to you. Is this really a problem with a user requiring admin attention? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean employer of the photographer, and that is correct. Though, not all contracts are, or need to be, written. Penyulap ☏ 15:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant employer. Not all contracts need to be written, but contracts regarding works made for hire in the US do need to be written according to 17 U.S.C. § 101. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Apparently he's Australian, but moved to the US in time for that requirement to have an effect if the photo was taken in or after 2007. I'd figure asking is the easiest way to fix things, has anyone sent an email ? he has it enabled. Penyulap ☏ 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

LX, the "written instrument" provision of § 101 is part of the definition of a “work made for hire” which, in turn, is an exception to the definition of a “work of visual art”. Images published on Commons are not covered; they are not "a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author." I think this provision affords additional protection to artists who exhibit and sell prints of their work by explicitly requiring a "written instrument" exist to substantiate a claim of a work for hire. I don't think this provision applies to a still photograph that is not a “work of visual art”. § 201(d) appears to apply generally, to wit, "The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession." This would not appear to require conveyance in writing. But, even if my interpretation is correct, I think we should encourage uploaders to obtain a written transfer agreement as a matter of prudence. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where you're getting the connection to "work of visual art"; "A “work made for hire” is—(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire..." Section § 204 is very clear: "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent."--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Section § 204 is pertinent and unambiguous on this matter, I think. Thank you for that reference. Penyulap, links to the US copyright code may be found at en:Title 17 of the United States Code. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Walter Siegmund Penyulap ☏ 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

For LX, Jim, has on several occasions raised doubts / points of this nature. Hence a clarification is needed, although this is purely a clarification, not a complaint. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

I agree it's just an enquiry, but an educational one at that, is there a link to the 17 U.S.C 101 ? (I wonder if there is an exception for monkeys taking photos :) I think koko could sign, but wouldn't understand.) Toddlers, timers, IR motion detectors. This could use an email though, if only to double-check what has been stated by the uploader is true. He's made a statement that is not unreasonable given it could be a self timer, but asking is a good idea. Penyulap ☏ 15:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Info COM:AN/U is a noticeboard for Users disputes You should learn to use the appropriate community pages Hindustanilanguage! (hint: there is a summary above explaining the different Admin noticeboard we have. If it doesn't fit inside the description you may ask to the village pump. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a guess and moved it. Penyulap ☏ 17:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this simalar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colm MagnerImage.jpg? If these people want images for their articles then they should put some effort into uploading properly licensed ones and use OTRS if they are on the net. I don't think we should waste too much time trying to explain this. I did email Mr. Magner about his image and it seems that he is either trying to get a licensed version or no longer cares. I will send one more email and if we can't move forward then I will give up and his article on en:wp will just go without an image. I have emailed many people with no image or bad ones. Some respond but most don't.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess a stringent interpretation of user-in-pic not copyright holder should lead to the deletion of the entire category of files of user pages. Look @ the three pics from them:

Arunkumar.kps
Mikael Häggström
Aharchenko

Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

The Russian lady is a self portrait, either holding a camera, or using a webcam. Penyulap ☏ 18:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The doctor guy may be webcam as well. Looks like an office wall behind him and one hand could be clicking a mouse. The third one looks like a very low resolution copy of a professional shot. Yearbook scan maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree for the middle photo, I don't believe he sits at a computer. There would be more space between him and the wall, as people sit in front of computers with space behind the chair. He has the space in front of him, between him and the camera. Penyulap ☏ 19:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. He may have streched out the mouse and camera cords so that any posters of Harry Potter etc. wouldn't show in the background and copyvio them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I was probably wrong above. See: File:Mikael Häggström - Uppsala - April 2010 (full).png, same guy. No remote or mouse in his hand. It may be a screen shot if he had a video cam set up though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Mikael Häggström is usually very responsive and honest. Simply ask him at his user talk page if you want to have this sorted out. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Since my work is the subject of this discussion, it would have been polite, as well as helpful to the discussion, if someone had told me about it.

The law in most countries is very clear -- in the absence of a formal arrangement, the person who actually pushes the button is the copyright holder. In the USA, the arrangement must be in writing. So, silly as it may seem, you do not own the copyright on images of your family taken with your camera by a passing stranger.

Therefore, I understand our policy to be pretty well settled -- that an image that is unlikely to have been taken with a self timer or remote trigger will be deleted unless we have a license from the actual photographer. We have stretched that in many cases for user page images. While that violates point 1 of COM:PRP, as a practical matter it works. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's a photo taken in a studio, yes, the studio likely owns the copyright with the possible exception of when it's a major organization that might have their own in-house photographer or some such thing. But if I hand you my camera and ask you take a photo of me and then I get into a pose that I want you to photograph, then couldn't it be considered to be a "joint work" under the law? "A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole."[3] If it's a joint work, then can't either co-owner give us a license? And if you don't buy that, consider the case of Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc.[4] In that ruling, the 11th circuit court said, "In Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon, the Ninth Circuit held that a copyright owner must express the intent to restrict the scope of a license when they deliver the copyright work. 542 F.3d 748, 756 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, an implied license will be limited to a specific use only if that limitation is expressly conveyed when the work is delivered." In other words, when the person took your photo for you, if they didn't say "you can only use this photo for x, y, and z", then you are perfectly free to use it for anything. --UserB (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This has come up recently at en:wp. I made this file: File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png to make it clearer in the future. It probably still needs tweaking though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, in the real world, if you ask someone to sign that, they will think you're an identity thief or just downright weird. --UserB (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfect way to spoil a day. Basic psychology in many countries and cultures wouldn't allow the use of such a permission form. You'd end up with a great many unsigned forms because people would wave you off as they leave, not wanting to know any more or look at any form, I would be interested to know what percentage though. Taking a photo for you is something a passerby would do for free and anonymously. If you offered passers-by a dollar to take a picture for you, same as before, you'd prevent most of them from co-operating with you, and probably insult quite a few. In very many places, that form absolutely wouldn't work for many reasons. The success would be quite limited. The assumption that a passerby took the photo for you and expected nothing in return is something most sane courts in a lot of places would accept. Penyulap ☏ 00:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

To UserB and Penylaps comments -- arguing rationally about copyright law is not productive. Much of copyright law is what it is, not what we might think that it ought to be. The law is that the person who pushes the button is the copyright holder -- and even in the case of the stranger taking a tourist image, that is understandable -- getting good expressions on all the subjects and getting the framing right are creative elements that clearly give rise to a copyright. If the camera is a modern point and shoot with auto-everything, the camera owner has no creative input other than staging. The USA (and many other countries) law is also clear that transfer of copyright must be in writing. It may be unfortunate, but we surely all understand that there are many images that Commons cannot keep. Most images of a subject, when the subject claims "own work", fall in that class unless the subject can show that a self-timer or remote release was in use or that the photographer transferred the copyright in a manner consistent with local law. In the latter case, the description should be changed from "own work" to the appropriate author.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fine, but please read the bit about the implied license. If I hand you my camera, you take a photo of me for me, and you hand me back my camera, according to the 11th circuit, unless you explicitly state otherwise, you have just given me an unlimited implied license. Using that unlimited implied license, I can turn around and sublicense my rights. Yes, this only applies in the US, so I guess if you're somewhere else, you're screwed and need to make sure that you have a release, but for the US, we should be good based on this ruling. If your point is that we need language other than "I, the copyright holder", like "I, the holder of an unlimited license", okay, fine, but I'm really not fine with being pedantic about it and going around and deleting everyone's vacation photos. If it's a professional studio photo, then yes, I agree that we need to specifically ask the contributor whether or not they are the copyright holder, but for obviously personal photos, we at least have a good faith basis to accept those based on the implied license theory. --UserB (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I mainly made the page for images of users on the projects. Once we get an acceptable wording for commons than it will save DR on many of these 'own work' images. They can upload the signed form image first and then overwrite it, or email it to OTRS if the signature is such that it should be kept private. Feel free to adjust the wording in the text section and once we get consensus then we can .svg it. Copy/paste of the text section is probably easier than trying to print an .svg though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that such bits of paper will not only be used to spur a massive unnecessary retrospective deletion campaign, but actually be quite meaningless. If I say "this is my photo/I hold an unlimited licence/copyright was granted by a verbal waiver/etc.", you have to make a judgement on whether you trust me and thereby have sufficient faith in my choice of copyright licence. There is no particular added value in me saying the same thing in an email to OTRS so I have an "official" looking ticket, or whether I have a bit of paper with an illegible scribble saying "Mikey Mouse" on it which I claim was a written waiver by someone I had never met before, or since, and made no effort whatsoever to validate their legal identity. The way things currently stand, we actually encourage people to lie about their holiday photos, rather than risk a literalist like Jim coming along and purging commons of all your work by saying "you did not press the button, you are breaking the law!" As far as I am aware, there has never been a case of a successful claim of damages in the "holiday snaps" scenario. As I always say in Deletion reviews, there is no "significant doubt" and the precautionary principle means that we should do the common sense thing and let them be. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there has never been a test case on this subject. There are legal opinions but most are tailored toward commercial photographers and tend towards safer options and all come from attorneys not judges. There are real world examples such as Usain Bolt/Jimmy Wixtrom where implied consent is given and the resulting images have been published as a joint work (and Usain Bolt had full creative freedom over Wixtrom's camera which is not the case in the photographs we are discussing here.) [5]. In general there is more to the creative process than pushing the button and the camera owner may have made far more of those decisions selecting backdrop, time of day, camera settings like flash and film speed, distance from the camera to the subject(s), may direct the subjects and advise the button presser exactly when to take the shot and how many shots to take, and in post may select the framing, best shot and best expressions on the subject faces. Only a court can truly weigh up whether or not the sweat of the brow is on the part of the camera owner or on the part of someone pushing the button. What we could really do with is taking a literal case before a court, there must be images on commons that would be suitable for such a case and commons itself would be protected under the DMCA it would be a matter of finding if the artist & camera holder were willing to go through such a process and if some photographers rights organisation would be willing to pay the court costs to get a definitive answer. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What would be the end of such a test case? If I understand copyright law correctly, if you don't comply with the registration formalities, you can only sue for actual damages, not statutory damages, correct? A couple of my photos that I uploaded to Commons have been illegally used with neither complying with the GFDL nor even so much as acknowledgement by mainstream news media outlets which annoys me, but even if I were to sue, what's the point? Congratulations, I prove that they violated my copyright and I win $100 or something. So the actual damages from stealing my photo of a football stadium might have been what I could have expected for it in royalties if I published it on iStockPhoto or something similar, but what would be the actual damages from a stranger's photograph of you on vacation with your camera? It would be laughed out of court before a judge ever ruled on it. --UserB (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The end of a testcase would not be a claim for damages, but simply seek an summary judgement banning the further distribution and re-licencing of the infringing images. It would set a legal precedent for every photo sharing site who may be challenged in a similar manner. Clearly the intent is not going to be a strangers photograph of you, but possibly a photograph of some well known viewpoint with you in the foreground. Ideally the more elements of the shoot the subject controls of the shoot the better so that the button presser is simply a button presser. While I understand your point about damages, there are vast quantities of images in museums and libraries that are copyright orphans for this and similar reasons, a clear legal ruling would allow some parts of these collections to be opened up to the public as they rightly should be. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

cat for deletions/DRs of MobileUpload-trashfiles

As the WMF seems to determined to force the MobileUpload-mess on us and downplays the resulting problems for us[6], I've created Category:MobileUpload-related deletion requests, which is not pointy but similar to cat:FOP-related deletion requests. I would ask all colleagues and recent-upload-patrolers dealing with MobileUpload/App-uploads, formerly known as the files with default filename "Lead Photo For ...", to add this cat to all deletion requests for such files. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to tell which categories deleted files are in? A lot of these are speedied --–⁠moogsi (blah) 09:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have passed me by just how much mobile goodness is being launched our way: mw:Mobile QA/Commons uploads. There's already a Commons Android app for instance. Rd232 (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Mobile access. Rd232 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:Mobile app. Android version is live in just over a week. Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Android / Category:Uploaded with Mobile/iOS. The general good quality is due to the beta testers all being familiar with Commons already. I just hope the final implementation is better than Mobile Web –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Already got a nice collection. Would be a shame if anyone were to delete them –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC) ...MY COLLECTION!!! D: –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

When using one of the links of QuickDelete, the page is automatically listed at Commons:Mobile app/deletion request tracking (if not request subpage is created) or Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking (for full deletion requests). Tomorrow, I'll assess what I can do about VisualFileChange. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Garitan and image uploads

Garitan has been uploading images that are clearly not his own work, but he claims they are his own work. See for example this photo, which is simultaneously his own work, and he's been dead for 70 years. I have warned him and gotten no response. Can someone take a look here, please? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That problem is not restricted to Garitan, but to a number of users who upload reproductions of old 2D-works. I assume there is no bad intent here, just a misunderstanding and likely also that our procedures aren't clear enough about such uploads. In addition, it is still disputed every now and then that making a true reproduction of an old work does not give you own copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

On the more general topic of the Own work, it is the shortest way to avoid the bad interface. I often use it because the interface is not easy to use, I think the other day I just wrote source into the description along with the source image itself, it was a lot easier than the upload wizard itself, but still allows anyone to see exactly what the source was. It's not perfect, it's a 'bad thing' according to those that designed the interface, and my case is a meaningless drop in the ocean as is this case, but a more meaningful study of the interface would help here. money doesn't equate to competence in R&D.

Garitan speaks French, and has responded to the notes in English left on his talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bantu cat struck again, same user

Guyz. Unbelievable as it might be, it turns out that the same attempt to modify categories in the Bantu topic has simply recurred, within a quite short period of time, just after the specific user was actually brought for discussion right here on a wide-scale parchment of apprenticeship problems including this very latest one. The initial discussion, addressing and referencing the difficulty this project undergoes with the particular user in the past year and a half±, is however not found on this page anymore, compelling me to search for it to merely see what decisions were possibly made following it and assist with further info. As I haven’t been active from within the undersigned account in more than a week I wasn't exposed to changes in my ordinary edit set and thus did not follow the forwarding of that discussion to its present forum - whichever this be, and I need your understanding to this. An editor of multiple tasks, I can’t get hold of just all the logs existing, it is required that a minimum culture of notifications on thread displacements be reintroduced so that participants’ contribution on topics like this can be more whole. I’m beginning to worry that due to this lack of continuous, unified discussion our past success in imposing certain central rules on the user now loosens. This is no bagatelle. We today witness that they practically won’t assume the necessity of abiding by infrastructural guidelines and by the joint authority of editors on Commons. I estimate that this website fortunately has very few-if-any users of disturbing nature, however once one such has shown up in the longrun it is clearly unhealthy to keep it freaking around in the sacred name of tolerance-to-just-anything without moderating them in the name of keeping this high-quality collaboratory together. We must not forget, this is an altruistic foundation one is part of - directed at millions of reader-users who might one day hopefully each become a contributor. For no reason on earth should extra volunteer resources be spared on daily scanning & reverting the actions made by a user most of whose changes are traditionally incorrect and who appears to continue to deliver them refraining from any discourse. The user has been notified of the obligation to acclimatize norms of argumentary discussion when “disagreeing” with editors. The perturbing impression is that there’s no one but an error-bot out there, beyond Wiki’s examination and evidently damaging it. Someone should stop it, and it’s definitely not about me. This is no secret that I’m one of several more trusted editors enjoying much of their credit for implementing category mastership carefully across our interface and perfecting its logic & flow day by day in combination with a panoramically progressive approach happily shared by many of you. The disruption on my work in so many various fields here (thankfully not on the pedias) by him/her is manifested stubbornly and over a considerable period, which is why the recent call on this noticeboard was made. But now that topic has been moved elsewhere, without leaving a trace on the user’s performance, and I’m clueless of its progression. Please resume it - so that we’re able to fix things and find a sustainable solution, still as acutely needed as before. And be sure to restore the vandalistically-locked-by-a-dispute-party Bantu people and Bantu. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 03:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've created the talkpage Category talk:Bantu so if you'd like to give a sentence or two on your reasoning there, it'll make it a lot easier to follow up with. Penyulap ☏ 03:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. At the bottom point is the fact that since I created the Bantu cat originally and the other party attempted to reject it (by deleting it several times and then by constructing a nonsense-disambig page, the one you've copied to the new talkpage) it's obviously the one who pursues the (declined) modification who would need to discuss their motives, which I'm not sure they ever will. Using his/her special toolbar features in a directly involved situation, modifying page statuses at own discretion off the check-version convention and consciously failing the usage of transparent procedures, this user is likely to reject your (and my) demand to discuss while insisting to impose their ineptitude on the project, hampering its elaboration, and clashing into advanced editors unreasonably. Please see previous episodes. I'll be happy to see they change their skin and discuss. Orrlingtalk 04:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Scanning a great many contribs, Orrling seems to have the patience of a saint here, and is well spoken and articulate in a rare-for-commons variant of English. More patience and a better effort to communicate across the eng:var gap is needed from the people having problems with Orrling as I can't see how Orrling can be more accommodating than they already are. Penyulap ☏ 04:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, you just need a bit of help sometimes, like on Category talk:Archaeological sites in Samaria where a third opinion would help. I think that sometimes people come up against a rare variation of English and don't know what to do, because they cannot on one hand understand it and on the other hand can't feed it into google translate either. I think it's good for you to learn where to ask and who to ask for second and third opinions on things where you are by yourself and in a disagreement. I think just a bit more discussion on the talkpages will clear things up and everyone will be happy here. Penyulap ☏ 04:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I'm one of very few non-English native speakers on WikiCommons! I believe you're so correct about the need to sometimes obtain like-minded opinions where disagreements occur, and it just might be that I don't quite know where to address, in this type of web environment where I usually avoid personalizations. You're kind, and you might have missed the quite-many Villagepump posts I utilized basically to fulfil this very objective. Orrlingtalk 05:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of non-English native speakers on commons, the problem I think is speaking English at an almost native level but having a different culture, THAT causes no end of weirdness. People have their brains tuned to 'no effort' reading of your comments. Then, because it DOES require effort, it's like they were driving a car and drove straight into sand and suddenly everything slows down, they don't know why or what to do.

Actually you don't really need someone who thinks the same as you do for a 3rd opinion, you just need a third opinion that's all. Then you either have it your way, or you have someone to blame :D either way is good, because you can move on and everything is fixed and done. There are lots of decisions we don't have a say in every day, and that doesn't bother us, it's when there is just one person who disagrees, and you don't know what to do. Penyulap ☏ 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct Template:PD-ineligible/layout

In the source of Template:PD-ineligible/layout there are both 4 scores "----" and <hr />, this create a display error (see 4 scores in the final of this template). Can you remove 4 scores and leave <hr /> tag?--dega180 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Done - it used to have 2 horizontal rules to separate the alternative license and the languages, but the template no longer displays languages so it was turning up unwarranted –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Atos HQ Paris Bezons.jpg

Hello Commons Adminitrators,

You have assumed that there is an copyright violation with this image File:Atos HQ Paris Bezons.jpg".This has made you deciding to remove the image from Wikipedia. the image is copyright free because Atos SE is owning the right because it was taken by its own fotographer. So I like you to restore the wiki page on Atos and re-upload in the data base.

"Editor's summary: Notification of possible copyright violation for File:Atos HQ Paris Bezons.jpg"

Thank you in advance.

Tim

Hi Tem, wrong place here. Please file it at Commons:Undeletion requests. --Túrelio (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be undeleted without evidence of permission. Please e-mail such evidence to [email protected] - thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Burgee.gif - urgent deletion request

Would a passing admin please delete this one. The copyright owner has asked for it to be deleted ASAP. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Done INeverCry 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant,

Thank you..--ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Proper use of Commons?

Can someone familiar with Commons policy review the contributions of [7]?

It appears that their contributions are merely to supply photos for a Webhost gallery of their work at Wikipedia. [8] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated a few files for deletion for copyright reasons. In my opinion, the pictures are generally out of scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Stefan - lousy quality some of them too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Very common, and not considered a problem apart from the possible copyvio on that one image. Articles in the making and galleries are pretty standard. My favourite is probably the imminently notable work of Bishonen here on toilet roll holders.

As someone who is in the midst of bathroom renovations, I found that rather interesting!--ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In all seriousness, it's a common standard practice, and not every picture has to be featured. Penyulap ☏ 16:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of our contributors began with less-than-stellar photography skills. If they care about photography, then they'll take better photos. If they don't, they'll give up and stop. Let them be aware of COM:L and carry on. If they were using wikipedia as a webhost for their fan art or their holiday snaps, it would be an issue –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Boletus erythropus 2010 G1.jpg

This file is protected. Please change the link in the German description to de:Flockenstieliger Hexen-Röhrling. Same as here. Thank you. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 06:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dankesehr! --тнояsтеn ⇔ 06:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

duplicated map

please delete File:IranQazin.png because it is duplicated of File:IranQazvin.png and it's name is wrongYamaha5 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The borders between Razavi Khorasan and South Khorasan; and Alborz and Tehran differ. Here are they in same size for easy comparison: IranQazin IranQazvin. Which one is correct? -- Rillke^(q?) 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

based on iran's map at the middle of this page File:IranQazvin.png is correctYamaha5 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

Can someone please assess and close Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/12/Category:Ships by name by type? This was last edited in 2011 but the problem still remains. De728631 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Version delete

File:Chanel Ryan double page FHM Australia.jpg. Could admin delete the previous version please. I uploaded the wrong one and then uploaded the correct version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Bidgee (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Oversighted" content still visible

Oversighters please don't forget: to ultimately hide contents one has to hide the revision where it was added AND all follow-up revisions where it was not removed yet. So, in User problems all recently RevDel'ed revisions should be hidden, instead just the one as of "16:18, 12 April 2013". Thanks --A.Savin 08:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Extracted from

Template is to be placed on images derived from existing images at Commons, it includes both a thumb of the source and the file the template is placed on. Do we really need this? This may also spoil the unused image detection as it creates a self-link.

The self-thumb is superfluous, a thumb of the source image should be enough. Is it possible to disable the vice-versa links from this template and from Template:Image extracted ? --Denniss (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitenotice

There's a new sitenotice at MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Please feel free to add translations to MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation and {{Centralized discussion}}. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Daily DR issue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T15921

For the past month or so there's been a serious problem with DelReqHandler. See User talk:Rillke/Discuss/2013#DelReqHandler issues. The issue was reported to Bugzilla by User:Rillke a month ago, and I've seen no improvement at all. This problem makes it very difficult and time-consuming to delete files and close deletion requests with DelReqHandler. ~~Until this issue is resolved, I'm no longer going to be able to help with closing DRs.~~ INeverCry 00:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems are not limited to delreqhandler, I often get database timout or SQL locks (whatever) messages while manually deleting images. And even those that are deleted usually take a long time to process. --Denniss (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that slow-down as well. This bug also pretty much cripples the delete function in VisualFileChange. INeverCry 20:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've also seen that when manually deleting but it doesn't seem to be as frequent, we'll have to pay attention to the error to see if it's related (possibly related to the slowdown if not this bug in particular) –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This bug also pretty much cripples the delete function in VisualFileChange. - ha, well that explains the problems I experienced in that department the other day. Rd232 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This might be the error Denniss refers to:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

    (SQL query hidden)

from within function "WikiPage::updateCategoryCounts". Database returned error "1213: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction (10.64.16.27)".

The file was still there (wasn't related to a simultaneous action by someone else afaict) –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Noted at bugzilla:13921#c15. INeverCry 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, maybe this is related –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger of files

Pufui Pc Pifpef I has created excellent revisions of old work of mine, a series of choir dress illustrations. He uploaded them as separate files, and now the original version and his revision are used throughout Wikipedia. His revision is more accurate, yet remains faithful to my design. I think it's best to merge the files, and he has agreed with that. I have uploaded his revisions over my files (so one can still see my old revision in the history), and credited him.

Could these files be deleted, and the files that they list in their source [Choir Dress (function) .svg] be renamed to these files [Function - choir dress.svg]? It would make everything uniform.

File:Priest - choir dress.svg Done - is this what you want to happen? –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Bishop - choir dress.svg
File:Cardinal - choir dress.svg
File:Pope - choir dress.svg

Thanks in advance. ~:-) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it! That you moved his upload is even better than I had hoped. It's probably clearest like that. :D Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done them all, you're welcome –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

bn

Someone, plz fullfill this request. thanks--Aftab1995 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Also this one --Aftab1995 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Temporary unblacklisting of a user

Hey everyone! Is there any way that we could have a user temporarily removed from the blacklist, as I would like to add this, this, and this to the category on yesterday's events in Boston. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded all of the Boston explosion photos to Category:Files from Aaron Tang Flickr stream. If we need to blacklist the stream again, feel free to do so. russavia (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that I cannot find any problematic photos from this user, and he does not show up at Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users (so we don't know why he was blacklisted), I don't think that would be necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I was thinking the same thing. The only thing I could think of is that the majority of his photos would be out of scope for Commons. Anyway, agree with keeping it off the blacklist so that any in scope photos can be uploaded as required. russavia (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why it's important to list reasons at Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users (you are right, this user didn't have an entry there). I did check if these images might be lifted from somewhere else but they seemed legit to me –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Flickr upload tool wasn't allowing for me to upload, so I assumed that something was amiss. When I went to check it out, I could not find any mention of him being banned, so I wanted to make sure that he wasn't on some secret list on this site. Moogsi, is there a list that he was on, or was this just a quirk in the tool? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no secret list :) - if you got to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users, the bold link at the top leads you to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors, which is the numerical list of the same (for the bots to look at). The lists are supposed to be the same, in this case they weren't, most likely by mistake –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I could not find the number of his account since it corresponded with the name instead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bad-author list should exclusively be used for Flickr authors known for Flickrwashing. Remember, this is a list that commands the bot what to do. The bot should not be made to say "this image is a possible copyvio" when merely it is out of scope. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it's used for. Remember that people can remove things from their flickr streams, previous copyright violations may no longer be obvious. Flickr accounts aren't blacklisted for being "probably out of scope", I wouldn't worry about that –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Copvio

Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen) is filling again. No FOP in Denmark. We had a deletion discussion that cleaned the obvious ones but 3-4 more are back. Do we need to DR them or can admin just pop over and clean it? I searched 'Little Mermaid' and added ones with that in the title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for searching and putting them into the category. If they had been properly categorized from the beginning, they would long have been gone. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you as well. This section resolved then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

→ Please, fullfill this 3 request - --Aftab1995 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for helping! odder (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Age distribution charts

More than 3 years ago, Worldenc uploaded a lot of demographic charts for much of the USA, including File:US21A145 Age.png, but they were deleted as spam. Can someone look at some of the deleted images and remind me why they were considered spam? The comments here give reason why the uploader should have been sanctioned for an unapproved bot, but nothing's there mentioned about them being spam, and I don't remember them being particularly different from images such as File:USA Owen County, Indiana age pyramid.svg. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 17#Mass image and linkspam accounts

w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 10#User:Worldenc and their charts

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 18#Return of the Mass image and linkspam account

–⁠moogsi (blah) 19:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't remember any of this previously, but it makes sense now. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to pre-emptive deletion of French intelligence images

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion has moved to Signpost talk page

I would like to request review of events surrounding the deletion of images in a Signpost article: see "French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer" in this week's Signpost.

The problem revolves around images of French locations used in this high-profile article that were deleted on Commons, apparently by user:Russavia (see the page's history), leaving broken syntax to red-linked files in their place. An attempt was then made to conceal the removal of the images by deleting the links. All of this took place without attempting to liaise with anyone, or provide any explanation or better yet, assistance.

One of the collaborators on the piece, User:Tony1, replaced the link syntax, but Russavia edit warred over hiding the deletions [9][10][11], along with calling Tony "silly" in the edit summaries, twice. A discussion ensued on Tony's en.wiki talk page, where it became clear that the photos had been deleted deliberately because they were used in the Signpost, out of fear of complaints from French security services. Russavia made some further remarks about being the Signpost being "holier-than-thou", and User:mattbuck got into the action, calling Tony a "nut".[12] Russavia then claimed to have received a private email from Tony, a communication that Tony should have had every expectation of remaining private, and published what he said were the contents, dumping torrents of profanity onto Tony's talk page, dropping the "c-word" into a edit summary,[13], as well as the "f-bomb". [14][15][16]

Tony objected strongly on Russavia's talk page, and was subsequently blocked no less than five times, by User:odder, User:mattbuck, and User:moogsi. block log The Commons blocking policy does not call for civility blocks, in fact I don't see any civility policy for Commons at all, so it is not clear what part of Commons policy Tony is supposed to have violated. Commons privacy policy also makes it clear that emails are expected to be private communications, yet it appears that the contents of an email have been divulged, in violation of the policy. Finally, the policy says "when in doubt, do not block, consult other administrators for advice" and to "make a note of the block at the administrators' noticeboard for peer review". But I see nothing about Tony at this noticeboard.

I can understand that publication in the Signpost might call added attention to an image, and editors might want to make sure it has been properly vetted (and the comments there indicate a properly vetted image is indeed available). I also understand that people who are good with images might not necessarily be good with diplomacy as well. But what happened at the Signpost was very unfortunate. It would have been nice if there had been some engagement on the article's comment section or even an email to the editor-in-chief. It would have been nice if the new image had been uploaded first, and used to replace the old image, instead of leaving a red link. That's not what happened. But perhaps now, Commons might start to repair its relationship with Signpost volunteers?

It might be a nice start if Commons would undertake to replace the picture that its editors repeatedly removed from the Signpost article. I will place a comment to that effect at the article. It might also be nice to have that peer review of Tony's block.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. (Disclaimer: I am a colleague of Tony and also contribute to the Signpost). Notified users: Tony1, Russavia, odder, mattbuck, moogsi, although Tony1 will likely not respond, being blocked from his own talk page.

--Neotarf (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You :en guys really love your conspirative theories.

As you had been told already yesterday by NemesisIII[17], the deletion of File:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg (now available at fr:Fichier:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg) and File:DCRI HQ.jpg (now available at fr:Fichier:DCRI.jpg) were performed due to missing freedom-of-panorama exemption in France, as evident from DR-discussions Commons:Deletion requests/File:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:DCRI HQ.jpg; meaning the photo of the building is considered to violate the copyright of the architect. When deleting an image that violates copyright, the fact that it may still be used on a WMF project, is rather irrelevant.

The still ongoing DR for File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg, was filed by an experienced user outside of the French jurisdiction. It's likely to result in a Keep, anyway.

While I don't have the time for more research into your complaint at the moment, just a comment about the block of Tony1. I would have blocked him all the same for such nice direct insults against others user[18],[19]. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Under what blocking policy would you have blocked him?

This is not about the technicalities of copyright.

--Neotarf (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

With copyright, we (try to) follow the letter of the law (and of case-law, when relevant), with user-user interactions we (try to) follow commons sense.

If writing "Go fuck yourself."[20] directly to another user (Odder) who gave a rather mellow warning[21], is o.k. for you, I can't help you. As somebody else had written a short time ago, if WMF would care about the (unpaid) users doing the dirty work on this project (a.k.a. admins) like a regular employer, Tony1 had been indef-banned from this place for such behaviour. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But what policy would you block him under? Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out what the dispute was about first? And try to resolve it?

This was originally about the utter arrogance of not communicating with us, and with not pointing out how the image could be replaced, but now it has snowballed.

--Neotarf (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At en.wp, you have a policy of "ignore all rules" if that is required to do something which is right. Consider this the same sort of thing, and if you think we need a policy to block abusive users? I just don't know what to say to that.

As for my supposed conflict of interest, I don't really see it that way. I told someone that they were wrong on another wiki, and yes, I did say they were a "conspiracy nut". I still regard that as a wholly reasonable comment in the circumstances. The deletion of the images was in no way kowtowing to the French spooks, it was kowtowing to the laws of France as regards copyright. Copyright is kind of what we do, and if something does not in some manner comply with our licensing policy, we delete it. We don't mess around trying to please people on other projects, we certainly don't wait until they're satisfied before we delete it. To distribute that file was illegal, pure and simple, and no other considerations can override something being a copyright violation.

As stated, I don't see myself as having a conflict of interest - I see it as an abusive user using his one remaining ability (talk page access) to further abuse other people, and to call for a longer block. I did what the guy explicitly asked for and blocked him longer. I later undid the lengthening, after discussion with other admins, but I maintain that revoking talk page access from someone who is only going to use it to be abusive is no bad thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say that Neotarf's comments above are like reading a John le Carre spy novel whilst watching an Inspector Clouseau movie at the same time. Please stick to the spy theme or the comedy theme and come back and let us know when this is done. I'd say take the comedy angle; it's easier to simply write the truth that way. :) russavia (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The way this was handled did seem provocative. Russavia, you could have uploaded the images to the English Wikipedia first, then deleted them from Commons; or alerted someone from the Signpost so that someone else did it. Instead you left the article without key images, and unsurprisingly a Signpost editor got annoyed. Also, Mattbuck appears to have been involved in the dispute, so I hope he will undo his admin actions, which included locking Tony out of his own talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend to extend the block, and I corrected my mistake. I apologize for any additional distress the mistake may have caused. It was simply in response to a user notifying me that Tony1 was sending abusive emails to them, and the change was to block the user from sending email. This is not a "civility block" as characterized by you, and hardly "cascading blocks" as characterized by Tony1. I did extend the block by ~4 hours by my actions, but I find Tony1's inclusion of me in a secret Commons cabal which is out to get him baffling and concerning. Using the email system to lash out at people is harrassment, regardless of the circumstances of the initial block. Perhaps Tony1 took the 2-week block as a threat, and I regret if that is the case; it reflects a poor handling of a sensitive situation on my part. But the way to respond to such a concern is not to dare someone to block him for longer.

I would not equate being called "silly", or a "nut" with receiving [the kind of abuse sent by email N.B. I have redacted my own quotation here]. Any profanity dropped on Tony1's talk page was direct quotation of himself. His expectation of privacy in these matters while characterizing others as overreacting is in my opinion not warranted.

We don't care what the DCRI has to say about anything (excepting a takedown notice, which would be the WMF's decision to comply with); that the images were removed out of "fear" is gross speculation and points to a continuing lack of understanding of this situation which I hope can be resolved –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moogsi, it was Russavia who said he deleted the images out of process because they were being used by the Signpost: "I made the decision to delete the images before the usual 7 day DR period specifically because they were being used on English Wikipedia in a somewhat high-profile section of the site (that being the Signpost). The last thing we as a project need is for complaints to be made about us hosting those problematic files whilst we are basically bagging the French security services." [22] It's not clear to me what the emergency was, or why Russavia couldn't have uploaded the images to the English Wikipedia before deleting them.

Admins know that editors get annoyed when challenged and blocked, and are supposed to resist the urge to respond in kind, or block/extend a block because someone has insulted them. The posting of the email contents in edit summaries was further provocation. [23][24] In all, the situation seems to have been handled in a way that caused maximum drama, when it could easily have been handled in a way that caused none. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in deleting the file or posting on Tony1's talk page on wikipedia, I can only defend my own actions. I'm in no position to judge the situation; I don't have anywhere near the most knowledge about events –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've edited my earlier post in case the "you" seemed to be directed at you. It would be good if at least the parameters of your last block could be restored, so that Tony has talk-page access, then he could respond there to comments here. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

He's already responded to comments, by telling myself, Odder and Moogsi to go fuck ourselves. I think we've heard all we want to hear from Tony1 until the end of his block. russavia (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, I didn't read it that way. I just want to make it clear that I have nothing else to add to the discussion unless prompted. As I only take responsibility for my own actions, I don't find it appropriate to revert the actions of others when I admit I am not the best aware of the situation (indeed Tony1 has not said anything directly to me, instead implicating "the three of you"; neither did I care about that, nor decide to act on it) –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I personally requested the deletion of File:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg. While I'm a French citizen living in Paris, thus within easy reach of French spooks, I strongly resent the implication that this picture was nominated and deleted "out of fear of complaints from French security services". The location and general appearance of the DCRI headquarters are in no way sensitive information, so I'm at pains to see why the DCRI would complain about this picture (the radio station's specific picture is a whole different kettle of fish).

I nominated this picture for the reasons mentioned in the deletion request, i.e. copyright. Per COM:FOP#France Commons doesn't host pictures of recent buildings that pass the threshold of originality. No argument was raised during the DR process about a lack of originality. In fact, non argument was raised at all. I have nominated for deletion dozens of no-FOP pictures before. I'm well used to well-intentioned users yelling at me because they don't like our no-FOP policy, but I must say this is a new one.

According to Commons policy, "deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier". We routinely delete pictures before the 7-day delay because they come from Getty Images or other high-profile photo agencies, for instance. In this case, the picture was used "in a somewhat high-profile section of the site (that being the Signpost)" (Russavia's words), where we don't want to see a known copyvio. I completely agree with Russavia's decision. Had Russavia nominated the picture, I could have closed the DR in the same manner.

Finally, please note that Russavia voted to keep the station's picture at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg. In the same DR, I personally dismissed the argument that the radio station itself may be copyrighted. We both are consistent here, because our actions are grounded in copyright principles, not fear of the French intelligence service or whatnot. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Jastrow, you are addressing your remarks to the wrong person. It wasn't SlimVirgin who claimed the images were deleted because of French security, it was the person who deleted them, Russavia. And it was Russavia who tried to cover up the deletions by removing the red links. Three times.

If Commons is not afraid of French security, as they claim, why have they not yet restored the images, as requested.

The image was removed on April 13. Four days later it is still off. Why?

--Neotarf (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Where, pray, has Russavia claimed he was deleting the pics because of French security? His words: "The buildings are modern structures with obvious creativity, and there being no freedom of panorama in France, we can't host them until 70pma." I'd like to know what French security has to do with the absence of FOP in France.

Removing red links is standard procedure on any Wikipedia. Why would we want to show broken links to visitors? What do you mean "cover up" when every of our actions shows on the page's history?

Commons hasn't restored the pictures because they are copyvios under French copyright law, which Commons enforces according to our COM:FOP policy. If you can upload them under a fair-use claim on en:, by all means do so. That's what fr: did on the basis of a local exception. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been linked to several times in this thread but I will link to it again.

Russavia: "I made the decision to delete the images before the usual 7 day DR period specifically because they were being used on English Wikipedia in a somewhat high-profile section of the site (that being the Signpost). The last thing we as a project need is for complaints to be made about us hosting those problematic files whilst we are basically bagging the French security services." [25]

Russavia then proceeded to edit war with one of the authors of the article, Tony, in order to delete the image, and reverted three times on the page of the Signpost article. The reason given in the edit summary was a flippant "don't be silly Tony1 -- there is no need for that". --Neotarf (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So Tony1 was inserting redlinked images into the article. That to me sounds like a bad thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Too bad no one bothered to ask him. Why don't you ask him now? Oh I forgot, you blocked him from his talk page. --Neotarf (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To which I previously answered: “In this case, the picture was used ‘in a somewhat high-profile section of the site (that being the Signpost)’ (Russavia's words), where we don't want to see a known copyvio.” These pics were deleted because they were copyvios. They were deleted before the usual 7-day delay because they were on the Signpost.

The edit war is a different matter that doesn't concern me, or Commons for that matter. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this, the images are fine and can be used. Why Russavia couldn't have done this same thing before deleting the images is a mystery to me.

So why is it the Commons editors seem to be able to find the Signpost with no problem when they want to delete controversial images and insult the our editors, but they can't seem to find it in order to repair the damage they have done.

--Neotarf (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But you're complaining that Commons admins did "repair the damage" - they removed redlink images. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want to hide the removal of these images. And why have they not been replaced. --Neotarf (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We didn't hide the removal of the images, we removed ugly redlinked images. Like anyone would. As for replacing them, that is not our turf - we don't know what images you want, we just know you can't use that one. Besides, what would we replace them with? EVERY SINGLE PHOTO of that building violates our licensing policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, these pictures represent a copyrighted building. France allows no exception to copyright for buildings (see Commons:Freedom of panorama#France. Even if the picture is free, the building it represents isn't, so we can't keep it on Commons (see Commons:Derivative work).

NemesisIII uploaded the pics to fr: under a local community-decided exception for recent buildings. Russavia could have done the same on en:, but he didn't have to: this is in no way a part of the closing admin's duty. We can't know the fair use exceptions for every Wikipedia and we have no script to do the job for us. Tony1 could as well have uploaded the pics to en: as fair use instead of reinserting red links. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Look I thought I made this clear, we don't care about long technical descriptions, the issue is that no one approached us, they just started firing off insults. We are not unreasonable people, we have a very bad situation with a Wikipedia volunteer, and the Commons editors are mocking us and being flippant. --Neotarf (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Insults to you? We deleted copyvios, something we do every day. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And Tony was supposed to have uploaded files, after Russavia deleted them? How do you upload files that don't exist?

This is a waste of time. You might as well close this out. --Neotarf (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If Tony1 or any other en: editor had come here to ask what it was all about, we would have explained and given help to transfer the pics. It can still be done. If you're willing to do the transfer, I will undelete the pics temporarily so you can do it. We do this every day or so.

Now try to look at the picture from the other side. To me, you come ask loudly for these pics to be restored just because you need them, never mind copyright, and we Commons admins should have done all the work already. It's not a very friendly way to ask for help either. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jastrow, the copyright status and deletion are not the issue. The issue is how it was done. Russavia saw the images were being used by the Signpost. Therefore, he could have uploaded them first to the English Wikipedia, under the same title, so that the deletion from Commons wouldn't even have been noticed. Or if he didn't want to do that, he could have alerted Signpost editors and waited for one of them to upload. The complaint here is that he acted in a way that produced maximum upset, then when someone reacted badly to that, that person was blocked. Admins are expected to try to solve problems, not cause them, so the whole thing is unfortunate. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, Commons admins cannot be expected to know the fair use rules of every single project. Nor should we wait to comply with the law. Russavia acted as would any admin. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification SlimVirgin. I regret the incident too. The fact is Tony1's actions would have been more productive had he first complained here on Commons, not on en: where we can't do much. Life would also be much simpler if we had a tool to transfer the pics to Wikipedias accepting fair use. Beyond what mattbuck says, not all Commons admins are willing to take responsibility by uploading copyrighted pictures with their personal account. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but we had actually such a procedure, installed by Dcoetzee, if I remember correctly. You would tag the image with {{Fair use delete}} and a bot (or Dcoetzee himself) would transfer it to :en and add a final deletion tag to our version. However, once 1 image was unnecessarily moved to :en that way and they made a big fuss about, blocked the bot (at least for some time). Since then, I have never more used that procedure and told them (:en) so. --Túrelio (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. User:Coyau used to run a bot to perform transfers to fr:, but it's now broken. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The other issue is that Russavia edit-warred to remove the images. On the English wiki, this is a bright line -- after three reverts, you will find very few editors who are willing to keep trying to restore the removed material without a consensus. Realistically, unless the Commons editors can agree that this belongs in the Signpost piece, it will probably not go in. Since Russavia is now blocked on English wiki, it would be up to the other Commons editors. --Neotarf (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how the R3R rule is carried out on en:, but I was under the impression that it applied to three reverts under a 24-hour period. Anyhow, I left a comment at en:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-08/News_and_notes. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

@Neotarf: This is a waste of time. - indeed, as you seem to be completely unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge what you have been told here by different people. Finally about your alleged problem of getting access to the deleted files: in my first posting here I provided you the active links to both files (courtesy: [26][27]) that are now on :fr Wikipedia (thanks to their EDP). --Túrelio (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware that I myself posted the link to these images in the above thread; they have been available for some time at the Signpost article in response to my comments there. But please note that multiple editors in the above thread say unequivocally that the images are "known copyvios". --Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair-use is a sort of copyvio, only that it's a legal loophole provided by US copyright law and thereby allowed by the WMF for :en Wikipedia, provided the legal conditions and restrictions are met. It's not a copyvio in the sense when one steals a recent glamour-shot from Getty Images and claims it as own work. A typical fair-use situation is, for example, if there is no freely available portrait of a relevant person who is already dead (no chance to take a shot by yourself), you can use a still copyrighted image of that person in low resolution for encyclopedic purposes. This is a typical fair-use image. It's free on behalf of the photographer (me), but in Italy it may violate the copyright of the architect of the building, as Italy has no FOP exemption. However, Commons:Fair use does not and legally cannot allow fair-use material. --Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

RE:User:Tony1: after offering a helping hand and constructive explaination at :en's signpost-talkpage our colleague Jastrow got these nice replies, from User:Tony1, which makes evident that any communication with this individual is futile, except one likes to be accused, slandered, insulted, etc. <self-redacted>. Anyway, as long as this happens on :en, it has to be dealt with at :en. --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone gets too carried away with gravedancing, it might be prudent to review the English Wikipedia's policy on stalking, which happens to be a blockable offense. Interesting isn't it, that no can cite even one policy that Tony has violated. --Neotarf (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not need a policy to block people who are being dicks. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Like by telling them they are genitals? --Neotarf (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Can everyone please calm down? Neotarf, Tony1 used Commons' mail feature to insult Russavia. Our blocking policy states that "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to (…) disrupt its collegial atmosphere”. Insulting people is disruptive behaviour. Tony1 was blocked to stop him from insulting people further. While the block's length can be discussed, I believe the principle was sound. Obviously you don't think so, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

Now your second beef with us was the pictures' restoration. We have explained why Commons can't host these pics: for copyright reasons. Your Wikipedia policy allows you to keep a picture under fair use. At your request, I went to the Signpost to offer help, only to find myself yelled at by Tony1 even though I had nothing to do with his block. I'm not sure what more Commons can do for you at this point. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I closed the thread. The fact that one of your admins saw fit to open it again for the sole purpose of hurling insults at Tony -- in a forum where he himself made sure Tony would be blocked from defending himself -- pretty much speaks for itself. --Neotarf (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

OTRS permissions could use your help!

Hi all,

As you hear occasionally, we get very backlogged over at OTRS with permissions tickets. All too often, files are being deleted because we simply cannot process the tickets on time. This creates the additional step (and additional time) to have the file undeleted, etc. Anyhow, just another friendly note - if you have some spare time and think you might be able to help the OTRS team, in any language (at the present moment, the French queue (permissions-commons-fr) is most backlogged, with over 100 tickets), please do consider applying. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via my talk page/email/IRC/Meta. If you are interested in volunteering m:OTRS/Volunteering is the place to do it. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel very guilty at this, because I applied for OTRS rights some time ago and got them for the French queue, but I can't make head or tails of the interface. Other French agents were supposed to show me, but we've just never got around to it. So if anyone could point me to a handy help page… Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand this problem, Jastrow. The OTRS software is horrible. We're actually working on upgrading to the new version, hopefully soonish, which has a much more user-friendly interface. Anyhow, do you have access to IRC? We have a channel, #wikimedia-otrs on freenode where you may find assistance. Additionally, as I believe Asclepias states below (I do not speak French and rely on Google), the otrs-wiki is another great resource for agents. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The English backlog is my fault. I fowarded 10 emails for 10 images all at once.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Peut-être pourrais-tu trouver quelque chose du côté de l'aide de OTRS-wiki ? Je dis ça à tout hasard, car je n'ai pas accès pour regarder ce wiki réservé aux membres OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston terror suspect posts own portrait on Commons?

The new account Dzokhar Tsarnaev (talk · contribs), who suggests to be the most-searched Boston-terror-suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev[28], has uploaded his own portrait image File:Dzokhar Tsarnaev.jpg. Though it's likely a hoax, I've notified WMF-legal. --Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Has now been indef-blocked as impostor. --Túrelio (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989

User talk:Fry1989

Says bad language http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fry1989

See the section Are you happy now ?

GhiathArodaki (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And? There's no censor filter at Commons. Perhaps it's better to take his request at face value and leave him alone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That what i'm going to do leave him alone , i have no time to waste with him, But just giving a view of what did he wrote , just to let the people here now.GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I told you you're making a mountain out of an ant hill. I nominated I think 3 or 4 of your many uploads for deletion, that's all!! But you keep trying to make this look like I have a vendetta, and then you nuke the rest of your uploads asking me "are you happy now?". Why would I care? If I wanted the rest of your uploads to go, I would have nominated them myself. If I had a vendetta, I would be bothering you at every turn, but repeatedly for weeks now I have asked you to leave me alone and move on. You're the problem, you took a few file nominations personally, and now keep harassing me. Move on!! Fry1989 ^eh? 16:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting every thing related to syria after the dispute , what do you call this ? , second , i didn't said that to you only , go to the page of Inever cry and rd232 , you will see the same thing , because here the staff wanted to delete all of my pictures i upload , yes after disputes , what do you call that ? , so i had only two pictures , cleaned up my upload page to make you all happy , i'll leave you alone because i have no time to waste , actually , i'll leave the wiki , because of the following :

No any truth in many articles , all are lies and follows an opinion .

anyone who tries to say the truth is blocked with the name of edit warring or vandalism.

Threats .

There is no respect for others.

Follow the laws wrong trivial and does not contribute to the development of the wiki.

Opposition to the presence of articles about certain people, and the approval of other people

bad languages and rudes , with no any solution. GhiathArodaki (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you are dissatisfied with what you find here. We do try not to get involved in personal arguments, and to keep mellow. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

GhiathArodaki, if you can't move on and think it's better to leave, then by all means do so. I am only going to say this one last time. I DON'T CARE! I don't care about all your uploads, I don't care about you personally, I don't care about anything. I nominated a few images (not even enough to count on one hand) for deletion. You completely over-reacted and took it personal, and have been bothering me for weeks accusing me of having it out for you. I haven't contacted you in weeks, I've asked you to leave me alone, I've asked you to move on, and you don't seem to be able to. You can stay here and contribute, or you can leave, but either way don't blame your choice on me. I moved on weeks ago. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes . i'll leave , because i don't want to see another rude people , Also , I Don't care of what you say , you nominated the files that are related to the dispute , you are not going to teach me a lesson for a dispute , My favourite answer to you is , you in a way and me in another way , leave me alone and i'll leave you alone .GhiathArodaki (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Trusting "no permission"

I am working on an undeletion request, for half a dozen images of an inexperienced contributor. The deletion log entries for some of those images say "no permission since".

I started to explain, in that undeletion request, why we can no longer take any deletion log entry that says "no permission" at face value.

I am very sorry to report that, about 6 or 8 months ago I encountered an administrator who was routinely using a technique for deleting images they had concerns about that left unreliable deletion log entries.

When this administrator encountered images they found doubtful, but which nevertheless had apparently valid looking licenses, they took the first of two steps which lead to opaque speedy deletions.

Rather than initiate a full deletion discussion where the community could discuss whether the apparently valid looking license should be trusted, they would simply remove the valid looking license they didn't trust, or they would replace it with a "no permissions since" tag, or one of the similar tags.

The second step in the technique they used to speedy delete images they personally felt were untrustworthy would be to return to those images exactly seven days later, and then speedy delete them. The "no permissions since" tag says the image can be removed if no one supplies a valid license within seven days. The explanation in the deletion log entries this administrator used often simply "no permission since 20xx-xx-xx". But they would mix it up. Sometimes they would say "unliscensed", or other similar explanations.

I encountered this technique when I noticed several images I had uploaded months or years earlier showed up on my watchlist as having just been deleted with deletion log entries that said "no permission since" and a date exactly seven days earlier.

Of course this raised the question for me, "what happened seven days earlier?"

I contacted the administrator in question, and found them extremely evasive and unhelpful.

I am a very experience contributor here, and I am pretty careful. So, the first two theories I came up with was that either the license I used years or months earlier was valide when I applied it, but had been deprecated, since then. Alternately, it occurred to me that someone vandalized the image, and removed a valid license, achieve an invalid speedy deletion. So, I asked this administrator to confirm whether the image had a valid looking license, when uploaded. And I asked them to check to see whether someone had edited the images exactly seven days earlier.

They wouldn't answer either question. So I took the images to deletion review. And I was shocked when the images were restored to learn it was the administrator who deleted the image who had replaced the valid and legitimate license with a "no permission since" tag.

Of course this administrator is authorized to entertain doubts as to whether apparently valid looking licenses had been legitimately applied. But, in my opinion, if the image had a valid license, initiating a full deletion discussion was one of the ways to challenge the legitimacy of that license.

Sometimes good faith contributors, particularly new contributors, will apply a valid license to an image where it doesn't belong, in a good faith mistake. When that happens, if no other valid license applies, that image should be deleted. But, in my opinion, it should be deleted in an open and transparent manner where the good faith contributor has an opportunity to learn what they did wrong. No good faith contributor wants to go on making good faith mistakes which waste other people's time, and could damage the project's integrity. Good faith contributors deserve to be told in a civil and collegial way, when they made mistakes.

Sometimes even experienced administrators have concerns over images, which the wider community will recognize as in scope and validly licensed. Speedy deletion should be as transparent as possible, to take into account instances when it is one of our administrators who makes good faith mistakes. The two step process they followed, where they replaced apparently valid licenses with a "no permission since" tag was not transparent, and it skipped the step of them explaining why they had concerns that the apparently valid license had been improperly applied. Because it skipped them explaining their concern there was no oversight of their evaluations, and no meaningful audit trail.

How many deletion log entries that say "no permission", or equivalent, were left by this untrustworthy administrator? I don't know. But their contribution history, at the time I looked into it, seemed to suggest they used this technique all the time, and had been using it for years.

So I am going to assume that there are, at least, thousands of unreliable deletion log entries. Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Geo. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate PD release template

What should be done when a contributor uploads a photograph with a PD-Art template when it is clear that the subject of the photograph is not a work of art but a piece of industrial equipment? (probably due to a language confusion) · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be easier to comment, if you would link the file in question. --Túrelio (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The contributor may have been looking for Art Photo (if the photographed object is a work of art or an object otherwise worthy of a similarly detailed description) or for 3-D in PD (if merely to specify that the object is considered not under copyright). -- Asclepias (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the question was clear enough, but by all means see for yourlself. There are several photographs by the same contributor of the same Comex diving bell in Category:COMEX diving sphere with this licencing problem (all named Comex diving sphere nnnn.jpg), and it would be stretching the meaning of art to claim that any of the photographs have artistic value. The are simply records of an interesting piece of specialist equipment, under natural outdoor lighting, with no apparent modifications to the image. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The files in Category:COMEX diving sphere were made by User:Rama, an experienced user here. I believe he simply made a mistake when he mass-uploaded his pictures. I'll leave him a note. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will leave it to you to sort it out then. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Brunei to Keep Its Riches (The Straits Times, 3 February 1963, p. 1).png

Hi. I cropped the extract of the newspaper article "File:Brunei to Keep Its Riches (The Straits Times, 3 February 1963, p. 1).png" to try and minimize the risk that there is a breach of the copyright in it as a literary work. Could an administrator please delete or hide the longer versions of the article in the file history? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Any chance someone can look into this soon? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone?? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, and I'm not an admin, I do not think you have trimmed it enough to accomplish your purpose. Dankarl (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Should I crop it so that only the headline is visible? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That would work, I think. Titles are not generally copyrightable, tho I am not familiar with the applicable local law. I really do not know the copyright implications of the writing style that telegraphs most of the article content through multiple subheadlines; you could ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Dankarl (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio category

Admin may wish to go through Category:Academy Awards and speedy the obvious ones. Remaining ones that may be De min we should be able to run through DR. Statue is copyrighted in the USA where there is no FOP except for buildings.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Image of a bank check?

While browsing discussions at en's deletion review, I noticed File:Check from terrorist organization HLF to Islamic_organization CAIR.jpg. Regardless of whether the article this is used for is allowed or disallowed at en, something bothers me about this. Yes, Commons is not censored, but this image has routing numbers and addresses on it. Is there a specific Commons policy for this sort of thing? Maybe at the very least, the routing number, account number, and addresses should be redacted? --UserB (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think it's a problem. (I really wish there was a source, so we could see if it was available to the public.) The addresses are all public knowledge about major organizations, so I don't see why they're a problem. The numbers on there go to an account that's been frozen for years. I certainly wouldn't recommend uploading checks like this in the future, but in this case I can't see any problem with this image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Prosfilaes, the accounts are long shut down so privacy isn't an issue- further more they're likely to be monitored so it'll be a case of buyer beware if anyone attempts to use them for nefarious purposes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect admin DR closures based on a "we have better images" rationale

There have been complaints that some Admins are deleting images that are in bona fide use on other WMF projects, even in the absence of any copyright issues. Please could all admins re-familiarize themselves with everything in Commons:Scope, especially Commons:Scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project? Please also see the discussion at Commons:Village pump#Deletion on quality grounds of used images. Thanks all. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasise that we ought not to be skipping deletion discussions with speedies in basic cases where the image has no immediate copyright problem, personal rights issue or the uploader made a mistake and promptly asked for deletion. The key phrase under Scope is "no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value" (notably "quality" only appears in discussion and example sections rather than in definitive policy). I see administrators acting such that others might believe they have the power to delete any image that in their personal view seems poor quality even when the image may be argued to be unusual or unique on Commons, if this is the behavioural norm, then it would be great if the case for that can be laid out more clearly in Administrators, in the meantime I would like to add to MichaelMaggs' note above and ask that we stick to using DRs unless there is a consensus for alternative action (such as the remedy that I proposed last week on mass deletion of problematic uploads from some mobile devices). In practice, most mundane DRs, i.e. those without nudity, get little community traction, so when one or two contributors turn up and in good faith* put forward a case for the potential value of a "low quality" image, than we should probably defer to a precautionary keep, rather than deferring to an arguable delete. [* I hope we recognize there is a difference between good faith rationales and deliberate disruptive argument.]

By the way, under uniqueness of "educational value", I personally include lower quality images of cultural and historic value, such as images from Gay Pride marches (for which we might validly have many hundreds from one Pride event) or photographs of people getting on with living their lives during WWII which have their own historic value, even if only of someone buying milk from the local shop in 1944. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the 2 example cases, which Pere prlpz has now provided on VP, show that none had to do with scope, but both had to do with following basic rules (and commons sense). --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with File:A Portuguesa.ogg

Folks, this was reported to OTRS (Template:OTRS ticket). When you play the ogg file, the words have been replaced with PEEEENIS. Can someone delete or fix please? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That is likely due to vandalism in an associated TimedText file. However, I've no idea which one is associated to this ogg file. --Túrelio (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, it was the de subtitles –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for my own edification, how does this work? I can't see any edits on the file page, are the subtitles stored elsewhere? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Subtitles are stored in the TimedText: namespace. The filenames are the name of the audio/video plus [language code].srt. This file has Portuguese subtitles at TimedText:A Portuguesa.ogg.pt.srt, for example. More at Commons:Subtitles –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We live and learn! Thanks for the explanation and the link.--ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fishy deletion requests

A new account has uploaded three low-quality penis shots, each of which are now nominated for deletion. Nothing unusual there, but there seem to be some other new accounts created to vote in those deletion discussions. Someone might want to take a closer look. The discussions are Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis 6.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis 7.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis 8.jpg. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

While you may be correct about the first 2 commenters, I don't see a real problem here, as 2 established users, likely from different camps, have also voted for deletion here. --Túrelio (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not that these images will be deleted. It is that the account that started all three image deletion discussions is brand new and their only contributions are to start those deletion discussions. Two other users, also brand new, have no edits outside of those deletion discussions. Those images were only uploaded yesterday, yet they have drawn the attention of three users who have never before participated on Commons. Something ain't right here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite likely. But there's not much to do in this case: The images still ought to be deleted, and it's not really worth the trouble (yet) figuring out if they're sockpuppets, meatpuppets or whatever. --Conti|✉ 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Images can be deleted due to legitimate reasons, but to give a pass to what is obviously sockpuppet accounts sets a bad precedent. Sockpuppetry should be considered a serious breach of trust and cannot be tolerated. Sockpuppetry can derail legitimate issues, so to legitimize it under certain circumstances just doesn´t play. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked User:JimHolland, User:Ellen Rovesana and User:RoloBeard5. There's not much figuring out to do here: someone wants to draw attention to themselves, which is a pretty sad and tedious abuse of Commons –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:98.253.183.3

98.253.183.3 (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, but could an admin please take a look at this IP? Thanks. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 19:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like User:Túrelio is taking care of it. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 19:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the alltime-enemy of Future Perfect at Sunrise. Required quite a number of versions to hide, as usual with this vandal. --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request for a bugzilla ticket

Could somebody save this version of the sandbox to User:Schnark/tablesorter? I used this in a bug report long ago, but since there is some action on it now, I'd like to see, what I actually did there. Thanks in advance. --Schnark (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Bidgee (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File version deletion request

The last two versions of File:Bubalus Tin Taghirt.jpg (those of 2013-04-22) could be deleted. I fiddled around, trying to solve a thumbnail bug. (I’ve now become aware of the “purge” button.) It’s not terribly important, but would be nice. Sorry to bother you with trifles. — Linus (disc) 17:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done --Didym (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — Linus (disc) 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot request

Could someone please take a look at Commons:Bots/Requests/Hazard-Bot 7? Thanks. Hazard-SJ ✈ 23:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User La loca del pueblo

This seems to be a sockpuppet of Sheryln Rubio Rojas (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) that keeps uploading copyvios of Sheryl Rubio Rojas photos. Note the similar file descriptions like "ffffffffffffffffrsssssssssssssssssssssw". De728631 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by Herbythyme. --Túrelio (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1

Could we get a few people to look at Wikiwatcher1 latest flurry of uploads (a user with past copyright problems with block, and he's been investigated in en:WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1.) - have no clue were hes guessing on copyright - ebay does not mention any thing about copyrights.Moxy (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

looks ok, or at most the subject of a DR, but I would ask for a second opinion, if you ask someone like INeverCry and they suggest that there is a problem (I can't see one) then I'll launch the mass DR for you ok ? Penyulap ☏ 18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, not this again. Unless we have some hard, textual evidence that these files are indeed PD (and not assumed to be) coming in soon, I'm going to nuke the lot of them. -FASTILY 04:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Taylor and Kirk Douglas - 1976.jpg - is this still guess work? Have come across this editor in 5 articles now and all I see is plagiarism. Moxy (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not plagiarism; he always cites all the available information on the source of the images. (Plagiarism is independent of copyright infringement.) If you're unhappy with it, why not RfD it? He makes broad copyright claims, that we can't disprove or have any reason to believe they're false. As Fastily says, they're also hard to prove, but it comes done to a disagreement, a discussion even, over what we accept as copyright evidence, not simple copyright infringement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been clear - he copies and pastes quotes all over english Wikipedia and uploads images that have NO visible copyright information. As for an RfD - or a border conversation as listed above there is an ongoing investigation - If you believe there is not a problem here - then so be it. Thank you for your time.Moxy (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what he does on the English Wikipedia. That's not Common's problem. The complex thing about no notice copyrights is that the issue is that they have no visible copyright information. There is a problem here with unproven public domain status, but at the same time we should be aggressively using any source of useful PD works that we can, and I would say that goes double for ephemeral sites like eBay. We need to establish that Commons has clear rules here, and that the user is knowingly breaking them before we take action on the user level. RfD is the way to establish that we have clear rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A huge portion of the uploaded images have been deleted as per copyright concerns. If the problem is not clear as per his block and ongoing investigation - I simply dont know how much more info is needed before more action is taken here again. So to be clear - people here have been informed of a problem but wish a non experienced user to open an RfD or nothing will be done correct?Moxy (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A non-experienced user should always feel free to open an RfD; it's simple, effective and non-confrontational. A user opening a complaint against another user who is uploading very valuable works that are quite probably public domain should be prepared to establish that there's clear lines that are knowingly being crossed. If you want to make that complaint, you need to list the RfDs, you need to list the blocks, you need to discuss the copyright issues (and not dismiss them as eBay and plagiarism, both of which miss the point) and how Commons has dealt with them. In fact, preferably we should have written guidelines on how to handle publicity pics and what evidence we need that they are PD and get agreement on it, so we have something in writing to point to. That takes a lot more work and care then an RfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I see why there is such a problem here with so many copyright concerns. To quote " that are quite probably public domain" - Good luck with this guess work approach to things - We have now gotten 127 images deleted and will work on the others despite the lack of interest here. Moxy (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the copyright concerns are false claims of own work or pretty obvious half-assed or uninformed licensing. Wikiwatcher1 is pretty rare. If you don't like guess-work approaches, then why do you encourage that we shouldn't take care when handling a user?--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Have no clue what your saying above - BUT - Would like to thank all those from here that have gotten involved - we are 1/3 there - rest here.Moxy (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons Delinker error

File:A naked female in front of clothed males.jpg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:A naked female in front of clothed males.jpg, but it was not removed from the English Wikipedia article w:Clothed make, naked female [29]. The delinker user page on en.wp directs observations to this page, although it seems a trivial issue for here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please ask or notify the operators of that bot or add a new issue to jira:COMMONSDELINKER or find someone improving its source code. The operators are listed at User:CommonsDelinker. Other admins can't change its behaviour. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a message at User talk:Siebrand. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Andols Herrick Chimaira 2004.JPG

Please rename it to "Richard Evensand Chimaira 2004.JPG". Andols Herrick was group member until 2003. Then came Evensend. --Lowdown (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

RevDel own IP address

I wish the system would notify us when it logs us out after the thirty days that we can stay logged in. I just made an edit while logged out and therefore my IP address appeared. I have RevDel'd the history at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=95442851&oldid=95441292

I think this is an exception to the general rule that it is inappropriate for Admins to use their powers on their own behalf, but I report it here in case the community thinks otherwise. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem with this. But the IP is still in the content of the before-last version visible. --Túrelio (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've RevDel'd the 2 revision texts that showed the IP. INeverCry 20:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS bit

As of today, I have access to the permissions queue at OTRS. Can I get an admin to add the appropriate bit so that it will show up at [30]? Thanks. --UserB (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moved to COM:BN as admins can't do this; only bureaucrats can. :-) Welcome to the team btw! Trijnstel_talk 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Change name of field in Template:Photograph

Please use {{int:wm-license-artwork-current-location}} instead of {{I18n/Institution}} to name the the Gallery/Location field. Same thing but already has multiple translation. Thanks in advance. — TintoMeches, 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done --99of9 (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — TintoMeches, 10:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it got undone by User:Jarekt. Can you please discuss this with him - I don't really have time to investigate right now. --99of9 (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to be spoiling the fun, but I reverted this edit. Substantial changes to templates used on 150k pages, should be discussed first on the talk page of affected template. That is where we discussed before how to name that field, and "Current location" ({{int:wm-license-artwork-current-location}})is not the same as "Institution" ({{I18n/Institution}}}). Institution might be OK for artworks but was getting confusing for photographs, which are usually associated with some locations, like camera location, object location, etc. Tinto, if you need more translations than please help adding them to {{I18n/Institution}}. --Jarekt (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

IP block exemptions flag request

Please, give me IP block exemptions flag because I run Tor node. I already have this flag in ruWikipedia and ruWikiquote. Caesarion (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Done IP block exempt autopatroller--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you wish to use Tor for editing on Wikipedia/Commons? Why don't recommend that you know, and editing under your own IP address should be possible...

(@Steinsplitter, please don't give out permissions too easily, such as IP block exempts - above - and Upload Wizard Campaign editors) Trijnstel_talk 12:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(verry sorry, Thanks for the tip )--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've fixed it... not User:Steinbach (who was named Caesarion earlier) requested this, but User:Caesarion. Trijnstel_talk 18:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Nikolay Penchev 17.jpg

A file by this name, uploaded by Vikito930, was recently deleted as a copyright violation. Vikito930 just returned from a one-week block for recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings, and their first action was to upload a photo under the same name. This wouldn't happen to be one of the previously deleted files, would it? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a creation of a previous Penchev image, but a new copyvio from Facebook. Deleted and blocked for a month. Эlcobbola _talk 20:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, nice detective work. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

what happened to the tools on the Toolserver?

Any idea why the toolserver is no longer accessible since a number of days? A lot of tools which are really needed for admin-work (and other useful tools) are not accessible, for example: checking user contributions on other projects (http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=username&blocks=true), checking user's accounts on other projects (http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/username), etc. All I get, is an error message "browser could not connect to toolserver.org". --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Toolserver is eventually being replaced by Tool Labs. Expect it to be shaky until its death. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Swedish page for "Contact us"

Hi, I've made a Swedish translation of Commons:Contact us called Commons:Kontakta oss and now I need someone to change the link in the navigation bar for the Swedish interface which is currently linking to the English page. // WikiPhoenix ^[Talk] 12:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done –⁠moogsi (blah) 07:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Tagline on main pages

Please read my request for edition at MediaWiki talk:MainPages.js. (PierreSelim recommended me to inform you here) Thank in advance — Ltrl G, 13:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done by odder –⁠moogsi (blah) 07:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion

File:Flag of Flanders.svg

All revisions except 06:47, 5 May 2013 and 13:18, 4 May 2013 (but the first is a revert) are traced from this file. The webpage clearly mentions the original author of this flag, Mark Sensen, who created it on 18 May 1996. It clearly deviated from the official sources (e.g. the eyes and tongue), so it is safe to say that it is his own creation. The disclaimers of FOTW states that "the copyright is owned by the contributor". FOTW allows reuse of the images, but demands that "you do not alter in any way the images or the content of the text" and that "you limit your use to a maximum of 5% of the images or content of the website". Oh, and commercial offline reuse isn't allowed either. This license is not compatible with Creative Commons or any other license used here, and the vectorisation also broke these rules. Most of the revisions of this file should probably be deleted. The concerns about colour, though I vehemently disagree with Wester and question his lack of sources, can always be solved by altering my version, which isn't based on Mark Sensens design. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wat a nonsense request. The real flag, seen in the streets bears more resemblance to the original flag than the flag drawn by Adelbrecht/Tom Lemmens. It is also not done to delete a complete revision log simply because Tom Lemmens is afraid someone could turn it back.--178.118.106.71 11:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC) (Wester)

Suspicious anonymous user who started editing just now (sockpuppet, admins?), what are these streets you speak of? In addition to the official source and the random flag I put on the file page, here: [31] [32] [33]. Of course, even the most basic google search is wasted here, because you don't bring any sources or actual arguments. You, the newly unregistered user, just can ignore all the legal mumbo jumbo and say it's not done, on what experience exactly? The original flag is quite simply wrong, and as it turns out, a copyright violation. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

By extension, these derirative files. The latest version should be my replacement, the older revisions should also get a revision delete:

And this file should probably be deleted and mass-replaced with the vector version. It was a redundant file in any case, I guess:

File:Flag of flanders.jpg

Lemmens, Tom (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The original image was from an open clipcard. That's no copyright violation. Besides, the image was modified several times and was completely redrawn after making a svg-version of it.

An e-mail with a question to the exact specifications is sent to the Flemish government. I suggest to wait what they say. At least there is no need to delete the revision log.--__ wɘster 13:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The image on Open Clipart mentions that it was taken from Sodipodi (which doesn't seem to exist anymore). Sodipodi seems to have been around in the early 2000s, and the FOTW file is from the 90s. The FOTW has details unique to only it and the Sodipodi file. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Even so. The image on FOTW is a low quality gif-file. It was completely redrawn into a svg-file and so it's not copyright violation.

BTW: Open Clipart mentions that the author was Cedric de Launois.--__ wɘster 14:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It was likely largely autotraced, as I get a similar result when I do it myself. Only the claws are different, meaning that he probably adjusted those. This would fit with his original comment I found. We shouldn't really go too lightly over these things, they're not trivial, I've had trouble with it before. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete request

plase remove this image File:Włodi.jpg, no proper description and permission, propobly owned by EMI Music Poland DingirXul (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done deleted - Commons:DG#Copyright_violation--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ruddigore

With the exception of the Amédée Forestier image, File:Amédée Forestier - Illustrated London News - Gilbert and Sullivan - Ruddygore (Ruddigore).jpg, (which should not be deleted) the illustrations in this category are by W. Russell Flint, a British artist who died in 1969, and is thus still in copyright in his home country.

They may, however, be put on En-Wikisource, I think, as Wikisource allows PD-1923-US-abroad. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done User:Commons fair use upload bot will transfer them to English wikisource –⁠moogsi (blah) 14:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted images in Commons

Virtually everything that user Rizwantdf1 has uploaded, like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ism_e_Mohammad.jpg for example, is taken from copyrighted website http://www.sultanulfaqr.com/ 94.64.213.156 19:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Marked as copyvio to speedy deletion. Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 14:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For sysops: Sorry, I had not realized it was in the AN. Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a candidate for a nuke, --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 22:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done

mass deletion, please

Special:Contributions/Segel_peter add screenshots again and again after deletion.--Motopark (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Files deleted. User blocked. --A.Savin 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989

Could some please have a look at COM:AN/P#File:FIFA Logo(2010).svg and protect the file in its original version? Fry1989 keeps hounding me in this case, but currently I am really stressed in RL and my nerves are all on edge. Maybe an interaction ban or so? --Leyo 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC) PS. I won't be able to be online most of the time tomorrow and the day after.

Protected by Bidgee, though probably in the wrong version. Trijnstel_talk 10:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg

This file has been nominated for deletion 4 times, and kept each time. The last closure was one month ago. Today User:M0tty deleted it speedily on the grounds of the deletion request (again, which was closed as keep, though apparently the deletion message never got removed). I tried to restore it but got an error Error undeleting file: Could not create directory "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/3/33". -mattbuck (Talk) 12:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what that error means, but the file looks like restored. I removed the deletion template of it. Trijnstel_talk 12:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg result =

Keep--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Servers playing up

I'm getting the same error message and a couple of other ones trying to delete stuff.--KTo288 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

status.wikimedia.org: API - Service disruption--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else have problem with opening user pages in Firefox?

moved to Commons:Village Pump#Anyone else have problem with opening user pages in Firefox?

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Aztec Empire (orthographic projection)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enjoy your time here on Commons, and Assume good faith. :-)--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if some Administrator can do something about this vandalism. On 10 January 2010, the user Keepscases upload this map (Aztec Empire (orthographic projection)) using a lot of references I suppose as everybody can find in internet [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] as maximum extension territoy of the aztec empire [41] but the user Sémhur "updated" this image with his own version of the aztec empire using only the "provinces tributary of the triple alliance" without a previous consensus on discussion page [42], map of the user Yavidaxiu, so I reverted to the original map and I told to the user to upload another image with his own version but now we have a R3R war, unfortunately the user El Comandante has also joined to this vandalism, so please I hope some Administrator can do something there. Thank you. --Giggette (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to start a talk about this picture, but apparently Giggette already done it. But only with her point of view.

There is an edit war on this file. We need help. You can find informations about this on File talk:Aztec Empire (orthographic projection).svg. Giggette made 7 reverts, El Commandante 5, and me 2.

I explain now my point of view: the file was created by user Keepscases (blocked for sockpuppetry of Heraldicos, himself blocked fo copyvios & issues with disruptive behaviour). As he didn't mentioned any source, El Commandante ask me to made another version (I am working for the French Graphic Lab), sourced, in january 2010, and I uploaded it in february 2010. This version was accepted during 3 years, apparently without any problem. On april 2013, Giggette revert the version to the first one, with no discussion and no source. Since this moment, she still provides no source (she just gives pictures found on internet, with no indication from where they come: who made it? In which book?). Now, she started a section here without notifying El Commandante and me, and begin to insult us (since when using a source is a vandalism?).

Sémhur (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Three years of vandalism and unreported in COMMONS. On 11 February 2010, Sémhur replaced the original map with no discussion using the File:Provincias tributarias de la Triple Alianza (s. XVI).svg (the provinces when the empire started) by user Yavidaxiu, meanwhile the empire aztec is mostly shown with its maximum territorial extension, showing the principal conquests from the reign of Itzcoatl as we can see it in several maps on internet [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], please do something. Thank you. --Giggette (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Giggette just wants to impose her undocumented POV, but she doesn't know anything about Mesoamerica. The Aztec empire didn't begin in the XVIth century, as she pretends saying that Yavidaxiu's map shows the provinces when the empire started, and «Atzcapotzalco» (sic) didn't join the empire at his end, as she pretended there. Her answer there shows that she doesn't know the very famous Barlow and Berdan's maps of the Aztec empire in 1519, and that she doesn't want to know it! I can't understand why and how someone can try, like Giggette, to impose his undocumented POV without knowing anything about what he's trying to talk... El Comandante

Hasta ∞ 22:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Now are you insulting me?. --Giggette (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, just checking facts : you're trying to impose a POV undocumented (your « sources » are just a bunch of images randomly picked on blogs and based on fanciful or obsolete works) and ignoring basic informations about what you're talking about. Anyone who read a little about Aztec empire in the last 15 years know the Berdan's map. El Comandante

Hasta ∞ 11:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your "Berdan's map" is unverifiable so then POV undocumented, where's the link?. --Giggette (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This map (also published there and there and explained in both previous pages) is «unverifiable»? Are you serious? El Comandante

Hasta ∞ 08:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well your three maps 1, 2, 3 were modified by Berdan for describing the Aztec Imperial Strategies of the Aztec Empire, areas listed in the Codex Mendoza tribute roll, made regularly-scheduled tribute payments to the imperial capitals in the Valley of Mexico. Unfortunately these threes maps are completely different to this map File:Provincias tributarias de la Triple Alianza (s. XVI).svg or this. Have any other reference? Your defense is still unverifiable and undocumented. --Giggette (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely different? LOL. Much less than the completely undocumented version you want to restore! Why? Because, as I explained it to you before, recent works show there wasn't any Aztec territory (i.e. tributary or "client" state, in the new and more accurate typology) between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco, at the opposite of what pretended old and obsolete maps like the one you want to impose. Your POV-pushing is disinformation. And you're completely dishonest when you're asking for another source : you know very well that Yavidaxiu's map is based on the Atlas del México prehispánico published by the reference review Arqueologia Mexicana. El Comandante

Hasta ∞ 12:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is link/page of Atlas del México Prehispánico to prove it?. --Giggette (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize what you wrote? Replacing a non-sourced version with a sourced one is vandalism... Do you have the same behavior in the articles? In that case, when you see someone replacing a non-sourced assertion (why not with a refnec) by another with reference, you'll revert him for vandalism? I hope not ! Sémhur (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is COMMONS, COMMONS is not a free encyclopedia, if this image can't be verified with a link/page/image so then it's gonna be targeted as fictional. That's simple. --Giggette (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The map has a source, that you can easily check if you take the trouble to do it, since you live in Mexico. Perhaps in a university library. About verifications, where are your sources? Sémhur (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your map has a source?, so then provide the link to verify.--Giggette (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your ad hominem attacks. This obsession to ask the number of the page does not hide your lack of sources. The source we gave you is a printed book that you can find in your own country if you ask in a library. If you don't want to see it, it's an other problem. Sémhur (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Admit it, you have not even seen the map in that "book", you just modified the original map by keepscases using File:Provincias_tributarias_de_la_Triple_Alianza_(s._XVI).svg by Yavidaxiu without verifying, please provide the page to check it.--Giggette (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The source I used is indicated on the page description: the map made by Yavidaxiu. The source used by Yavidaxiu is mentionned is the page despcription: the Atlas del México Prehispánico. I have no reason to not trust him. If you have doubt about this atlas, please check it. If you find that the source doesn't correspond to the Yavidaxiu's map, tell me and it will be my pleasure to correct it. I always thank those who help me to improve the maps I made. If, instead of reverting without comment, you've started by talking with me by sending, for example, a scan of a more recent book that the one used, showing that the version I made was wrong, we would probably avoid a lot of irritation and loss of time. Sémhur (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Well. Please keep in mind that on Commons there is no reason to have only one image on a somewhat conjectural matter. Please, if you disagree on the substance of the image, upload the separate image under a different name. The original name should almost certainly stay with the image that was originally uploaded there, unless there are "friendly corrections." By definition, if the original uploader is unhappy with the corrections, they are not friendly. It is quite possible that more than two images would be useful if sources are in disagreement. Even if a source is "old and obsolete," it may still be useful to have a visual representation of the claims made by that source, as long as they are labeled as such.

And please knock it off with the mutual personal attacks (e.g. "completely dishonest"). Address the content, not the person. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have been receiving personal attacks from user El Comandante, extremely uncomfortable. --Giggette (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm agree, this dispute has lasted long enough. As the first uploader was active when I uploaded the new version and said nothing against that, we can assume that he wasn't disagreed. Giggette can upload an other file with an other name if she wants. But the problem is not about "old and obsolete" sources, it's about "no source". Each time we ask for his sources, he shirk the question... Sémhur (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone please stop and have a read of Commons:Disputed territories before continuing, however strongly you feel about this map, others have been there and have had the same arguments you're having now with other maps. This is not an encyclopedia and this is not the place to have this discussion. Each of you go and create a map to your own liking, and make the case for why your map should feature in local articles, Commons is here to host them all.--KTo288 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on File:Aztec Empire ME (orthographic projection).svg. Pleas stop edit warring and Assume good faith--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To the commons sysops: Which map do you recomend to use in articles meanwhile this editar war is during? Do you recommend not using any map? I am a rollbacker fom catalan wikipedia and I hope this can be solved. --Lluis tgn (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't recommend. What images to use in Wikipedia articles are solely Wikipedia's problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how this choice was concluded, to let publish in Commons anything, even clearly wrong maps or documents not verifiable by reliable sources, but that's a big problem, when some intensive POV-pusher like Giggette is trying to replace a reliable map by an obsolete one on almost every Wikipedia. It's much more exhausting and difficult to resolve this problem one Wikipedia by one, in different languages, than if it could be corrected directly in Commons. El Comandante

Hasta ∞ 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked yesterday Giggette for an hour. - Pleas stop edit warring and Assume good faith! I think we can close this discussion with a lot o AGF.--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Kolega2357

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi! I think right now we have a problem with this person and their permissions.

Patroller: For example here. The user don't know how to use deletion templates.
Rollback: An example: example. Used to remove a deleted template.

And his new request to License Reviewer... see here. This user is a permissions collector.

I request the action by an administrator for the sake of Commons. Greetings, --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The user dos not know how to use this tools. The user seems to be a permissions collector. I suggest to remov the Rollback and Patroller right. The user is blocked infinite on the serbian Wikipedia.--Steinsplitter (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have to concur - the editor has made two requests for rollback on Wikidata (1 week apart) and apparently quite a few on the Spanish Wikipedia. --Rs chen 7754 22:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

People you what, I was wrong? No one is not fallible. What's all the panic rising? --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm here, I do not agree with anyone. This aggression is arranged against me. --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Kolega2357, please note that here on Commons, {{Delete}} is used for deletion requests; {{Speedydelete}} should be used for speedy deletions. I think we should extend AGF in regard to that, because on many projects {{Delete}} is used for speedy deletion. But now you know :) In relation to the use of rollback, the way in which you used it is not allowed on this project, as per Commons:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback; the edit wasn't vandalism, and it wasn't a clear mistake. Rollback could possibly be revoked, but I would again AGF at the moment, but at the same time remind you to read COM:ROLLBACK and be aware that future misuse would result in it being revoked. russavia (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear case of a permissions collector: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11 and so on. In addition, it seems this is a sockpuppet of a globally locked user. See Velimir Ivanovic and Oliver Nedeljkovic. See also this. Greetings from Belgrade!109.92.21.151 18:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed their file mover right (see the user talk page for more detail) until some issues are resolved. —Mono 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Although it is true that this user is blocked indef on WP:SR, I can see no sock activity on Commons. However, this is an unusual user -- he or she has at least one edit on all but five of the 332 projects and ten or more edits on 65 of them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This user under his previous and locked incarnation used to ask for global rights (and acted less than nice when his requests were denied), so I think that's the reason for the cross-wiki activity. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the user had their filemover rights removed by Mono on April 30 already, and there haven't been any updates to this discussion except for Snowolf's addition above, I'm going to close it, assuming good faith. For now, let's allow Kolega2357 to have their patroller and rollbacker rights, and think of removing them the moment he appears to abuse them. odder (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Need a section unarchived

re: Wikimedia Commons Village Pump/Copyrights
... a section prematurely archived, before response continued the communications thread.

Just visited that forum (not so briefly anymore...) today to make a note that I'd had a hardware problem on the computer for which this 'particular discussion' (link below) was suspended with the plan that I should put up a tutorial or two so could best be advised on clearing copyright hurdles, permissions I needed to get and so forth. (I've already begun making preliminary contacts to some parties who might be involved.)

I had to proceed cautiously for the drive is the Windows boot drive. In the end, after much anxiety, turned out to be a loose power supply quick disconnect plug--the Hard Drive just sporadically disappeared... repeatedly working one instant, gone the next! (Having that happen when Windows is updating data or worse, it's registry would qualify as 'a very bad thing', so apologies for the delay, but I needed to make sure the 'fix' was holding before allowing potentially harmful disk writes. It's been stable now since Saturday, so can now risk using it again.)
In any event, my post was delayed, I was hoping to get that together tonight... Whether Bot or human agency, the section was archived. Here's a Diff link with my last post.
Can someone please restore the section to the /Copyrights page so we can resume the discussion tonight or tomorrow, that hard drive and real life vicissitudes permitting free time to work on it! Many Thanks! // FrankB 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, any admins out there read this yet? I'm composing one of several tutorials to continue the discussion questions raised in the moved section, and in advance and instead of invoking Fair Use under US copyright law, want to upload images here and construct the tutorials there where all is in the right places. If you can reinstate and email me the new section link, that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! // FrankB 23:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags

Picking up the above discussion (Broken location template): Any idea how long it will take until Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags will be updated? There are currently 12.000 files in the cat, of which approx 11.500 are most likely without error. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 08:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Object location}} was edited again after the fix was deployed. 80000 pages transclude the template, so at least another day until they are all done? –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This kind of categories can take a long time to correct themselves, so I would give it a little longer than a few days. Last time someone corrected {{#coordinate}} when files did not clear from the category, after a week or so, I just run python "touch" code. --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a couple of days now and nothing happend, still 10.000 entries. However, the touch.py-Method (take each page and save it, without making any changes) does work. Can someone please trigger the bot? -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My bot will processing on it. @xqt 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done @xqt 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mateusmoreira55

This user uploads the same copyrighted image even after many speedy delitions again and again. Actually his uploads are of different sizes and different names but otherwise are same. I suggest to stop him! -- Ies (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked already 4 minutes ago. --Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass speedy image deletions without due process or rationale

Seventeen PD images, all used in articles, were just mass deleted summarily over just 14 minutes, without tags, warnings, notices, or any rationale of substance. I have asked User talk:Denniss‎ to explain, without comment yet. All of the deleted images had clearly verified non-copyright status. Any review would be appreciated. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

mb 20:58 File:Walter_Matthau_-_1973.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:54 File:Dirk_Blocker_-_1974.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:54 File:Faye_Dunaway_-_1967_-_Bonnie.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:52 File:Woody_Allen_-_Diane_Keaton_-_1972.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)<br.

mb 20:51 File:Woody_Allen_-_Kup.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:49 File:Shirley_MacLaine_-_Yves_Montand_-_Geisha.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:49 File:Tom_Selleck_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:49 File:Robert_Redford_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:48 File:Alan_Alda_-_Mash_-_1972.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:48 File:Loretta_Swit_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:47 File:Uri_Geller_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:47 File:Hal_Linden_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)<br.

mb 20:46 File:David_Janssen_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:46 File:Jane_Olivor_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:46 File:Clint_Eastwood_-_1960s-hat.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:45 File:Richard_Chamberlain-publicity.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

mb 20:44 File:Jack_Lemmon_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

You might take that to Commons:Undeletion requests. --Túrelio (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an undeletion request, but a request for due process. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

These images just had your usual claims - no copyright notice, not renewed, publicity still et al. But most/all of these images just showed the front page and not the back so impossible to verify your claim. One image even had a visible copyright notice. --Denniss (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a list of images that have been deleted or will be - trying to fix all the affected Wiki pages - hope its not in the hundreds. And have these images been added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikiwatcher1? Moxy (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no basis for thinking a copyright notice for a publicity photo would be printed on the back. Quite the opposite: as such notices are in 99.99% of the time printed on the front. Anyone can scan eBay or any site with such images, and you will always see the photo described on the front with any notices. Unilaterally deleting valuable PD images based on totally illogical criteria, should not be allowed.

In fact, copyright laws have made this issue clear, with legal scholars having stated that publicity photos are "traditionally not copyrighted." In any case, the very first image on the list did have the reverse side showing. Can someone try to explain why an "Official Policy" of the Commons, the Precautionary principle, is being totally ignored? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Another deleted image, File:Gene Hackman 1972.JPG , as I review some, also had the full front and back. After it too was deleted without notice or rationale, User:Moxy immediately added a replacement to the article it was used in, as they did with the others. This "reverse-side" image rationale is erroneous. So not only are fully valid PD images being deleted, but there is no DR notice as required. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I was asked on my user talk page to comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought speedy deletion of images as probable copyright violations was intended for cases where we have solid reason to believe the image is copyrighted and that the uploader is not the rights holder. If we merely doubt that the image is in the public domain, but have no particular evidence, it should go through DR. No? - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This user has a long history of uploading images with wrong claims of no copyright, not renewed etc, please see also the link posted by Moxy. And to have at least a minimum verification of the no-notice claim we need to have uncropped images of both front and back. Images without this get deleted without further notice. Then we have cases with claims of no copyright registered or not renewed, uploader does not seem to actually look for a possible registration but resists on the publicity still argument pasted all over the image pages. And the Matthau image has a copyright statement (although no date but sufficient to believe they have registered it later). --Denniss (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't {{PD-US-defective notice}} apply for Matthau? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Support due process, take this to a DR and use a process the community recognizes rather than making it up as you go along. Denniss, if your action is not unambiguously covered by a section in Administrators or Deletion policy, then the request here to follow "due process" seems entirely right, no matter how chequered Wikiwatcher1's history is. If Wikiwatcher1 is persistantly breaking Licensing then it would be better to follow the deletion process as stated, and apply Blocking policy if Wikiwatcher1 is not appropriately changing their behaviour. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Denniss is incorrect on most of his statements. There is not, and never has been, any requirement that an image needs to show the front and back. That would be a complete waste of energy and server space, as copyright notices are rarely put on the back. You are also wrong about my not doing a copyright search when necessary, since I always use it when a search is necessary. Nor do I ever "rest" on the publicity still argument, but only add it as a "See also," with a link to the legal sources for added general information. And you are also wrong that the Matthau image would imply that simply because it was published between 1978 and 1989, that fact is "sufficient to believe" it would have been registered later. The exact opposite is true, as in the U.S. at least, per all the legal experts cited in film still, "Publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted." However, you are correct that I have a long history of uploading images. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As WW1's en.wiki CCI points out, as of Dec '11 we need stronger evidence of PD-ness as affirmed by the Foundation's legal side (thus applicable to all foundation projects). That said - without knowing if WW1 is under any specific blocks or remedies on commons - the lack of due process to give time for WW1 to better demonstrate copyright was not done, and I don't see anything under speedy deletion for commons here that would allow these to have been deleted without the 7 day period. I agree there's reason to question their PD-ness but nothing that would allow speedy deletion. But again, I can't tell if WW1 is under sanctions here on commons or not. --Masem (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what's needed even more is evidence of copyright-ness, since lack of it creates the PD itself. As Copyfraud shows, along with cases like Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., there are way more works that WP won't use due to simple fraud. As the author of the book Copyfraud (2011) explains, "The Bridgeman Art Library is not alone in claiming copyrights in digital reproductions of public domain art. Corbis, founded by Bill Gates, is a digital archive of art and photography . . . with over one hundred million images. . . Corbis's license agreement requires users to 'include a copyright notice and credit adjacent to each Image. . . " And, "seemingly undeterred by its loss in court, the Bridgeman Art Library continues to assert copyright in reproductions of the Mona Lisa and other public domain works."

A large percentage of images I uploaded years ago which were later deleted, were because User:We Hope saw the image on Corbis's web site, (example) where the web page itself had a notice. BTW, Corbis and Bettman have only filed actual registrations on a few thousand images, all newer ones, out of their claimed ownership of over a hundred million. In doing any further PD policy work, it wouldn't hurt to contact Mazzone for input. There's no reason that WP needs to submit to "overreaching," which he states "interferes with legitimate uses and reproduction of a wide variety of works, imposes enormous social and economic costs, and ultimately undermines creative endeavors." And FWIW, I'm willing to help on any research. I've had a few years of law school, took the copyright course at Boalt, and even consulted with the copyright attorney for Google when they were starting out, among other things. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for speedy deletion here. Regular DR would be sufficient. I think the images should be undeleted and regular DR should be applied if still necessary. --Jarekt (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If you follow this discussion you may also be interested in Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Open and transparent bot operation

I suggest that bot operation should be open and transparent, in so far as possible. I suggest when one sees a bot make a series of mystifying actions, the edit summary for an explanation, or for a link to a page where an explanation can be found.

Maybe there is a good reason why certain images don't belong in one category, and should really belong in another category? Fine. But a good faith contributor who made an honest mistake, they deserve an edit summary that is informative they can see why some other human being thought it was a mistake.

Here is a case in point. Yesterday I created Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed, and populated it with some new images I uploaded, as well as moving some existing images that I thought fit from the overpopulated Category:Union Station (Toronto). Today I find that someone I have no idea who directed SieBot to usurp all those images and put them in a narrower category -- Category:Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto). Again, I have no idea why the mystery usurper directed the bot to usurp those images.

What I do know is that some of the usurped images don't belong in the narrower category, and neither do about two dozen related images I will be uploading, as time permits.

In my opinion mysterious and high-handed category usurpation is an ongoing problem -- particularly when it is standard practice for administrators to delete empty categories on sight, and there is no good way for an administrator to check to see whether a category was recently emptied through vandalism, or through an innocent, but controversial usurpation.

I suggest that bots, like apparently Siebot, that accept direction from a list, or reasonable equivalent, should leave edit summaries that leave an explicit audit trail to the real human being who directed an action. In this case, rahter than edit summaries that said: "(Robot: Moving category Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed to Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto))" is should have left one that said something like: '(Robot: Moving category Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed to Train station platforms at Union Station (Toronto)) -- as per [[Commons:Recategorization lists/Categories that don't comply with XXX..." -- where XXX was a policy, or a link to a discussion with wide participation. At least that way one could learn why someone thought the recategorization was a good idea. Possibly the explanation there would be sufficient to convince interested parties that recategorization was as good idea. And, if the interested party wasn't convinced, they could directly ask the person who directed the recategorization to explain more fully.

In my opinion the WMF projects should not be run so insiders can do whatever they think best, without explanation. Those insiders may be corrrect, are probably correct, at least most of the time. But, since the projects rely on volunteer effort, and new volunteers are arriving all the time, I suggest the purpose of each bot action should be understandable to any interested party prepared to read and follow the links in its edit summaries. Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Geo, I was the one who moved this category. The name was inconsistent with the rest of its category tree, the form of disambiguation was inconsistent with the rest of the subcategories for this station and the capitalization was wrong. This is fairly routine clean-up work on its face, given that the category and its content were otherwise maintained as is. If you had a different intention for this category than was obvious from the content or the name, then you should absolutely raise that as an issue (as you have), and explain why you think the move was problematic and needs to be looked at. Unfortunately none of us always know what is going to be controversial or what is going to be routine, and in those cases the way to move forward is to assume good faith and discuss the issue. No disrepect was intended, and I certainly wasn't trying to make your life difficult.

Nobody here is entitled to do anything without explanation. There is so much category clean-up being undertaken every day that we can't initiate a CFD every time (although if there is some suggestion that something could be controversial, the move should be preceded by a note on a talk page, a CFD discussion, etc.). Images move using SieBot or by way of Cat-a-lot don't come with an edit summary (although for Siebot you can always see who initiated the move by looking at the edit history at COM:CDC). However, in such cases the clean-up of the former category should be accompanied by an edit summary (in this case I haven't even had a chance to address the former category yet as this move only just happened and Siebot did not appear to be functioning when I first added this request).

If you disagree with a move, start a discussion on the category talk page or the mover's talk page, or start a CFD. In all the discussions I have seen, I have never seen anyone not engage you respectfully when discussing a category you created. In this case, I think you may have started a discussion on the category talk page, so I will see what you have to say over there.

Third, I am not sure why you think someone "usurped" something here. That's not what happened. That's the second time this month I have seen you make such an accusation against someone who changed a category name you created to make it consistent, and it isn't an accurate or helpful accusation.

Finally, I agree with you about edit summaries for Siebot. I actually stopped listing reasons when I initiate a move at COM:CDC quite some time ago because it seemed pointless to do so. If there was some way to capture the rationale in an edit summary, or even just the initiator's name, that would be helpful. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I had initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed half an hour prior to initiating this thread.

I still see the bot not leaving useful edit summaries as a serious problem. I have been contributing to the commons since 2005, and had never heard of COM:CDC until this discussion. So i regard it as essential that the bot link to the COM:CDC discussion. I would urge people to not use this bot until it does leave edit summaries that would help a contributor figure out why it had performed its actions. Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

CDC is news to me too. I absolutely agree that the bot should be modified for full accountability. — Scott • talk 10:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)