Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 79

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

Template:GFDL-disclamers and Template:GFDL-disclamers/i18n

Please delete those two unused redirects. Thanks pandakekok9 06:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done used multiple places [1][2] and really no need to delete innocuous redirects. See also m:Don't delete redirects. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:1

Hi! {{1}} is deleted but it is used in a link here File:De schipbrug met zicht op deel van de binnenstad.jpg for example. Perhaps an admin could check the template and find out what is missing in the link and if other stuff needs to be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Fixed the link on the file page. Should have been {{!}} representing a "|".

This template is also deleted but still in use. Perhaps it should be undeleted or maybe just removed from the pages where it is used? --MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This template had been deleted correctly because of being a fake with insulting content. Could be created from scratch, pattern shown @ {{By courtesy of Quatre jours de Dunkerque 2015}}. --Achim (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thank you!  :✓ Created --MGA73 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Giant Honeyeater (photo)

Accompanying photo to Giant Honeyeater (Gymnomyza brunneirostris) is actually of the Yellow-billed Honeyeater (Gymnomyza viridis). The duplication evidently arose after 2014, when the former subspecies (G.v. brunneirostris) was elevated to species level by the IOU. It is therefore necessary to locate & insert a correct image of the Giant Honeyeater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermccart (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do as long as neither page title nor image title is given. --Achim (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sealle

Most seem to be in agreement that we've resolved things to their satisfaction. Let's all go work on other stuff. GMGtalk 00:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Is in my opinion unfit to to be an admin, he blocked another admin and denied them the use of their talk page to discuss the issues, this is in no way condusive to resloving the matter and Sealle has also clear stated Bidgee, you got this link to make sure your file wasn’t used anywhere else. I haven't deleted your contribs and I have nothing to apologize to you for. Thanks for the lesson, if any issues, concerning your activity, arise, please be sure I won't feel like supporting you. Sealle (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)diffdiff added at 13:06 my emphasis. The trigger an image uploaded here by Bidgee that was later used by a newspaper sourced from here that image was tagged a copyright violation by an IP yet every piece of information publicaly available clearly showed this was not the case. Gnangarra 12:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Gnangarra, I don't have time to give answers on all the pages where you start discussions. You can find my reply here. Sealle (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
<ec> The other page is about the block, this is raising the issue that you're unfit to be an admin. my reasonings is the way you handled the matter and made it clear you intend attacking the users contributions in the future regardless of their validity. Gnangarra 12:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

From the time you came and posted not one but two warnings (misuse of the revert/rollback) on my talk page, is when you became involved.

Second no warning for edit warring (on my own talk page might I add) was ever given, which was the "reason you gave" + removing any way I had to request a review. The block was in violation of the Commons:Blocking policy.

Thirdly, there is no where in the Commons:Talk page guidelines state that I cannot remove warning (one that were made in bad faith, after you didn't like what I had said). Sadly block logs cannot be removed and only quick blocks can be made to note that the original block was a bad one. There should be a note placed on my block log noting the block was a bad one (invalid).

I have been have a troll(s) attack me on Wikipedia and have started on Commons, using a photograph that is close to me personally and trolling on my talk page. Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Bidgee, no warning for edit warring (on my own talk page might I add) was ever given or you somehow failed to read it: [3]? Sealle (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That is a civility template with a custom message. Also there is no policy nor guideline regarding users removed templated warnings from their own talk page (again read Commons:Talk page guidelines). I'm done with this project. Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • <ec> why are posting user page images to a third party site, if a warning was given there would be a diff to point to, this just further shows you lack the capacity to be an admin. Bidgee has asked for you to put a note in his block log indicating you made a mistake, I suggest you do just that. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bidgee: Gbawden said "I screwed up on that one", personally I count that as an apology. Now let's deal with that block..

Sealle, the time to grovel is now. You know where this is headed otherwise. That's all I have to say. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What's most disappointing here is that Sealle blocked Bidgee despite being involved. That is definitely an abuse of tools. pandakekok9 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It is also disappointing that Sealle continued to "warn" and rollback Bidgee despite the latter being harassed by an IP sock. Imagine being harassed by someone and an admin doesn't stop it, instead they encourage it (intended or not, but even if it's unintended, Sealle should have thought about that). We need more admins who are mellow, not the other way around. pandakekok9 14:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a typical example of quarrel rising from nothing. Both participants failed to remain mellow. Please listen the song Let it be and calm down, and this applies to everybody, including commentators. At moment here's possibility that everything can be forgiven to both, but if the quarrel continues, then the situation worsens. Taivo (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Administrator Sealle this morning removed all of the files I had published since March last year. You need to know that he can remove all your content from the store at any time without any reason. He did this instantly without prior warnings, as well as without any preliminary discussions. You all need also to know that he can block you if he decides that your objection was offensive, although as he allows himself to indirectly humiliate other users on the discussion pages. In my opinion, What Sealle is doing is unfair, rude and unfounded. He does not respect my/your work and contribution.GMStudio (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
All uploads of GMStudio were today deleted by Sealle as copyright violations. I looked the situation and they were really all copyright violations, Sealle acted correctly. Taivo (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't want to ruin this topic right now providing my evidence (proofs), since I have already spent several days in discussions on the Russian- language Wikimedia page with another participant. I have to talk about the same thing many times, but to no avail, because I see that some administrators absolutely do not understand all the subtleties of copyright. I can prove it. In short, the very fact of mass removal of media content without prior discussion and explanation in a short period of time indicates a disdainful and disrespectful attitude of the administrators to the Wiki participants who make their ContributionGMStudio (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC).
  • As others have pointed out, per COM:TPG archiving is recommended, but it is not mandatory. That makes it a bad block any way you look at it. I don't understand why offense was taken at this comment which just seems to be pointing out that the English Wikipedia links were the only ones that needed restored, at least as far as delinker is concerned. The block wasn't made any better by the fact that the IP was being so disrupting Sealle had to protect the talk page, and I had to scope around in the bushes for a half hour to put together a half decent set of range blocks to put them to bed. @Sealle: I think you need a one second block to annotate in the log that this was out-of-order, and we can look to move on with our lives. Otherwise, we can get a community consensus here that it was a bad block, and one of us can do it for you, which wastes more time and looks worse on everyone all around. GMGtalk 21:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd admit that I was a little blunt (not mellow), however Sealle should know the guidelines and policies for talk pages, blocking and also communicate with words (not templates). Not asking for Sealle to be de-sysop, but recognise the block they made was completely out of order (removing talk page access should only be rarely done) and was a bad one. I don't expect apology but do expect that it be annotate as a bad block.
@Bidgee: Sealle has recognized that their block is unjustified. He reverted his own block notice and hid the block from non-admins (as you can see in your own block log). I assume this is acceptable enough for you? pandakekok9 08:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocking anyone for one hour is silly - what on earth is this meant to achieve? To do this to a deeply respected contributor who's being harassed is appalling. I'm also concerned by Sealle's use of vague standardised templates to attempt to communicate with Bidgee (for instance [4]). It's hard to understand what the grounds for this block was, but it looks like Bidgee was blocked for removing these inappropriate templates. If Sealle felt that Bidgee was being uncivil, they should have engaged them in conversation to attempt to resolve the issue, not spammed them with templates. This is terrible judgement and even worse communication. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to this from en.wiki (changes on my watchlist). I can honestly say, despite witnessing six or seven en.wiki ArbCom desysopping proceedings, I have never seen an admin behave this atrociously: aiding in harassment, abusing rollback, and then blocking the victim is unbelievable. Although all projects are separate, y'all could definitely learn from how en.wiki handled this: en:User talk:Bidgee. In brief summary, I noticed an editor leaving harassing messages to Bidgee on their UTP, called in a request for a page protect, and within 15 minutes: 1. the harasser was blocked, 2. the UTP was protected to prevent further harassment, and 3. the harassment was revdelled from the page. Contrast that against what happened here. Bitterly disappointing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The block was definitely uncalled for, and the total handling of the situation by Sealle was less than optimal, to say the least. I for one keep templating the regular users for isssues like copyvios, missing permissions or some such, but once you've begun a conversation – as happened on the UDR page – any talk page replies concerning the matter should not be templated save for justified block messages. That said, I'm inclined to agree with Alexis that Gbawden's acknowledgment of having "screwed up" equals an apology. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 1) Editors can remove warnings from their talkpage, 2) Gbawden should've apologised to Bidgee and should've also apologised in the restoring edit summary - If I were in Bidgees shoes I would've hit the roof!, 3) This twat really didn't help and I'm surprised Bidgee kept their cool as I sure as hell wouldn't, 4) What was the point of the one hour block? ....
Given editors can remove warnings from their talkpage this block was not only invalid but it was also adding salt to an already open would,
This really is atrocious behaviour especially from a well respected and level-headed admin. Disappointed doesn't even cover the surface. –Davey2010Talk 19:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
So I guess this thread can be closed now? OP agrees that problem is solved, Sealle recognized that their block is a mistake, and Bidgee seems okay about it. pandakekok9 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
+1 Massive respect to Sealle for redacting the block from the log, Everyone makes mistakes including admins.... we're all human and like I said all make mistakes from time to time, I too would be happy for this to be resolved as Sealle has IMHO resolved this amicably. –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This can be closed, Sealle revoked (revdel the block log) the block. Enough has been said and no further action is warranted, time to move on. Bidgee (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Creator:Emil Pap

Hi! Does this template match Category:Emil Pap? If yes can you please undelete? --MGA73 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thank you! I added the creator to the images so it is not unused anymore. --MGA73 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:President Trump Holds a News Conference on the Coronavirus.jpg

Hi! Could someone please review this file? It is protected and is in Flickrreview category. --MGA73 (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be in the public domain? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I reviewed the license as {{PD-USGov}}. 08:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes it should and thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:New PPR.jpeg

This file has more than one Flickr file in upload history. Perhaps an admin can either delete the old versions or move them to a new name so we can have all versions reviewed? --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Old French postcards

Dear Administrator,

You might have noticed that thousands of old French postcards are uploaded on Commons. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Postcards_of_France_by_department https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Postcards_of_villages_in_France https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Postcards_of_France_by_city ...etc...

It is easy that they are very often of the same date range and type: Post-stamp, edition, quality and technology of the picture etc... so I tend to think they should have the same license. I focused on French postcards to describe things as accurately as possible.

Because they are thousands of them, I deduced that uploading similar postcards was not a problem, and this is what I did for some dozen of images, in good faith, checking that the send date, stamp was typically before 1910.

However, the user Patrick Rogel created deletion requests, disagreeing with this opinion.

Here is the discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rc1959#Avertissement_de_suppression_de_fichier_multim%C3%A9dia

I am a bit lost, because due to the very big number of similar situations, I believe I am on the safe side in term of license, in the vast majority of cases (There might possibly be some specific cases). Otherwise, it would mean that thousands of similar French postcards of the 1900s or 1910s, uploaded years ago, should also be deleted.

Of course, I am happy to "do my job of contributors" and check images one after the other. I tried to do that, but to no result yet. But, given the scale of the problem, which impacts so many images from so many contributors, I believe it is safer to escalate the problem to Administrators, give a general rule for these postcards, that would not be discussed.

Many thanks for your help in this painful situation. Kind Regards. Rc1959 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Swapan Purkait.jpg

Dear Admin,

I would like to request you to kindly help me to delete this photograph at the earliest. I confirm this is my own upload. Kindly help with the same. Warm Regards. Spurkait (talk)

 Comment The OTRS-confirmation seems to be from the subject pictured, not the rights holder (but: passport photo). There is no information in the email that would conflict with a speedy deletion. Ciell (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Admin, ::@Ciell: This is my passport photo, and i have given the permission for the same, never realized what i was doing. I would like to request you to kindly delete the photo. Looking forward for your kind help on the same Spurkait (talk)

✓ Done. We have zero control over other websites that may have used the photo as you had licensed it under a license that allows reuse. However, I've deleted it here under our COM:BLP guideline. --Majora (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Taiping2.PNG

Hi. Could someone review this file, please? This map is *disputed for its maritime territorial claim (see w:Nine-dash line). Greenknight dv (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators do not review maps for accuracy. This is a wrong venue. Ruslik (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Ruslik, I disagree with another user removing the inaccuracy warning tag. Removing the tag is not how dispute resolution works, @Tangmingxyz. --Greenknight dv (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Covid19 toilet paper restrictions.jpg

Sadly this is protected and I cannot add the template for deletion. Sadly Australia, unlike the US, has a restrictive copyright when it comes to text per COM:TOO Australia and COM:FOP Australia. It would need permission to be sent to OTRS by the supermarket (whether it is Coles or Woolworths) that they license this under CC-Zero. Bidgee (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally even the UK recognizes that standard fonts don't merit copyright protection. That looks like a standard Microsoft Word font to me so I think it might be ok on those grounds. Whether the entire text as a whole merits copyright protection is also debatable. I can DR it for you if you want to give me the exact wording you want as the rationale though, Bidgee. --Majora (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Not so much the font, sadly. It would be a standard template created by the supermarket chain (which is where the TOO kicks in, even though you and I could create that with ease). DR rationale "Poster template/design (although simple, falls under Australia's restrictive threshold of originality) and the text (wording) is considered copyrightable and freedom of panorama does not give any exemptions for text based work." Bidgee (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done --Majora (talk)
Thanks Majora. Bidgee (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

License review by non-image-reviewers - Should be changed to disallow

Hi, there are some edits like this, the filter is set to warn but if it's not allowed for non image reviewers to review files, IMO it should be disallowed. Current situation : we can check the logs for violations. But it makes more sense to prevent these edits, no more requirement to patrol filter hits(if anybody really patrols the hits). I was notified about this edit here, my bot can easily check all edits but I think it makes more sense to stop these kind of edits. Let's say my bot identifies a problematic edit, what next: It will just ignore review, but the problem still stays I never said I will revert problematic edits in the BRFA it's not an anti-vandal bot. Or if anyone has the time to write a bot based on edit filter hits, you can go ahead with that. Or open a Phabricator ticket. // Eatcha (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes diaallow. If users want to help out they Can add everything but the Review template. Adding links and guiding text is good. But having someone unrightfully review a file is bad. There is no guarantee anyone will notice and we would have a false review. --MGA73 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support. Yes, this should be disallowed. Taivo (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand: In the past I saw a lot of cropped images where the license review tag had been copied correctly by non-reviewers to the cropped version. --Achim (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose This is probably not going to happen. There are reasons why the filter is not already set to disallow and reasons why a license review template would be added by an non-license reviewer. Crops are one of the big ones. Unless the crop tool is modified first to automatically remove the {{LicenseReview}} template this is a non-starter. Second, the abuse filter itself would need to be rewritten to allow parameters as anything after the {{LicenseReview}} triggers it as written. So something like {{LicenseReview| }} would trigger. Obviously those are fine and we wouldn't want to stop someone from adding a template that needs to be added. The second point is fixable if someone wants to take the time to rewrite the template. The first would need a rewrite of the crop tool. --Majora (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Could the filter be set to allow if it was coming from CropTool? A crop of a reviewed image shouldn't be an issue (at least as far as I can think of). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps...I'm not sure if you are familiar with how the abuse filter works Pi.1415926535. There are a limited set of variables that can be used outlined at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. As Special:AbuseFilter/70 is hidden it would be inappropriate to discuss possible ideas in the open but I'd be happy to email you details on what I'm thinking might work. The filter itself is a little bloated to be honest. It uses a lot of conditions on average for what it does. --Majora (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Blacklist filter problems for COVID-19 videos

I have been noticing upload errors for CDC videos, which is especially concerning as these take hours to encode locally, and waiting for YouTube to drop IP blocks can add several days between each possible run, so that processing is being wasted.

Any suggestions as to what to avoid for files with names like "How does COVID-19 spread?.webm"

Raised this many times before, but it's damaging to be unable to run valid batch upload projects with no ability to skip the blacklist filter which is supposed to be designed against vandals, not me. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: why does it fail? The question mark? Maybe try "How COVID-19 spreads.webm", not a big fan of question marks in filenames anyway. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_William_Melbourne_(???)_(3404746241).jpg doesn't go anywhere, you'd have to write https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_William_Melbourne_(%3F%3F%3F)_(3404746241).jpg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The creation ofis not hitting any local title blacklisting that I can see. Blacklisted titles show MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-warning when you try to create them and that file name doesn't show one. Can you tell us exactly what error you are seeing? --Majora (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
File:How does COVID-19 spread?.jpg, it just works. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
No. Due to the URI standard no path on any web server can contain a "?". You could use en:Punycode but you should not. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to reinvestigate if the problem is just that my regex has not filtered "?", that's fixable. It's a bit fiddly as I'm changing code on a headless server and don't want to be plugging in keyboards etc. If I get stuck I'll capture the error log, at the moment all that gets left in my terminal window is the Python error title, rather than whatever the API says. --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Pixels.srinath

The user has not been active since 2013. I came across one of this user's uploads with a copyright watermark (which another editor had cropped off) during a Wikipedia article review. Looking at his uploads, they are all watermarked with the same legend. The watermark matches the user's name so the license and own work claim are probably genuine. However, I also noticed that two files File:Thennangur Temple,Tamil Nadu,India (3).jpg and File:Thennangur Temple,Tamil Nadu,India (2).jpg have been deleted by (the now globally banned) User:INeverCry for exactly this issue of having a watermark. I think probably these two files should be restored. It is incongruous to have these two deleted when all the rest are marked and licensed in exactly the same way. SpinningSpark 18:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Probably just drop a report at COM:UDR, that way no one can say it was an out-of-process undeletion and anyone interested can weigh in. GMGtalk 18:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Before I do that, I really wanted to get a handle on whether I was right about the user's undeleted photos. Is Commons ok with uploading images with watermarks? Does their existence require the copyright owner to make an OTRS declaration? If the answer is yes, then we should be looking at deleting more files, not undeleting these two. SpinningSpark 21:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: COM:WATERMARK, discouraged, not forbidden. Please create an undeletion request, I support it. As for INC, INC just lost it at some point. What they did before that can be trusted though, INC must have overlooked the username and other uploads. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I've opened the UDR. SpinningSpark 11:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Request deleting file version

Request deleting file version edited by User:420peace in File:COVID-19_cases_in_PRC-claimed_territory_by_Prefectures.png. Reason: Vandalism. Thank you. --SCP-2000 16:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Images removed from history. --Majora (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking for some deleted file history...

See Commons:Village pump#Looking for some deleted file history.... Thanks, pandakekok9 09:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Copyright violations

contains 400 images and is steadily rising. No one out there to check and kill the copyvios? --Denniss (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I started to kill some, but help would be appreciated. De728631 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: I see the category is at about a 100 files now, much better. I added a few files to Category:Copyvio confirmed by Alexis Jazz, if that helps. Perhaps I'll add more if this is found useful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting these (cat is now empty). Unfortunately there's always a steady influx into the main copyvio category, but some 100 files are much easier to handle than 4 times that number. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Huge patrol backlog

You can help by assiging user rights at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Autopatrol -- Eatcha (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Flag for video

Hello, could you give me a flag, that I can upload 700 MiB video, please? --Juandev (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, probably no flag needed. --Juandev (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
According to Commons:Maximum file size, no flag is needed. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we having any issues?

I nominated some images for deletion for copyvio and it has been days and none of them were deleted. I never saw anything like this before on Commons. I was wandering around and it seems that it's not only me who's having this kind of problem. Are we having any issues? I know we're all in the middle of a global pandemic and I don't know if it's affecting Commons or if we're short on admins or having any technical issues. Does anyone know what's going on?--SirEdimon (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: All of the above. People probably have other things on their mind due to the Coronavirus. We are short on admins, as we have been for years, nothing new there. I (still) have plans to restructure the deletion process (which might help speed things up), but I kinda need betacommons to stop choking on itself so I can develop in peace, so that's a technical issue, though for the short term it makes no difference. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It's actually not all that bad, at least as far as speedies go. CAT:CV is only sitting at around 80 files, and as long as it stays under 100 we're normally doing pretty okay. Of course, COM:DR has never not been horribly backlogged.
We do need more admins, as every project does. I imagine depending on their occupations and family situations, many people right now have tremendously more or less time to contribute to Wikimedia projects. But I'd be more than happy to look at writing an RfA nomination if anyone can spot some users with solid contribution histories who generally keep their head down and away from drama. Bonus points if they're multi-lingual and volunteer with OTRS. GMGtalk 11:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. Perhaps it's just an impression of mine. Normally, when I nominate an image for deletion for copyvio it's deleted in hours or by the next day. But now, it's taking days and I was wondering if something was wrong. But, I completely understand the situation and I, also, know that people here are volunteers. Did you ever think about creating the role of "eliminator" (as existing in other Wikimedia projects)? I don't know if would work, but it's an idea.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the heaviest current backlog is the DR. I believe that we're generally doing fine, but I admit that some backlogs are heavier than usual. I presume that the coronavirus pandemic should give people more time, but note that we're talking about all the users, not just admins. It means that while admins are likely to have more time to help in the backlogs, all the users (including but not limited to admins) have more time to nominate files for deletion. It means that the pandemic can make backlogs heavier than usual. And about the idea of creating an eliminator group, as a person who has seen how it is, I don't support it. I think it's always good to trust talented and competent users with the admin bit, not a user right that only gives them certain administrative tools. Ahmadtalk 00:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: Yes we considered it - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
From memory, Legal has already put it out that they will not unbundle deletion from the admin toolkit even if a community requests it, and they will not grant the ability to users who have not passed "some RfA like process" I believe was their specific wording. You can't really grant an account the ability to do something without granting them the ability to undo it or modify it. Nothing is ever really deleted. The terminology we use is a hold-over from the early days of the software when you actually could delete something in a way that would make it unrecoverable, but this was removed many years ago. What we actually have is more properly "hiding" (deletion) and "super-hiding" (oversight), that doesn't actually remove anything, but just restricts access to increasingly smaller sets of accounts.
From the perspective of things like libel or copyright violations, this is "effectively deletion" in a "good enough that you can't sue us" kindof way. But it's only "good enough" if access to the material is heavily restricted. Otherwise a place like Commons is effectively a repository of tons of illegal content. So it's kindof a necessary evil. We can't have "real deletion" without any rogue/compromised admin having the ability to do irreparable damage. But we can't have broad access to our "system of hiding" without rendering it legally meaningless, which could expose the Foundation to litigation. GMGtalk 11:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: legal has issues with granting undelete to larger numbers of users, not fully sure about delete, I'd think they could be okay with that. (but the community may not be) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
You may be correct. I believe the discussion I'm referencing was on English Wikipedia, but it was like a year or more ago and I'm not sure where it was. But I thought there was some technical barrier to unbundling delete, undelete and viewdeleted from one another, and not just from the sysop toolkit. GMGtalk 12:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm...as with all things technical, I'm confident @Xaosflux: knows, since they always seem to. GMGtalk 14:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
(Since I was summonded by GreenMeansGo) So a few things: from a technical standpoint, almost all permissions in Special:ListGroupRights could be built in to its own group. There is no technical requirement to have "undelete" to have "delete" and some projects have a group like this, such as the "closers" group on ruwiki (w:ru:Служебная:Права_групп_участников). Setting up this type of configuration is mostly at the whims of the community. The "WMF legal" components are about accessing actual deleted content (either by being able to undelete it, or by being able to view it) - and this requires that all such contributors have a community vetting process similar to the request-for-administrator processes Reference from WMF Legal. Keeping in mind that I'm not very active here on commonswiki, the arguments that the community may only want people to be able to delete things if they can undelete them is not without merit - but it certainly isn't mandatory. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Note, if commons decides to build something like this, you can limit it to whatever use cases are wanted by local policy, if you made a 'closers' type group, any of them could be stopped by any admin blocking them. I suggest if you make such a group you empower your local bureaucrats to both add and remove the group as well. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh that's very interesting. I was not aware that ru had actually implemented something like this. GMGtalk 15:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of name

Hello, I need help from an administrator that could edit this section in Abigor's December 2008 archive. Specifically, I want the line with my full name to be deleted. I already wrote a message to Abigor but he/she seemingly doesn't appear here since 2017, so who knows what he/she is up to.

I wrote that message with an old account back in 2008 when I was 13 and had no idea of copyright. I got a file deleted because of that, and back then, in my innocence and noob-ness, I thought I had to appeal to that with such level of formality that I had to put my own name in my message.

Now, I know it's not too much of a good idea to come here and blow my identity to everybody, but neither is leaving it like that so Google can display it in its search results. -AndSalx95 (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I connected to my old account again so I confirm we're the same person. -AndSalX-WWECR (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody? -AndSalx95 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done text removed. That particular revision can be hidden but it is useless because the exact text can be found on later revisions. It might be better to just ignore it. Whatever goes to Internet may never be deleted completely. Sorry to bear the bad news, but your name may always be somewhere in the Internet (at least dark web). 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Yes, I acknowledge that once something is on the Internet, it is here forever. At least this will prevent Google from displaying the name so easily. -AndSalx95 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request by subject in the photo

Hi there. I am a sysop on fawiki. I received an email today from one of our users (happy to forward it) in which he/she indicated that one of the subjects in this photo wants this photo deleted because it was taken without permission. This photo is not taken in a public place, so permission from subjects would be required. The file name (which is in Persian) also confirms that this is taken at a meeting in the subject's home. I'm unsure of the process for situations like this, so instead of putting a speedy deletion request on it, I thought I should ask here. User:4nn1l2 and User:Ebrahim are both Commons sysop and knows Persian, so they can help vet the request if necessary. Please ping me in your responses here. Huji (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Huji: ✓ Done a request by a highly trusted user does not need further verification. If anyone wishes it restored, please use COM:UDR. -Green Giant (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Please block this joker ASAP!!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikipedienuser

..they are already blocked on en.wp for similar pictures, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This was ✓ dealt with. --Majora (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by LordLiberty

Hello. LordLiberty has uploaded a large number of photos of newspapers and propaganda posters from World War II. He listed them all as own work and used a "self" CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. This is obviously incorrect, but I'd rather keep as many of the uploads as we can.

I admit that I am out of my depth about how to handle newspapers. They're more than 70 years old and the authors are not listed, so I thought that {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply, but before I go any further, I want to make sure.

If someone could please take a look at Special:ListFiles/LordLiberty and see what we can do, I would greatly appreciate it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: it might be better to ask at the help desk. -Green Giant (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please remove template editor

I haven't used this right for a long time, primary reason was to create edit notices. I don't plan to create anymore notices in the near future. // Eatcha (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done GMGtalk 14:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hide full name in file comment history

Hello there,

When I started to contribute on Commons, I stupidly used my full name to author files. Since then, I have been contributing with a nickname for privacy reasons. However, there is one file remaining displaying my full name as the author in the comment of the history section of this particular file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hokkaid%C5%8D-Enbetsu-Torii.jpg).

I know that once something is out on Internet, it is never completely deleted, but would it be possible for an administrator to delete, or hide, my full name? It would prevent easy match up through search engine at least.

Many thanks.

Rfb0 (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Rfb0,
Please change a pixel of image so that the system allows you to re-upload a new version of the image (in other words, the system does not allow you to overwrite the image with an identical version). Then I will take care of the rest of issue by deleting the original upload. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Sincere apologies User:4nn1|2, I had this open in a separate tab, got distracted, changed visibility of some edits, came back to this section and realised you were dealing with it. I’ll leave it to you. -Green Giant (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2 and Green Giant: I uploaded a new version of the file with a very simple lossless change (it doesn't require changing pixels, I just appended the metadata with a JPEG comment). Please revdel the first version. Thanks, pandakekok9 13:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done GMGtalk 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Rfb0: You may wish to contact one of our Commons:Oversighters, who can hide the information further from even administrators. GMGtalk 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Restore-a-lot is now available as an admin-gadget

Restore-a-lot is now available as a gadget, thanks to Zhuyifei1999.

Pinging our top undeleters according to Admin Stats:

Thank you Zhuyifei1999 - this is much needed. Thank you @Alexis Jazz: for the info and the help page. -Green Giant (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you from me as well. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the hard work on this. I know you two have been plugging at it for quite a while trying to get this sorted out. GMGtalk 16:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. This looks like one handy tool that had so far been missing in the kit. De728631 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this script not work as intended? I just tried to undelete a few images with it, but after what was presented as a successful run of the script, the files were still deleted. It's a shame that Zhuyifei1999 is now gone. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It does work now. Alexis Jazz offered me some help at meta:User talk:De728631, and I did a test run with one file, then two files which was then undeleting the files alright. De728631 (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Dtomanek.jpg

Would an admin mind taking a look at this file? It seems to be a good faith attempt by the uploader to resolve the {{Nsd}} issue associated with the original upload, but basically seems to now have created a COM:OVERWRITE issue. Based upon discussions involving the uploader over on English Wikipedia (he is trying to create an article about himself), he is claiming to be the person shown in both photos; so, there may even be some permissions issues with this latest version since it also appears to have been taken by someone else.

Anyway, I thought about adding {{Dont overwrite}} to the uploader’s user talk, and {{Split}} to the file, but there’s no information on the en:provenance of the updated version; so, the updated version might actually be OK depending on where it came from which means that just revision deleting the old version (instead of just reverting back to it), and updating the description/licensing accordingly might be an option. Because of that possibility, I thought it would be best to ask for admin help here first. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: you were correct to tag it as needing permission from the photographer. It appears a request to split the file has been added by Jonteemil but I think we need to resolve the permission for either revision before that is done. Cheers. --Green Giant (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Green Giant. I saw that a "Split" template was added to the file. If that helps sort things out, then fine; however, there's no information provided about the new file and nobody has notified the uploader of the OVERWRITE problem. So, any splitting would seem to create another file which might need OTRS verification. I noticed from the uploader's contribution history that he was having problems with the abuse filter; I'm not sure whether that's connected to this file, but maybe that's why he overwrote the existing file instead of uploading a new file? Either way I don't think he’s trying to sneak copyvios onto Commons; he just probably is unfamiliar with COM:L and other things about Commons. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I don’t think there is any malicious intent on his part. However, I think we should work towards getting permission for either image and then perhaps delete the unneeded one. Ideally we should have permission for both but one is better than nothing. -Green Giant (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an admin to check this

Good day.

I want to ask for an admin to look at this. --> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_Special_Warfare_Group Ominae (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Asked both User:Ominae and User:廣九直通車 to discuss the proposed rename at Category talk:Naval Special Warfare Group#Proposed rename. --Green Giant (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Lock File:Downloadfile.png from creation

File:Downloadfile.png is a common filename and has only been used for uploading copyvios. Can it be locked from creation/upload? Thanks William Graham (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Josve05a semi-protected it indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Mystery uploads

Not sure if this is the right place, but this user has made some very strange uploads and is placing them in completely incorrect categories. Maybe someone else can tell what is going on? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 05:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears as if the uploader is posting QR links to his email et al. Will delete as advertising Gbawden (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

category:Maisprach

Hi there,

I am not sure whether I am at the right place here, but...:

in the Wikimedia Commons, category:Maisprach I find a picture which does not belong there: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_(305749672).jpg> The description says it was taken "near Gstaad", and the trees do not look like being in Maisprach as well.

Thank you for re-locating this picture to Gstaad.

Stay healthy! Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac-christian (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 March 2020‎ (UTC)

Fixed [5] 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, I seem to have done a mistake,
while doing patrol on the french wiki I had a chat with User:Davidpresse1979 who acknowledged all the pictures he added to commons were copyvio ("les photos appartiennent à Swiss Comedy Productions"[6] tr:"pictures belong to Swiss Comedy Productions"). I created a Deletion requests instead of asking for speedy deletion which seems to be the proper way of procedure. I'd be grateful if an admin could delete those pictures. Best, --ManuRoquette (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done — Racconish 💬 15:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Merci !--ManuRoquette (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish vote templates

Can you replace Turkish translation of Template:Vote delete with "Silinsin"? And can you add Turkish translation of Template:Vote keep as "Kalsın"? Thanks. --ToprakM ✉ 23:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Turkish added to both; there was no Turkish words to be replaced. Next time, please use {{Edit request}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mass category delete

Please all delete as C3, no longer needed, all empty.

Extended content
  1. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 3398273
  2. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 3410229
  3. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 3680518
  4. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 3833205
  5. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 4343473
  6. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 4404491
  7. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 4441027
  8. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 4452917
  9. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 5193213
  10. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 5266405
  11. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 5394651
  12. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 5631361
  13. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 6009891
  14. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 6034679
  15. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 6094301
  16. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 6210005
  17. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 636556
  18. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7031618
  19. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7148224
  20. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7359051
  21. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7376155
  22. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7394137
  23. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7891002
  24. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7954116
  25. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 7988119
  26. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8074319
  27. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8167147
  28. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8294975
  29. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8379016
  30. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8382800
  31. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8408380
  32. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8438115
  33. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8496151
  34. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8499693
  35. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8518195
  36. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8566220
  37. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8568106
  38. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8570085
  39. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8576827
  40. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8587650
  41. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8602291
  42. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8602547
  43. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8619202
  44. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8622399
  45. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8626108
  46. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8626927
  47. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8643902
  48. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8656768
  49. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8670826
  50. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8688393
  51. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8699914
  52. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8703483
  53. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8733766
  54. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8734069
  55. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8742146
  56. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8758709
  57. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8776086
  58. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8781303
  59. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8786555
  60. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8870666
  61. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8872605
  62. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8889576
  63. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8898556
  64. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8908916
  65. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8910840
  66. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8931622
  67. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8951939
  68. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8961444
  69. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8965276
  70. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8967881
  71. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8968190
  72. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8981216
  73. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 8997271
  74. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9015916
  75. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9029802
  76. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9032793
  77. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9042176
  78. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9069122
  79. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9094501
  80. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9116974
  81. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9178621
  82. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9180287
  83. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9185730
  84. Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 9186176

Thanks.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Need human help : Self-Diagnosis failed - UserRightsBot

Missing start tag for AutoWikiBrowser access , but unable to self fix. You can fix this error by adding the following text at appropriate loction on COM:RFR <!-- AutoWikiBrowser access candidates start --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserRightsBot (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Eatcha (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete and redirect low quality reuploaded file

File:Sindbis virus.jpg is a low quality reupload of File:EMD-2374sindbid.jpg. Can it be deleted and redirected? Thanks. William Graham (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, William Graham. You can use the {{Duplicate}} template to request such deletions, so long as the subject image is exactly the same or scaled down to the target image. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I was struggling to remember what the template was. William Graham (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls vs. Matthew T Rader

I think we need attention from some admin(s) besides myself at Commons:Help desk#User account with copyright issues. Most of their pictures are sourced from their web page that asserts copyright notice while they're posted as creative commons here. As far as I can tell User:Graywalls has some sort of grievance against User:Matthew T Rader, and is searching for technicalities to object to the latter's, in my opinion, excellent contributions to Commons. Matthew has now proven beyond a doubt that the photos in question are his -- his professional website now explicitly states that the Commons account that has been uploading his work is his account, and still Graywalls won't back down and (among other things) wants him to change copyright notices on his own website, which is frankly none of Commons' business, or go through the OTRS process, which is a complete waste of time when there is no question about the ownership of copyright or the license he is offering. Graywalls is even complaining about Matthew giving us higher-resolution photos than are on his own site, because he says this invalidates the claim of his own site as a source.

It is clear that Graywalls is not willing to hear this from me, and that I have become an involved party (and, quite frankly, angry at Graywalls), so someone else needs to take this on. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting annoyingly close to a behavior called "hounding" on the English Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, it is a conflict imported from there. The attacked photographer is currently asking me to mediate, probably because of my involvement at en:WP:ANI#Graywalls_reported_by_Matthew_T_Rader (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:CommonsDelinker

Hello!

I've left a few requests for univeral replace on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands that hasn't been reviewed for few days. Can some admin please either add them to User:CommonsDelinker/commands or add them to manual replacement if they don't match the criteria for universal replacement. Thanks.Jonteemil (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Please.Jonteemil (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/05/Category:International borders is ready to close, requires CommonsDelinker

Hello. I am reviewing extremely old category for deletion requests and seeing which ones can be closed.

A consensus has been achieved at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/05/Category:International borders to rename categories of national borders that use ndash to use hyphen instead, while retaining redirects. The affected categories can be found here. This query may need to be run again to capture any new categories created since 2017.

Because this will require the assistance of CommonsDelinker, I am requesting that an admin confirm that consensus was achieved, close that request, and give CommonsDelinker its marching orders.

Many thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I never noticed that use of CommonsDelinker, ~riley, only for file renamings across projects. Anyway, I feel that Cat-a-lot aided moves and renames are a better idea, since there's no lag in the process. Bad idea? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It is quite popular and all major category moves nowadays go through it, or a similiar bot. Moving by script is the worst idea to be quite honest - it floods recentchanges, watchlists. If we are comparing moving 500+ pages in one minute (which Cat-a-lot does), which is bad for the server, versus staggering the edits over 10 minutes, I think lag time is better. ~riley (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Cat-A-Lot also can't move subcategories, and sometimes there are a lot of those. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Cat-a-Lot can. You just have to mark them like you mark files. There is even the possibility to mark all subcats with one click in the cat-a-lot form … — Speravir – 02:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Speravir: Oh shoot, it seems obvious that that had to be there somewhere, in retrospect. It turns out there is an option in the Preferences you have to enable (it must default to disabled?). Thanks! – BMacZero (🗩) 02:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Oops. — Speravir – 02:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done CfD closed, CommonsDelinker instructed[7] using quarry:query/43618. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mismtached files/descriptions...

RESOLVED:

Will manage from the enWS side  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

A recent batch of uploads seems to have File: pages that are mis-aligned with the intended uploads. ( The thought is that an upload script malfunctioned.)

I've attempted to identify what should have happened here : s:Wikisource:WikiProject_NLS/Scrambled but would appreciate someone more qualified re-examining my attempts, as feel I may have overlooked something.

It doesn't look that complicated for someone technically adept ( I am not), to carefully re-align things. However as it may require file-moves without redirect creation, and the movement of page content en-masse, I felt a request here was more appropriate than individually tagging the files concerned, as the issue may be of systemic nature for the batch concerned.

And BTW, I have reconsidered my 2019 decision about an extended absence. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment administrators with rights here and enWS will manage this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons:License review/Requests

There are two requests at Commons:License review/Requests with no participation by either LR or admin. This is for your attention. Regards. T CellsTalk 15:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done; both granted by A.Savin and T Cells. Ahmadtalk 22:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ahmadtalk 03:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mersey Ferries

Was renamed to Category:Mersey Ferry. According File:Mersey Ferries Logo.jpg and en:Category:Mersey Ferries not correct. I tried to revert the action, but that did not work. What went wrong? --Stunteltje (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Merged Category:Mersey Ferry into Category:Mersey Ferries. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 06:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong deletion nomination.

HI there. I'm very sorry, but I nominated the wrong file for deletion by mistake. I wanted to ask for an expedited comment for keeping the file on Commons:Deletion requests/File:OECD member states map.svg, as I meant to nominate another file which I later did on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mapa De Estados Miembros Del OCDE - 2018.svg.png. Thank you! --Ratherous (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Closed by Pandakekuk. Taivo (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Source: Google" and Abuse Filter 154

Abuse Filter 154 is tasked with detecting possible copyright violations. Checking some random hits, it appears to be effective. However, if one types "Google" instead of "https://google.com", their edit won't hit the filter. I think we should change the filter so that such edits as explained above will hit. I can do it, but I'm not sure if it's the best way to do it. There is a small chance that a user with less than 40 edits locally will use one of the words in the filter (e.g. "Google" or "Amazon") in the description part (which is still part of the wikitext, and will therefore hit the filter). I think a better approach can be removing the https (link) part, while limiting the filter to the input of the |source= parameter. Ahmadtalk 21:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth throwing a @Steinsplitter: in as the last editor of the filter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. It may cause a very few false/positives. If there is no oppose (for a few days?) then we can change it? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What if they say Google Books? There is a lot of PD books there. Ankry (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I support this, Just wondering is it possible we can add "Google Images" aswell as as can be seen here "Google Images" is occassionally used too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry, Davey2010, and Yann: Thanks for the feedback. Regarding Google Books: there is already a whitelist included in the filter (the part where things like "pd-old" are excluded). Google Books can be added to that code to solve the problem.
Regarding Google Images: anything including the word "Google",(e.g. "Google Images") will hit the filter, unless it's been added to the whitelist (as I explained above), so there should be no problem. Ahmadtalk 22:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ahmad, AH right my apologies - I only have a very basic understanding of edit filters so didn't realise Google alone would work, Learn something new everyday! :), Thanks for your informative reply much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't mention it ;-) Ahmadtalk 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Google Books is an acceptable source. That should be allowed. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The filter should keep the http requirement, remove blog and soup, add pd-* to catch all from Category:PD-ineligible license tags, reduce the edit count check to 20 and be changed to disallow, there's no false positives and users ignore the warning and upload anyway. A separate filter should be setup for non-URL words with a warning.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think it needs more discussion (because it's going to disallow edits, which needs to be accurate, especially when dealing with files). Ahmadtalk 02:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The upload File:Gettyimages-103194146-2048x2048.jpg did not trigger any filters.--BevinKacon (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. It should be fixed now. The filter could already capture everything from "getty", but not "gettyimages". Ahmadtalk 13:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden

I'm afraid that this CRT subpage is facing-to-facing an edit war, that looks like about the validity of {{FoP-Sweden}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Protected for 3 months, access to only template editors and administrators. @LPfi and Mardus: Hello guys, please discuss the changes on the talk page first. #NoToEditWar please. I hope you understand. Thank you! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don’t know if it is relevant or not but to me it did not look like an edit war but like the two users improved the text and sometimes changed what the other user wrote. So don’t put them in the black book :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to say the same: in my opinion both users edited constructively. Taivo (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
That is also my impression of the edits. --LPfi (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed tag

Is there any way to have an admin. reviewing my uploads with a "reviewed tag". I would like to have security that are safe pictures (screenshoots from YT e.g.) and acceptable for Commons and bots doesn't work always in this aspect. Thanks --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Eozhik's uploads

These need looking into; several seem to be screenshots of copyrighted material passed off as own work. Sandstein (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sandstein: what means "passed off as own work"? People asked me to give examples that the term we discuss is used. I did this with the references to the original articles. 188.32.174.119 06:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The articles are copyrighted. They are not your own work. You may therefore not upload images of the articles on Commons, which is only for freely licensed works. Sandstein (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah! Can anybody delete this? And if so, then how should I give examples of the usage of the term that we discuss? 188.32.174.119 09:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sandstein: should I delete these images myself, or there is a special procedure? 188.32.174.119 09:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
You can put {{SD|G7}} on the page and they will be deleted. Sandstein (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sandstein, but if I do this the system writes that this page will be deleted at all... I think this is not good because we are discussing important things there, and even when we'll come to a decision I would like this page to be preserved. 188.32.174.119 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Post the G7 tags on the image pages themselves, not on the en.wiki AfD page. It won't delete the discussion, just the images. MarkH21 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21 what is called here "image pages"? 188.32.174.119 04:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The Commons pages like Hernandes-Trigos.png. Tag that one and the others that you created here as well. MarkH21 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I did this, thanks. Eozhik (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

File revision delete

Hi, Could an admin delete all 2020 revisions at File:BMW.svg as there was a huge edit war and it's meant previous years have all now been hidden unnecessarily, Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 11:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Nowhere in the deletion policy is "removing evidence of an edit war". The revisions are still there, and still available by clicking "older 10" or the link to see "20" revisions. Storkk (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
No but readers shouldn't have to go that far back just because a few editors are unable to control themselves, I see no reason why revisions such as these should stay..... –Davey2010Talk 13:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Because deleting things outside of the Deletion Policy is kind of the definition of violating the Deletion Policy. Storkk (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't have to stick to every single rule here you know, My request was to purely help readers who may want to see what's changed but not want to go that far back, Why help when you can just be stubborn and stick to policies word for word!, Shame. –Davey2010Talk 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
If anyone else could or would do this that'd be very much appreciated :). Stay safe everyone, Thanks, Regards. –Davey2010Talk 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Previous file uploads deletion

Hi there! Is it possible to delete all previous uploads of following images? Old versions are completely useless and there is no point in storing them on your server. Thanks for the help.

Here the links:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalwizard 2018 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Old versions are not deleted unless there is a specific and compelling reason (copyvio, PII removed in a newer version, etc) to do so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that ももくまのうち (talk · contribs) is part of a set of multiple accounts that upload copyright violations to commons and claim them as their own work. These images, almost all of which depict Japanese trains, are often copied from various twitter accounts. The uploading of copyright violations related to Japanese trains has been going on for quite a while now. After tagging a bunch of these images as copyvios, I now request assistance from Administrators, as i don't think the copyvio uploads will stop anytime soon. Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nyamo Kurosawa: You may need to go to COM:RFCU. 1989 (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Broken redirects

Hi, there are currently about 71 items at Special:BrokenRedirects. Can some admin delete them all per CSD G2? Thanks, pandakekok9 07:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. All done by -revi, I think. Thanks for reporting, and thank you for deleting them, revi! Ahmadtalk 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:) — regards, Revi 13:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — regards, Revi 13:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

DR files & talkpage

Hi, GreenMeansGo closed this DR however all files still have the DR tag and none of the file talkpages have been created(/have the DR kept tag),
So would it be possible if the DR tag could be removed from the files and the "kept" template be added to all talkpages?,
I didn't know if all this was done automatically or whether it's done manually ? (if the latter then I can use "Perform batch task" to remove the DRs),
Anyway thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 18:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Also someone may also want to block Dfvdsfgsdfgsdfgsfgsdfgsdfgsdfhs as a sock or troll - Their first contribs were the nominating of those files and given their username is jumbled letters I'd say this is either a troll or sock. –Davey2010Talk 18:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done - Many thanks AFBorchert for blocking and for removing the DRs much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm? I..I'm used to this just being done automatically? GMGtalk 01:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

PPR

Theses pages will be subst-ed by User:Deletion Notification Bot to notify users of SD/DRs if not notified and if deleted by admins without notifying the uploader. //Eatcha (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
✓ Protected though COM:AN/P is appropriate place to request this. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 09:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

Krutoi chel (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ): personal attacks, wikibullying --93.126.77.128 07:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Thank you. --93.126.77.128 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Active proposal

There is an active proposal to modify the blocking policy to remove ambiguity surrounding checkuser blocks. Join the discussion. ~riley (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Insult to a country of 10 million people

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUslim_Flag_of_Greece.png

Someone using your page clearly violates and insults all of us Greek people by making a fake flag. You should not have allowed this,you should have never allowed someone to violate a countrys flag. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:587:123D:4500:F598:E2E8:D099:12B0 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it "violate"s a country's flag. There is a red warning on the page, stating that the flag is fictitious. The only reason I can think of is being out of scope, but, according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:MUslim Flag of Greece.png, the result of a DR is highly likely to be "kept". Ahmadtalk 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done per Ahmad. Taivo (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

request for attention

Aflantwo was upload File:Shahram jazaery arab 2016.jpeg.jpg, Then I request to speedy delete because it seems copyvio. After a while, AlexMawi was uploaded the same file as before and show me why this photo should keep. I don't know if this is sockpuppet, and there is no better reason to request CU. So please pay attention for it. Thx. 轻语者 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Both files are deleted as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Block review: Alexis Jazz

Today Trijnstel on behalf of the CheckUser team blocked Alexis Jazz indefinitely today as they used an undisclosed account to address the COM:DMCA#The Weeknd situation and presumably made a death threat here. I would like commentary from the community to see if this indefinite block is justified or should be reduced. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This "appeal" is inappropriate as we don't have checkuser data. And your supposition as to linked accounts is also inappropriate. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t ask for an appeal. I asked for a review. There’s a difference, and please don’t speak on what’s inappropriate if not based on policy or guidelines. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not having all the data and asking the community to review something that they too do not have all the data is inappropriate. Don't need policy or guidelines to see that. Also, any appeal would have to go through the checkuser team as described by the blocking template {{Checkuserblock}}. --Majora (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Did you not read what Zhuyifei1999 said? 1989 (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you not know what "edit conflict" means? And that doesn't necessarily mean we have all the data. Again, checkusers have all the data. Normal sysops and the community do not. --Majora (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, answering my question with another question. Interesting... btw, was that a serious question? 1989 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) So this "Not having all the data..." was in reply to 1989? I think putting it under 1989's comment rather than mine makes more sense. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yep. You're correct. I'll go ahead and move some stuff around. My apologies. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This wasn't a supposition. Trijnstel linked the diff herself. User_talk:Trijnstel#Alexis_Jazz --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don't think I understand the reference in Special:Diff/405678602; not a fortnite player here. COM:BP says Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions. I would like a clarification on how it fits the diff, and I will also note that we don't always block the master account when a sock is observed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Gah, rereading.
The socking was stupid, and the joke was an apparent gamer's reference in bad taste. Given the context, it does not appear a death threat intended to harass or intimidate, just a stupidly misjudged joke in poor taste.
Putting on a literalist hat, as this was potentially gaming a discussion if not an actual vote, this is worth a lengthy block, not an effective permaban. For this reason, I suggest Alexis Jazz is allowed to make an appeal but advised that serious time off is needed before an appeal will be considered and only if there's no more socking games.
I have no special conflict that I can recall, only that I took part in the discussion referenced. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know that I see a video game reference as a credible threat. GMGtalk 21:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've never played Fortnite in my life so like others above had no idea who Betsy was or the fact it was in reference to Fortnite, Perhaps linking to the character or the game may of had a different and perhaps better reaction,
I personally would support unblocking providing they're more careful with the jokes, They made a joke and it spectaculary backfired.
The socking was dumb and I'm sure they regret that too. –Davey2010Talk 22:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
"Betsy" is a gun, hence the bad taste element is stronger that you may be interpreting. --Fæ (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Amend: Later statements indicate that the use of language may be coincidental and this should be taken into account. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow, Well whilst the joke was stupid I still cannot support fully indeffing over it, Alexis is a net positive to the project and IMHO shouldn't be indeffed over a stupid misjudged joke. 22:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I can't see how that could be interpreted as a credible threat. A block for socking is fine, but it shouldn't be indefinite for the master account. clpo13(talk) 22:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer a comment from anyone on the checkuser team. Apparently this was a team action. Numerous checkusers, numerous admins, agreed to this action. A comment from one of them would be appreciated as, once again, we don't know if we have all the information so making any judgement as to the block is premature. @Elcobbola, Jameslwoodward, Krd, Magog the Ogre, and Trijnstel: . --Majora (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. GMGtalk 22:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Certainly it is ridiculous to take that as a serious death threat. Pretty obvious joke. No comment on the sockpuppeting, I have no evidence. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I was asked for my review, so I'll give it. The CU evidence is clear. And there is zero tolerance for death threats. Yes, even if they're "jokes", but especially when coming from a sock account. Period, end of discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Am I understanding correctly that the reasons for blocking are:
  1. CU evidence for the undisclosed socking behavior of Alexis Jazz in Grilling the Sheriff
  2. A death threat from Grilling the Sheriff that may or may not have been a joke
If so, I would like to see your COM:BP quotes on this. My quotes:
  • "undisclosed socking behavior" may match that of Abusing multiple accounts. However, I do not see how the referenced comment is to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions.
  • "death threat" may match that of Harassment. However:
    • Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked. -- Clearly not the intent of Alexis Jazz, Special:Diff/406766490
    • Good faith disputes between users, however, should be brought to Commons:Village pump for outside input -- This was not done.
  • Even if you consider it as disruptive behaviour:
    • For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template. was not followed.
    • Exceptions as indicated in No warning is necessary when blocking open proxies and users with inappropriate usernames. Accounts and IP addresses used solely for severely disruptive purposes such as automated spamming, serious vandalism or harassment may also be blocked without prior warning. do not apply.
So if the reasoning for the block is just that, this I strongly argue that, by policy, they are insufficient to apply an indef block on the master account. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, I just don't see how the "threat" is even blockable. Let's assume Foo, a random newbie, says, much more explicitly and non-jokingly, "Hey Zhuyifei I'm going to kill you". I would just ignore Foo, since there is absolutely zero credibility in that statement. Even credible legal threats are not immediately unconditionally blockable on enwiki, en:WP:LEGAL (apparently enwiki policies are often cited here and we don't have an equivalent). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Just because the threat wasn't credible doesn't mean it wasn't blockable. And comparing legal threats to death threats is a false equivalence. I've had death threats leveled at me before. Threats that were obviously not credible but contained details that were extremely unsettling nonetheless. I appreciated it when an admin blocked that person regardless of the credibility of the threat itself. This particular threat was unwise. Unwiser still it was done with a sock account. Blocking indefinitely is a good start to allow Alexis to make an unblock request that will undoubtedly contain restrictions. Restrictions such as being limited to one account from now on for starters. I'd support an unblock if they show contrition for their actions and agree to restrictions such as one account only. The Grilling the Sheriff account was being disruptive on the DMCA noticeboard, in fact I had asked some other people on IRC what they thought of it a day or two ago as I had originally thought it was one of our LTAs. I understand the block for that reason. I also understand the indefinite nature of it. That is not to say I wouldn't support an unblock. Just not an unconditional unblock as I think the CU team did what they were put in such a position to do. --Majora (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure, unblock request with restrictions sounds fine to me. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The socking was extremely stupid, as was the 'Betsy' comment. However, I tend to agree with Zhuyifei1999 that this should not be an infinite block on the master account. A conditional unblock request should be allowed. Restrictions as suggested by Majora are a good idea, too. Most of all I would like to see a credible statement from Alexis where they express remorse for their actions. De728631 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I...don't want to get into the weeds, although I'm tempted to do so. Procedurally, there's nothing for us to do until an unblock request is filed. GMGtalk 00:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (I'm not a Fortnite player, so what I say may not be reliable) Apparently, there is something called "shakedown" in Fortnite. I read about it here. Based on the information available on that website, this feature was added in the second season of Fortnite's second chapter. The term "interrogate", used by Grilling the Sheriff, was used in the said website (searching "Fortnite+interrogate" in Google, you can find some other results using that term as well). "ol' Betsy", as mentioned before, is related to Fortnite; it's a "Legendary Flintlock Weapon available in Save the World". I watched this YouTube video. It shows how this "shakedown" ("interrogate") feature works: you have to shoot the "henchman", and when they are "knocked down", note that "knock down" doesn't mean dead, you can shake them down. Based on this video, the person interrogated is not necessarily dead, neither before nor after the process of interrogation. So, perhaps we can say that this was not, technically, a death threat, but rather a serious one (near-death).
  • Personally, I didn't expect Alexis Jazz to do this. Creating a sockpuppet and using it to threaten someone else is indeed inappropriate. As mentioned above, threats are counterproductive; they poison the project, and not taking action against them can (and, I think, will) affect the project in a bad way. That being said, I agree with others about the conditional unblock of the master account (Alexis Jazz). I'd like to wait and see if they are willing to request unblock. Ahmadtalk 00:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The original purpose of this thread was a request to review the block. It was an appropriate response given the frustrated words used by Alexis earlier in the thread. The sock comment should not be taken lightly, because the context is a threat of violence against persons unknown (maybe WMF staff, maybe the originators of the takedown request). This wiki is not a game and Alexis has enough experience to know this. It may have been intended as a joke, but Alexis should have known it could quite easily be construed otherwise. Please note "indefinite" does not mean "forever", but an undetermined length of time. I agree with allowing Alexis an opportunity to appeal but that might not be possible unless we modify the block so the system does not block Alexis's IP when they try to log in. -Green Giant (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a case of abusing multiple accounts. Using a second account to indemnify against legal threats by a shady organization such as Web Sheriff makes sense. I have very low tolerance against threats of any kind. The "death threat" was indeed in very bad taste, since it is not obvious that it was clearly meant to be a playful reference to a video game if you don't know the game. But given this context, and the fact that this is a first time offense I believe the block should be lifted with a stern warning. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A question for the Commons CU team, just for clarification: if I look at the blocklog, I see this text: 21:29, 24 March 2020 Trijnstel (talk-contribs) blocked Alexis Jazz (talk-contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: {{checkuserblock}}). So am I correct in thinking that, with no other reasons officially given in the blocklog, User:AlexisJazz was blocked indefinitely for "Abusing multiple accounts"? Vysotsky (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, that is how the block log works. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • User was annoyed by a "Web Sheriff" DMCA takedown, created an account called "Grilling the Sheriff," and spoke in sheriff-related video game references about "interrogating" people involved with a video game gun. This is all a bad idea, the sock should obviously be indeffed, and AJ deserves perhaps a short block and a big trout, but I fail to see this as a death threat or something particularly egregious. I don't think death threats have to be "credible" to be taken seriously, but they do have to be threats rather than video game references about interrogation (also, why does interrogation mean murder, even in a fictional setting? The user's very account, "Grilling the Sheriff" means aggressively asking questions of the sheriff). — Rhododendrites talk |  14:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As an aside (tangential to AJ), while I think the CU team got the block wrong, this kind of condescension is ... unbecoming. Maybe consider striking? — Rhododendrites talk |  14:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    How is that a condescension? I don't understand why Trijnstel had trouble with it. Some people (including me) prefer writing short and to the point --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    ? You consider it respectful to combine "I asked you a simple question" with calling a user that [as far as I can tell] self-identifies as a woman "hon"? — Rhododendrites talk |  18:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    What's "hon"? Google says "Honeywell International Inc." which probably isn't relevant and I fail to see the significance of this word. Is it a swearword or something? wikt:hon also has way too many definitions. The most likely are probably wikt:hon#Noun and wikt:hon#Interjection. Former case: used as a term of endearment ok, trying to be nice and verbose since it was requested so. Latter case: cheering a sports team probably irrelevant. Unless there are cultural references of some sort? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    User:1989 wrote "hun," not "hon." Let's just ask them what they meant. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    Hon/hun are short for "honey," and are terms of endearment/pet names with gendered connotations like sweetie, baby, babe, sugar, toots... if you watch American tv/movies from the 1950s or earlier, you'll see it a lot. Anachronistic in the 21st century after decades of pushback. It's over-familiar (talking to someone like they're closer to you than they are) in a way that's typically only done when talking to women (i.e. if there are diffs showing that 1989 calls everyone "hon" then I take it all back, but I suspect it's only because the recipient was a woman). — Rhododendrites talk |  19:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see a reason to assume that the suggested connotation is attached to this statement. It was requested to be 'nice and verbose', so 1989 may have well did that and unaware there are "gendered connotations" associated with the term in the past. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Update: AJ says Betsy's a horse. Don't think that changes much from my perspective. It's hard to take as a threat regardless of the Betsy. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps AJ could read Bedreiging (Nederlands strafrecht). They might want to reconsider his line of defense after reading the linked article. Natuur12 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The non-credible implied threat was dumb and disruptive. The use of the alternative account, ostensibly created for privacy reasons, to file unrelated DRs while using an automated tool not normally available to new contributors is also disruptive. AJ should acknowledge why their behavior was problematic, commit to not repeating similar behavior, and be unblocked with conditions. (As an aside, editing using a privacy sock on a page where you have already made very similar contributions is extremely unlikely to be effective. I'm not really sure what privacy goals were being advanced through the use of the alternative account here.) --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't find this foul rant and this foul rant appropriate for Commons at all. Frankly, if Alexis can't restrain themselves to discussing copyright and other Commons matters professionally and respectfully about all parties involved, they have no place here. We shouldn't have to wade through offensive cokehead-style schoolchild-humour rants and waste everyone's time debating whether some nonsense was a death threat or off-colour jokes. An indef block is not a permanent block, but a block until Alexis accepts this behaviour is not permitted and hurtful to the project. The photographer, the photo subjects, the folk issuing any take-down, are all real people, and policy requires us to be professional and respectful in dealing with them. No more socking. No more mocking. Grow up or find another hobby. -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
+1, and the other administrators should set an example and encourage AJ to seriously question, instead to reinforce him in a line "this block is a mistake, CUs are wrong, ect, ect..." Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Given the amount of energy that AJ has put into busybody actions in Commons namespace (advocating for the worst blocked users, outright trolling with nonsense proposals, antagonizing anyone with a mop, and of course this nonsense), I strongly oppose any unblock that does not restrict them from that namespace for at least a year. While some of their policy contributions have been good, this incident is merely the latest example of AJ pushing the boundaries of how much they can get away with, and I do not trust them not to continue if unblocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand the policy basis for this edit. @Magog the Ogre: ? I would suspect you were confusing English Wikipedia policy with Commons, but not even en.wiki has a policy allowing administrators to unilaterally site ban users. GMGtalk 22:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Talk page access removal was unnecessary, keep them blocked Indef until further decisions. I didn't expect Alexis to use socks without using VPN and with the same user-agent, why even create socks to fight with a DMCA complainant. It also makes no sense to argue with a DMCA complainant. It's best if DMCA is handled by WMF, there are lots of paid editors working on Wikipedia you can't stop them all. The weeknd is trying to advertise his upcoming albums, why do you care to stop him and keep Wikipedia neutral ? You have done more harm while trying to stop their advertisement on Wikipedia campaign than good. There's a ongoing pandemic and commons is already short on admins. We are loosing 2 experienced editors (including a very experienced admin) because of your lack of judgement, Alexis. // Eatcha (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock with conditions. Making a sock account was stupid, what the sock wrote was way overreaction (we have almost 40 images in Category:The_Weeknd, some of them quite good, losing one, even if unjustified, does not cripple us) but this doesn't deserve an indefinite block of a highly productive contributor. No more socks, cut back on the profanity, and in general have a nice cup of tea and a time out, but then come back to do more good work. --GRuban (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Block Reversion

Magog the Ogre Has disabled talk page access under extreme controversy. I have two times give my argument against the CUs and requested clarifications, and after one business day all they did was crap.

By COM:BP, I am not required to be uninvolved to accept an unblock request and it is only should, not must, consult with blocking admin.

As such, under en:Presumption of innocence, I shall unblock the account in concern. Consensus must be reached before the block is re-applied.

By en:WP:WW, if my action is reversed, it is that, not my action, that constitutes a wheel war. If the community thinks by policy I abused my power, then I shall resign and leave everything I do here behind. I will not stand someone who genuinely trying to help out the project being harassed by other admins under my eyes without my interference.

This is the first time I have used a swear word here and I do not wish to repeat this.

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you doing that would be an abuse of your mop, Zhuyifei1999. There is no consensus to unblock them and they obviously don't want to be unblocked according to their post on their wikisource page. Unconditionally doing that against the community and especially undoing a checkuser block is grounds for your desysop. Please don't make this worse. --Majora (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't even read the wikisource page. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Which makes this leaps and bounds worse because you were pinged! Reverse your action, Zhuyifei1999. Please. Please reverse it and start a formal request here. Have the community discuss it. Reach a consensus on what to do. I don't want to have to start desysop proceeding against you. You have made this leaps and bounds worse by doing what you did. Please step back, I'm begging you. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I will resign immediately as soon as the desysop starts. As far as I can tell there is nothing in BP that says my actions was strictly against policy. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Majora here. Your action is not going to help anything, and I don't want the project to lose two productive users over this. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: The point is that it was a CheckUser blocked, and per COM:BP, "Unblock requests for blocks marked with {{Checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a checkuser". The main block, the one placed by Trijnstel, was a CU block. The talk page access removal wasn't one, but the main block, it was one. Although I think the indefblock should be lifted, I think you should reverse your action. I believe it will make the situation more complicated. Ahmadtalk 23:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Will, not must. An indication of expectance, not an declaration of requirement. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: The issue for which Alexis Jazz is blocked is of the utmost seriousness, you MUST immediately reblock Alexis Jazz and allow the community to decide how and when Alexis is unblocked, and what, if any restrictions are placed on Alexis account when it is unblocked. I trust you will reblock immediately and apologise to the community for your well-intentioned but ultimately very poorly constructed decision. Nick (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry. No. It is clear that CUs will not address this, and community will not do anything because nobody is willing to reverse a CU block. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
That’s the entire point of a CU block. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Zhuyifei1999, don't lose your bit wheel warring with other admins and wikilawyering over must vs should. You are required to act in accordance with the consensus of the community and your fellow admins. Going off and performing actions because you alone are right is very much a signal that you should not have the bit, absolutely regardless of the merits of your case. I'm glad to see you have restored the block. You are not the only admin on Commons, and if your anger and frustration are causing you to make bad judgements, then I suggest you take a break. Commons will not fall apart when any of us finds something else to do for a few days. --Colin (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we press a reset button please?

The resignation of @Zhuyifei1999: is so damaging for this project it's hard for me to put this together.

News is that 1/3 of the population of the world is under lock down, our own population of volunteers has a bias towards older people and folks more likely to have underlying medical issues.

I am in my third week of being isolated on my own, and will have to avoid face-to-face contact for at least another 11 weeks. Our time on this project is potentially a great way of doing something different from daily problems, and even when stuck at home we are trying to share content for public value and education. This week I was super glad to see that the CDC batch uploads have included COVID-19 public education videos, uploads that can continue from my laptop without me needing to stay focused or do new programming, while I'm scared and worried about whether I can have necessary food and drugs delivered, or if London is going to suffer systemic breakdowns and shocking numbers of deaths.

So, get over yourselves. CUs are admins with some special access, the community role is still fundamental to what you do. If the actions of a CU are driving away volunteers or blocking good contributors that might have been stupid, they are not doing it right. Zhuyifei1999, take a break, resign if that's best for you, and I agree that what folks do in the background is responded to invariably with complaints and rarely thanks, but do not resign because of the controversial actions of others. --Fæ (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's not possible anymore :( Maybe unblocking AJ with some sanction for 1 or 2 year is the best option to DE-escalate the situation. The power of CUs shouldn't be reduced but site banning was inappropriate IMO. Unfortunately we are loosing Zhuyifei1999; the de-sysop discussion was a very bad Idea in this difficult time. //Eatcha (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

This is a checkuser block and we should not hastily consider unblocking anyone where we do not have full information. Magog the Ogre's comment above and Trijnstel's comments on his talk page suggest that the checkuser block is based on

According to Alexis Jazz' statement the use of the sockpuppet should be considered to be a “joke”, followed by the excuse that I made it because the DMCA claimant is rather sue-happy. However, Alexis Jazz wasn't afraid to use his main account to address the DMCA claimants as stupid noobs, morons, and dumb shits. According to Magog the Ogre, the comment by the sock was interpreted by the CU team as death threat. Alexis Jazz denies this intention. Honestly, I had no idea before what an “ol' Betsy” could possibly refer to. And this is exactly the problem on a multi-cultural environment such as Commons. There is a huge potential that such phrases and terms could be easily misinterpreted in an already heated and provocative context. Alexis Jazz should be well aware of this as a long-term regular. In summary, I am not surprised that the CU team was investigating this and blocking the two accounts on base of the CU results.

As we are all well aware, this is a block for an indefinite period, it does not have to permanent. Under the assumption that there isn't more to these blocks on the CU side, I propose following preconditions for an unblock:

  • Alexis Jazz addresses the abuse of multiple accounts in a way that raises hope that this will not repeat.
  • Alexis Jazz reconsiders his style of communication and acknowledges that Commons is not a space where external parties are to be insulted even if their approach appears to be questionable and dubious.
  • Alexis Jazz is banned from contributing at Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices for an indefinite period.
  • Alexis Jazz is restricted to one account only at Commons.

I do not think that the simple replacement of the indef'd block by a block with a fixed period cuts it. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive and indef'd blocks allow to wait until a serious problem is addressed such that the assumption is not unreasonable that the matter is resolved. Alexis Jazz is a prolific and valuable contributor. I would be happy to see him contributing again as soon as this issue has been resolved. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a huge step in the right direction. Kudos to AFBorchert. I find Alexis Jazz's comments useful and insightful. I don't think banning them from Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices would be in the interests of the project. According to [14], Alexis Jazz is the most active non-WMF account on that page, both by number of edits and by added text. Maybe we can ban them from that specific thread, but maybe that's not worth it. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't contribute to that specific thread anymore. There are better things to do on Commons than 'grilling' the Web Sheriff. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, 4nn1l2. My concern is that Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices is likely to be seen also by DMCA claimants. Hence, while critical comments are welcomed in reaction to DMCA takedowns they should be professional in their style. My suggestion is to lift this ban as soon as Alexis Jazz' comments elsewhere raise hope that he is able to do this. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: You are right. Maybe banning them for a fixed period of time such as 3–6 months would be a better solution than banning them for an indefinite time and then lifting the ban. I have two reasons: 1) Alexis Jazz is brutally forthright and naturally makes a lot of 'enemies' as time passes (especially among wheels). According to my experience, there will never be a consensus in favor of such users in the WMF projects. An indefinite ban would practically mean an infinite ban in this case. 2) This is the first time that they are subject of a ban discussion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any unblock. Alexis is wrong and there was, in fact, illicit use of multiple accounts. Despite this, he still insists on making inflamed comments, without performing any kind of self-reflection and "proposing" that all CUs should resign. This behavior is erratic and I regret that Alexis does not realize that it is he who is causing "drama". Érico (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not propose an unconditional unblock right now. Instead, I have named some preconditions. What do you think about them? Or do you think that the block should be permanent? I try to find a mutual understanding how Alexis Jazz could return contributing even if this is not a simple path and even if this will take some time. Alexis Jazz has already responded to my proposal. See also my response to that. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As a note, I would support an unblock under those conditions. Other individuals were participating in that discussion, and most other discussions, at the DMCA noticeboard and will continue to do so. I was the one that first brought up the problematic DMCA request to begin with after all. While Alexis does participate more often than other at the DMCA noticeboard their comments there are not exactly, well, helpful at times (to be blunt). This restriction can be simply implemented with the partial blocking feature. The necessity to realize that the creation of the sock account was a really bad idea is a must for me. Restriction to one account is a must for me. A dropping of the rather conspiratorial aspects of their "the CUs are out to get me" defense would be an appropriate course of action. I want Alexis to return to editing. I really, really, do. But there has to be some realization on their part that their actions were not in the best interest of the project. I really do hope that they can do this so we can put this all behind us and move on. --Majora (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd also support an unblock with these restrictions, provided that Alexis acknowledges that they understand why their behavior was problematic. I'm not sure if the DMCA page ban is entirely necessary, but if it helps keep the environment there civil, then it should be implemented. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion is closed. AJ has made physical threats of violence against community members and has several times now threatened all of the checkusers. This is no longer a matter of polite discussion. We've moved into legally actionable territory.
  • This user is not to be unblocked. I am not open for negotiation on this one.
  • Open a desysop discussion on me if you must. I am willing to stick my neck out for the other CUs. AJ has now resorted to threatening us, and I will not stand for it. Users will not threaten me and my fellow administrators with violence and be allowed to edit on here. Period. End of discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Commons checkusers were forced to make thoughts about their physical safety during this case after personal threats. There is nothing to add to this discussion or the underlaying decision, and I fully support Magog the Ogre actions even if they have or have not been against Commons policies at some point. --Krd 08:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Krd: Were these personal threats made off-wiki? --AFBorchert (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Please allow me to not further comment on the case. There is nothing to add from my side. Thank you. --Krd 10:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how not answering this question help your case. All we need is just a simple yes or no. If the threats were made off-wiki, then I would reconsider my stand on this issue, because who I am to doubt that the threats indeed exist? If the threats were made on-wiki, then a diff of any Wikimedia project is enough to convince us. If you or Magog wish not to answer, fine, but don't blame us if we doubt such threat exists to justify revoking the talk of Alexis. pandakekok9 11:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I did read that before it get deleted. As you said, there's no threats of violence in that Meta post, and AFAIK they didn't make any death threat against the CU team or community members. pandakekok9 11:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (re-open of discussion) Multiple admins (myself now included) disagree with this closure of discussion. Closing it by an involved party is not encouraged. This is the administrators' noticeboard, and multiple admins now feel the discussion should not be closed. Do not reclose this discussion without prior consensus. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment We have some extra trust on the Checkusers compared to the admins due to the extra privileges assigned to them and the confidential information they are handling. They are working for our safety; not to showcase some extra powers. So we have to trust and respect the decisions they are taking (except in extreme case). Here I saw three checkusers at least repeated that they are firmly standing on the decision they had taken. I'm very disappointing to see many of us, including many admins, making a lot of noise, still after reading their comments. This is very discouraging, and should be stopped. (Magog the Ogre, there is no need to wheel-war to close this discussion. Hope an uninvolved admin will close it in due time.) Jee 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's very disappointing to seeing people we trusted with advanced permissions (admin, checkusers) acting in the way some of you had acted in the past few days. I am not going to comment on the specifics of the issues that led to this drama but would appeal to all involved parties to stay calm. Generally, I think we need to design a more structured way to resolving conflict. Maybe an COM: Arbitration Committee or something close to that? Well, it's up to the community to decided but something must be done about conflict resolution. We can't continue to conduct the business of conflict resolution the way we are currently going about it. Please stay safe! Regards. T CellsTalk 21:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - I personally support this proposal, Alexis is a net positive to this project and they should not be indeffed over such a silly joke, They've only been blocked once in the 3-4 years of being here so it's not like they've been blocked umpteen times,
Everyone deserves a second chance and no one deserves to be blocked on the first offence especially when it's something as silly as this. –Davey2010Talk 12:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Closure?

My proposal above was based on the assumption that all relevant information (with the exception of the details of the CU result) are public. This assumption was based on the initial comments by two CU members ([15], [16]). But this assumption appears to be wrong. I found Krd's comment quite concerning: Commons checkusers were forced to make thoughts about their physical safety during this case after personal threats. Later, Jameslwoodward stated that confidential information was relevant to the decision of the CU team: As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case. Another factor is that when I made my proposal, I wasn't even aware of all relevant public aspects of Alexis Jazz' rage. I noticed Alexis Jazz' statement at Meta only after I made my proposal. In this statement Alexis Jazz asked the CU team to go quietly or go in a firestorm. This statement was followed by a series of posts on the Meta talk pages of our CU team: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. We need to keep in mind that this was written at a time when Alexis Jazz knew that the comment by his sockpuppet was interpreted as a death threat by the CU team. And more was added after my proposal. Alexis Jazz labeled the CU team as corrupt. Later, when I went through all edits since the block, I found that earlier Alexis Jazz had already speculated about the CU team taking bribes in the DMCA case. All this is really bad even without considering any private information of the CU team that I do not know about. In summary, I do not see how a return to Commons is possible for Alexis Jazz in the foreseeable future. And I think that any future unblock request by Alexis Jazz would be best handled by the CU team. Hence, I suggest to close this block review at this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should notify WMF Trust and Safety for possible further action.--GZWDer (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
While Alexis Jazz appears to have entered WMF global ban territory given Krd's notice, we should leave this to the CU team as they have unlike us all relevant information. Usually, WMF T&S processes for cases like this take considerable time. We should not wait for this. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the ombudsman committee should investigate the issue. GreenMeansGo has notified them, but I don't know if they will make a public announcement or not. If this was indeed a CU‌ block, then any appeals should be directed to the CU team, but if this was an ordinary block which just happened to be performed by a CU, I think we should let ordinary admins to review the unblock requests (see what Ahmad252 wrote here). Furthermore, I still think the protection of User talk:Alexis Jazz was unnecessary and should be removed. Maybe some users want to thank them for their half a million contributions to the project, even if they may never be back again. Maybe some users want to nominate their uploads for deletion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think that this is a case for the ombudsman commission? Do you think that the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic information policy, or the CheckUser policy were breached? Regarding the user talk page of Alexis Jazz. Please note that Alexis Jazz continued with his inflammatory remarks directed at the CU team while he was blocked on his talk page: If you prefer a Commons with a corrupted CU-team that won't be held responsible for its actions [..] And in the next comment: Your corrupted CU-team will stab you in the back sooner or later. ([22], [23].) It is common practice to remove talk page access for blocked users if it is used to continue with personal attacks. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Because 1) the CU team changed their narrative amid the saga. At first they told it was due to a death threat[24][25], but once it became known that another interpretation was also possible (if not more reasonable), they told it was due to non-public information[26]. They spoke of "physical violence"[27][28] but failed to provide any evidence of such threats (Alexis Jazz did threaten them with their admin bit, but not physical violence[29]); 2) Alexis Jazz claimed that they created User:Grilling the Sheriff to protect their privacy against the "sue-happy" Web Sheriff, but the CU team "out"ed them. Since there is no arbitration committee here on Commons and the ombudsman committee will mediate between the complainant and the respondent (usually a CheckUser, oversighter, bureaucrat, administrator, or arbitration committee member), this issue is in scope of their tasks; 3) what happened to User:Chyah/User:Rafic.Mufid makes me double think about what is happening to Alexis Jazz.
AFBorchert, please note that I am not talking about their talk page access, but the protection of their talk page[30] which prevents ordinary users from contacting Alexis Jazz. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
You are right, the protection of the talk page is not necessary – it should be sufficient that talk page access has been removed. Regarding your statement the CU team changed their narrative amid the saga. This indeed appears to be correct but we have to keep it mind that major escalations occurred after the block. WP:AGF applies for the CU team as well. Finally, the uncovering of abusive sockpuppets is no outing in violation of the CheckUser policy. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Added notice: I've opened COM:AN/P#User talk:Alexis Jazz for a discussion of the talk page protection. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz should have kept their cool during the incident. Alas, they lost their temper and made the situation worse. However, I am still optimistic that this conflict can be resolved. Please note that assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, and all we want is a civilized discussion. I think referring this case to the ombudsman committee is a civil approach, which should not be in violation of AGF guideline. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
"Alexis Jazz should have kept their cool", very true. I would have add that the administrators who edited AJ talk pages should have put their whole energy into advising him to do this, instead of looking for the potential flaw in the injustice of the block, or looking for a potential unblock as soon as possible. That is what we can call "to put oil on fire". A behavior that is not worth of anything IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I did my best to calm them down: You can just state your arguments in a rational and cold manner and remain optimistic. [31]
I know for a fact that being blocked is a stressful experience and the blocked user may feel a bit better if they receive positive commentary, instead of harsh criticism. Otherwise, the pressure on them may exceed their capacity and they may lash out, which unfortunately did happen for Alexis Jazz. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes maybe not your fault, and maybe there is no individual faults, but more a collective failure. Including from myself, after all, when I edited AJ talk page I knew very well that this discussion could only lead to a potential conflict, and despite my will, I did not manage to make that understood to the others. The result of all this: 2 admin. have resigned, one or 2 other seems to take their distance from Commons, the CU team stay on this position, the block is still in place (even with hardest seetings), it is now near to impossible to discuss about that with the CU team (and IMO that's understandable), there is now not a single chance (at least in the near future) that the account be unblocked. I'm afraid that this is not anymore the time to say, "that was not my fault...". The result is not good and everyone who participated has a responsibility. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not my fault. I played no role in this saga. Sorry, but I take no responsibility for the mistakes of others. I did what I could to resolve this conflict in a civil, rational, and fair manner. But it is beyond my control. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: The mission of the ombudsman committee is very restricted. They are just concerned about violations of Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic information policy, or the CheckUser policy. They will not review blocks issued by members of the CU team. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't want the ombudsman committee to review this block. Considering the rationale above, we just want them to announce the reason of the block; whether it was just because of that public "death threat" or other non-public issues were also involved. Please note that the CU team announces this block a CU one and does not allow ordinary admins to review the block. If it turns out that no non-public information were involved and the block just happened to be performed by a CU, then I think ordinary admins should be allowed to review the block. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: To my knowledge, the ombudsman committee does not announce anything. Do not expect any insight from having the ombudsman committee looking into a case. They just check if the named policies were breached and, where necessary, they will report to WMF staff but not to us. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
m:Ombudsman commission#Processing/Reporting: Result: We give the result of our investigation to the requester.
Let's wait and see what happens with GreenMeansGo's notifying them. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
We should not wait with the closure of this thread until a formal statement by the ombudsman commission is given to GreenMeansGo. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't want the ombudsman committee to review this block. Considering the rationale above, we just want them to announce the reason of the block is, in fact, a definition of "block review" which the OC isn't going to do anyway. This particular block was imposed by the team and not just by individual CU. Frankly, this looks like something the WMF T&S should review for possible office action based on the death threat and other threats to the CU team after the block. Generally, I think this thread should be closed while further investigation by WMF continues. Regards. T CellsTalk 12:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with AFBorchert "that any future unblock request by Alexis Jazz would be best handled by the CU team". As far as I know no external boards like OC, WMF Office is going to review the merits of a decision taken internally in Commons. The decision was taken by the entire CU team; two CUs are crats too. The only thing we need to work on, is to make steps to reduce the friction created between the CU team and ordinary admins. As CF commented above, we already lost two admins and many more are now in hibernation. My understanding is that this happened due to the though that we (the admins at least) can review a CU block even without their support. This is a harmful thought. CU and Oversight processes are more cofidential; that's why we appointed separate team for handling them. The number of members of those teams also limited. We can't share those confidential information to all admins. We have to accept it and their decisions with AGF. So I oppose the arguments of 4nn1l2 that admins can interfere in "some" CU blocks. We are not going to restore the harmony unless we respect each other and agreed not to interfere in other group(CU/OV/Crat)'s roles. Jee 14:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Let's say it clearly: the need of independent review of the CUs decision suggests that the CU team members are no longer considered trustworthy by some other admins. And what then? Ankry (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies. I've been busy all morning trying to set up things so my wife and I can telework. I don't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of how OMB works. I spoke about it some last year in Boston with @Emufarmers: . Maybe they can explain things better than I can. I did not file a "complaint" with OMB. It's not even clear that I have standing to do so. I simply notified them. I don't pretend to have intimate knowledge about the scope of their mandate.
I...I find it peculiar...that the magic words which could have put all this to bed before it even started, "there is non-public information pertinent to this case," were not uttered by anyone until after we dragged a CU into a desysop discussion. GMGtalk 17:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Having come into this late, I don't think I need to say anything more than has already been said; the user's behavior, while full of worthwhile arguments, is unfortunately very crass and the use of alternative accounts for harassment and escalation into personal insults and legal threats means that it's up to the CU team to determine how to handle his case. Is there any word about what will become of his subpages? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Notice: This case is currently discussed in the Signpost newsroom in the broader context of the associated DMCA notice. Proposed headline: Celebrity pays consultant to withdraw CC license. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hiding or deleting file version

Hi, I stumbled upon File:20110508_montabaur05.JPG and noticed that faces and number plates were clearly visible. So I pixelized it. But the old version is still available an violates German privacy law. What's the procedure in such a case? Can an old version be hidden or deleted while keeping the current one and the history in such a way that the original uploader and date is still available? Thanks, --StYxXx ⊗ 23:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@StYxXx: ✓ Done Please look at the file now. This is only possible when there are two or more versions and only administrators can hide the versions. --Green Giant (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! So I guess this noticeboard right place for such requests? --StYxXx ⊗ 01:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, this is. I've made some revdel requests here. pandakekok9 02:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Move request

I would like to request a checkuser on Ygjfub. Could someone move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ygjfub to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ygjfub? Thanks, 153.205.46.253 06:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by non-administrator. I've requested speedy deletion for the leaved redirect. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ricky Ponting 2016.jpg

I would like to have this file deleted because it's not actually my "own work" as such. I will upload this file again and give it more accurate information. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)}}

I oppose deletion. There's no point in deleting this file just because the upload summary on the logs is wrong. Most users will probably just look at the description and the license, which is correct anyway. pandakekok9 05:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. By principle, Pandakekok is right, but during first week after upload the uploader can demand deletion of own upload. This was unused crop of another Commons file, so we did not lose much. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: For the record, it was being used on the 2006 ICC Awards page and will be after I upload it again. I greatly appreciate this though, thanks very much. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9: Although you might be right in terms of principle, it's actually principles like these that are responsible for keeping this great resource in worse condition. If things can be done better/properly, then you should look to do so here. Regardless though, keep well during this pandemic. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy close of CfD

Looks like an agreement was reached at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Mosmans Bay. Is it possible to have it closed so that what needs to be done is swiftly done? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I closed the request as withdrawn. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios?

Hi all,

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate venue (don't frequent Commons terribly much!).

I've stumbled upon architecture-related uploads by Kathryn Lucas: all of which appear to be copyrighted works. But I'm not 110% sure. As such, before tagging all 20+ images and potentially wasting everyone's time -- can I please borrow a second pair of eyes just in case? and if that second pair of eyes could please tag/delete as appropriate, that would be great. Thank you, MelbourneStar (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @MelbourneStar: . The first one I checked said Photo by someone else. I have deleted all their uploads Gbawden (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! MelbourneStar (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peter Clarke: I see that the user Kathryn Lucas has uploaded a bunch of high-resolution photos of buildings in Australia attributed to "Peter Clarke". Did you take those photos, or is it just someone who happens to have the same name? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am Peter Clarke. I have not recently uploaded any photos of Australia PeterClarke 23:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

DR rename?

Hi, 05F2uIhfx0Rv had renamed themselves from their real name citing Privacy concerns - However the DR where all of their files were deleted still remains at the old username name -
Do we move these as a discretionary/special circumstance thing or do they have to remain at the old name regardless of Privacy etc?,

If this can be moved then could an admin kindly move the DR to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:05F2uIhfx0Rv,

Thanks Regards, –Davey2010Talk 15:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

DRs are noindexed so perhaps not really needed, but I don't see any policy requirement that forbids from moving. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a reasonable courtesy request, even though it does not meet the WMF's definitions of RTV. Move and delete original is justified and we do not need an exposition on why a contributor might be concerned about privacy. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey De728631, Many thanks for doing this - Admittedly I did wonder about the filenames but once the page was moved I was simply going to remove them so thanks for revdelling these and for your help - both are much appreciated, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 01:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: @Davey2010: , Thanks. i'm sorry for everything.05F2uIhfx0Rv (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
No worries, Glad I helped :), Happy editing :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Valdivia.jpg

Please, hide this copyvio version of File:Valdivia.jpg. Thanks — Draceane talkcontrib. 09:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 06:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Relations of India and eswatini

Could an admin please delete Category:Relations of India and Eswatini to make way for this category? Thanks, pandakekok9 06:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 06:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Weird activity

Please check renaming and categorizing edits made by an inexperienced user Leonel Sohns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). --VLu (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this is really a bit weird, but I do not see a blockable offence. This should be discussed with the user at first. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for inclusion in ipblock-exempt group

Hello, there.

I sometimes upload hundreds of pronunciations using Lingua Libre, but, since I'm using ProtonVPN, I'm getting errors saying that I'm using an open proxy, and that contributions from this IP are blocked. I wouldn't like to stop proxy anonymisation in order to contribute, so could you please add me in the ipblock-exempt, in order to circumvent this problem?

Awaiting your answer,

Regards. LoquaxFR (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I fulfilled this but then saw the wording on {{Ipexemptgranted}}, stating that this is not meant to allow the use of anonymous proxies. I followed the link to meta:No_open_proxies, and that seems to suggest that anonymous proxies are indeed allowed for editors with good histories. So now I'm confused. Storkk (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
On Wiktionary and WP, being added in that group allowed me to contribute, whereas I couldn't without it. LoquaxFR (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I would grant this (and did, before revoking -- sorry)... but given the language on {{Ipexemptgranted}}, there is clearly something I am missing. Storkk (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I call bullshit on Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Commons via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator. This would effectively mean that users from China or other countries that are forced to edit via anonymous proxies may not edit Commons either. That doesn't sounds right. Besides, templates aren't policy. I will modify {{Ipexemptgranted}} so there cannot be any further confusion in the future. Besides, the template is from 2008, protecting your privacy online was less of a thing back than. @Storkk: would you mind if I re-grant the IP-block exemption? Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Natuur12: I support re-granting the exemption, I was just worried I was missing something crucial. I think the meta policy page is also self-contradictory, too... perhaps due to shifting views over time. Storkk (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the root of the confusion is a lack of precision in various policies over time in distinguishing between open proxies, VPNs, Tor, and other related services. Storkk (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Storkk: I'll regrant the exemption. Commons:IP block exemption also partly contradicts itself. Natuur12 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, admins! LoquaxFR (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2020 in Sweden mass message

Hi!

I am part of the organizing team behind Wiki Loves Earth 2020 in Sweden, and would like to send a mass message to previous participants encouraging them to participate again. I've followed the recommendations here and here, and have created a page with the necessary information at Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_in_Sweden/Mass_message. Could an admin please send the message for me via Special:MassMessage? Many thanks. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks 4nn1l2! Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam postage stamp media file

Resolved

I would like the image file vi:Tập tin:Tem Trần Đăng Ninh 100d.jpg copied/imported to the Commons. However, the copyright information is incorrect in the Vietnamese Wikipedia. This file represents a 1957 postage stamp design more than 50 years old when the Vietnam law changed from 50 to 75 years in 2010. Therefore it was grandfathered in as already being in the public domain and remains in the public domain under {{PD-Vietnam}}. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam.

So far as I can see this importation would require administrative privileges. Thanks for your attention.  --Bejnar (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Administrative privilege should not be required.
Please follow the steps below:
  1. Fix the license of the file on the Vietnamese Wikipedia (i.e. change it to {{PVCC-Việt Nam}}.
  2. Go to vi:Đặc_biệt:Tùy_chọn#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable "Bộ xuất tập tin".
  3. Now, you should see the "Xuất sang Wikimedia Commons" tab at vi:Tập tin:Tem Trần Đăng Ninh 100d.jpg.
  4. Export the file to Wikimedia Commons.
4nn1l2 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
^Thanks. All done. --Bejnar (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I added the {{Information}} template to the file description page. Please help fill in the blanks. Thanks in advance. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Request

Please move Category:Sharbat to Category:Sherbet (beverage); as eveything in the cat is called "sherbet". Also see the disam page (Category:Sherbet) please. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Although Iranians and Indians call it "sharbat" (as does the English Wikipedia), I think Oxford supersedes all others. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Add quality template

Please, could someone add the quality template to File:Generic Camera Icon.svg, thanks Wilfredor (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time, please use {{Edit request}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture of the day caption error

The picture of the day today has a spelling error of “church” in its caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstone2 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Thank you for reporting this. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ronhjones deceased

Hello, I want to leave a note here on AN just in case some admins are missing Ronhjones. He was a quite active administrator and he was also a active OTRS member. He is deceased :-( (Commons:Village_pump#User:Ronhjones). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion of Images uploaded by a new user

Hi, Recently a photographer cum Instagrammer had contacted me showing his interest in Wikipedia & Commons. Once I've explained him upload process, he had uploaded imaged downloaded from his Instagram account which lack metadata, which I've explained to him later. Since he lacks the original files of those images, they can't be updated with EXIF-data. Can someone do me/him a favour by deleting these images? Files can be found here.--IM3847 (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not clear to me what you're saying here. Does he actually want his images removed because they were uploaded by mistake, or is he just worried that they might be marked as copyvios? If it's the latter, it's something we can fix. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: He is just worried that he'll be marked for Copyvio, which will effect his account. --IM3847 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, forgot to clarify: is he worried about being marked for copyvio on Commons or on Instagram? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: He is the content creator of those images on instgram but can't provided Metadata for Commons. He's worried for getting copyvio on Commons. He can get OTRS verified from Instgram account's mail, but provided images are around 100KB since they're downloaded from his instagram page.--IM3847 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
On Commons I like to think that we're far more reasonable than a lot of the sites like Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. that simply don't have the manpower to sift through each upload manually, so they use AI to detect copyvios automatically and block your account after a certain number of strikes with limited avenues of appeal. Here we provide a human touch, and every block is done manually after a holistic review of the evidence. Providing original images is certainly a boon, but not strictly required to prove authorship; if an image is previously published at another website under an account controlled by the uploader, then they just need to make a statement from that account. We generally only demand original files if there is something about the images that make doubt the claim that they are taken by one person (e.g. different styles, resolutions, etc.), and I just don't see that here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Please find his Instagram id here which mentions his Wikipedia username in bio.--IM3847 (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ajay kumar PHOTOGRAPHY: Don't worry, your files won't be marked as a copyright violation as long as you follow these steps. Can you share a link to your Instagram here? You just need to add some kind of statement on your IG that you are the same person as "Ajay kumar PHOTOGRAPHY" on Wikimedia Commons. Let me know if any of these steps may cause difficulty for you. You can also email me if you want to take it offline. (If, after reading all this, you still wish for your files to be deleted, then please say so and I am willing to oblige.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Move request

Hi This image was requested to be moved but is protected from being moved (only admins can move it). --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 08:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Something seems fishy here. The user has been trying to rename the file since January, but it has been declined each time. A previous rename rationale was: Requesting renaming this file to File:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union 2.svg; Reason: this image is deprecated/outdated (as it has a few issues with it, and a better version is available) - as this image widely used on many wikis, it would be better to rename it and then have it replaced with a redirect to a better/superseding SVG; Criterion 4. It was correctly declined (that's not how renaming works, and renaming wouldn't accomplish what Cherkash believes it would). Now they have recently "harmonized" a bunch of files, but File:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union N.svg for N in 1,3,4 were all renamed in the last couple days... This appears to me to be exactly why this file was protected from being moved in the first place. I don't immediately see why this is a "set" that form a logical 1, 2, 3, 4 progression. Storkk (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Storkk: Yes, I have recently been trying to harmonize the naming of the various versions of the USSR coat of arms. Is there a problem with this that I'm not aware of? Cherkash (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Many duplicate images

Many dozens of duplicate images that were uploaded yesterday are now located under Category:National Guard activities during the COVID-19 pandemic by state. It's quite confusing in there. Is there an automated way to delete all these duplicates? Thanks, Featous (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I think this could do with a more general fix that identifies all F2C uploads that are duplicates. I'll have a think about it later today and if I don't do a quick fix myself, I'll write a request at the bots work noticeboard.
Open to advice and alternatives that are available already... --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Now started to run a script that can do this more generally. This uses a normal Commons search to find candidates, then checks they were uploaded by F2C and they are duplicates. Then the duplicate template is added pointing to the first duplicate and the category Category:Flickr2Commons duplicates is added.
I'll point this at COVID-19 related uploads first, but it can then easily be adapted to ferret out files with other keywords. --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tm: The initial run is mostly affecting your recent uploads. As mentioned above, this task is a general maintenance one, not focused on your uploads, the root cause being failures of the F2C tool. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ and Featous: I understand completely, as my uploads related with the US National Guard were the last ones, and this is not a problem of any specific user but intrinsic with the F2C tool, that it was severe problems in detecting exact duplicates, situation that happens from many years. Thanks for both of you. Tm (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious uploads

I'd like to bring your attention to the uploads of a new user, TheWestime. See here: [32]. He claims he is the creator of these images but I find that highly dubious, especially since all these images are available from Google in the same dimensions (See here: [33][34]), and one still has the original watermark from the website it was taken from: [35]. He has just replaced a more traditional portrait photo of a celebrity on Wikipedia with one of these much more sexualised shots. Apologies if I've reported this to the wrong place; I haven't come across this issue before. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User Kristianmusic

Looks like user Kristianmusic (talk · contribs) add photos as "self-published", but from different people.
Examples:1, 2, 3. --DS28 (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Kristianmusic. Storkk (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, I recently started a move request here to move a category back to its original and well-established name, after another editor moved it to an incorrect name based on reasoning which doesn't even make sense.

In his edit history when moving he said "copy en format", which I assume means copying the name of English Wikipedia? However, this is just not true, as the Wiki article is at NHS Wales, not National Health Service Wales. NHS Wales is the correct name of the service, as seen on its official website and logo etc. I honestly don't know what the editor was doing when he moved it.

I was wondering if there is any way of closing this discussion quickly, as it seems like an obvious error that needs to be corrected. It's been more than a month and this error still stands. I can't move it myself using the move function as there is a history and redirect at the original target name. Elshad (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Contentious moves like this, particularly where they cause name conflicts, should be discussed first. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Elshad (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

user Maximkavladimir

Also similar situation with user Maximkavladimir (talk · contribs) - added photos as "self-published", but from different people.
Examples:1 already nominated fo deletion , 2, 3. --DS28 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, Could an admin revdel the upload revision at File:RM discussion notice small - Davey2010.png please, I'd forgot to crop before uploading, Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant many thanks 4nn1l2 much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Eatchabot is removing {{License review}} tags, and substituting {{Flickrreview}} -- improperly, in my opinion

Eatchabot is removing {{License review}} tags, and substituting {{Flickrreview}} -- improperly, in my opinion.

I don't have occasion to use {{License review}} very often, but I am satisfied, when I do use it, I know what I am doing, and I don't like a robot second guessing me.

Occasionally I come across an image, on flickr, where the flickr uploader has placed an "all rights reserved" claim, even though the image is clearly in the public domain.

In these cases I place a {{License review}} template, so it will receive the attention of a knowledgeable human.

Twice this month Eatchabot has looked at the image, second guessed that {{License review}} and replaced it with {{Flickrreview}}. Here is the most recent instance - an image of a guy who died in 1867.

On these two occasions administrators have not exercised reasonable human judgement, and have marked the images for speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Eatcha. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I have two offers:
1)Add all your uploads to the block list.
2) Add these two files in the block list but not all your uploads.
Or maybe ask any admin/LR to review your files. You may use just 1 or 2 in the reply. // Eatcha (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to place this here: {{PDreview}} --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User Nia Sucks2005

Nia Sucks2005 (talk · contribs)

Vandalism-only account and cross-wiki issues. Bovlb (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only account. Edits are reverted. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Volkswagen Crafters to be handed to Ukrainian National Police.jpg

As per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-04#File:New Volkswagen Crafters to be handed to Ukrainian National Police.jpg, File:New Volkswagen Crafters to be handed to Ukrainian National Police.jpg has been undeleted, but later nominated for deletion again. I would therefore request for speedy closure of the deletion request as a mistaken one, many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Danekoch04

Danekoch04 (talk · contribs) Can someone take a look at this user's contributions? Looks like they keep uploading copyrighted photos. Thanks. Jauerback (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done - images deleted and final warning issued. Эlcobbola talk 17:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Jauerback (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Deletion Notification Bot

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.
This is a bot with ongoing trial edits. The maintainer, Eatcha, takes notice of bug reports. Hence, this is best discussed at Commons:Bots/Requests/Deletion Notification Bot. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Can an administrator please shut off this bot please? You can use the big red button on the user page. @Eatcha: as bot op.

The bot is behaving poorly, giving notices which fail to explain who raised a deletion request, or who the bot operator is, and instead points users to the help desk in a very generic way. This is entirely fixable, it is relatively trivial for an automated process to work out who raised the deletion request and provide the link correctly in the standard DR notification. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I replied at Commons:Bots/Requests/Deletion Notification Bot. // Eatcha (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Delete overwritten upload as Copyvio

Can an Admin delete this version on File:Adidas Conductor High Olympics 1988 re-edition sneakers.jpg as a clear copyright violation? Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thanks for the notification! --AFBorchert (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion in ipblock-exempt, please

Hi, there.

Could you please include me in the ipblock-exempt? I have to log out from my VPN each time I want to contribute, and I would like to not have to.

Regards. --Moinats (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Phabricator T252750

I've just created Phabricator T252750 about Commons categories not linked to any wikidata element no longer display in side menu 'In Wikipedia Edit links'. There I mentionned as an exemple Category:Queenstown-Lakes District.

I guess this could interest some of the administrators here on Commons. Robby (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

trato injusto a usuaria nueva y peticion de ayuda ante bloqueo continuo sin explicacion

Buenas noches,

NO se por qué razon se me está bloqueando de forma continuada en wikipedia. Aunque nunca he tenido que utilizarlo hasta ahora para editarlo directamente llevo trabajando en el mundo digital 25 años y nunca me habia pasado nada igual en un medio democratico como este que alguien me censure de forma continuada sin permitir preguntar, explicar o defender. Abri hace un par de dias por primera vez una cuenta bajo el miembro Marev para poder actualizar unos datos pero primero un usuario me denuncio sin explicarme que debía hacer o por qué. un amable administrador me indico que debía acreditar la información con alguna referencia por lo que solicité al dueño original algun documento que acreditase su puesto tal y como figura en wikipedia desde 2017 cuando fue nombrado en ceremonia oficial . Cuando he entrado hoy para subir las nuevas fotografias y documento escaneado que lo acreditan he encontrado mi cuenta bloqueada indefinidamente sin posiblidad de poder enviar un mensaje tal y como figura en los derechos a defensa y me he visto imposibilitada para poder argumentar por lo que he abierto una segunda cuenta para poder hacerlo pero el administrador en cuestion o bibliotecario , desconozco su cargo, directamente me ha vuelto a hacer lo mismo, la primer vez se me acusó de vandalismo lo cual no entiendo pero esta segunda vez de Spam cuando esto es incierto estoy intentado defenderme y que me reactiven mi cuenta y el contenido borrado ya que es injustificado dado que he facilitado documentación gráfica y documentación sellada y firmada que acreditan la veracidad. Me pueden ayudar por favor ante esta situacion ?? Es abusivo e irracional absolutamente y encontra de todas las leyes no escritas digitales. Les pido que me permitan replica aunque entiendo que volvera a borrarme de nuevo el señor Edslov al que trato de escribir pero se niega de forma unilateral bloqueando toda posibilidad.

gracias y espero su ayuda, y no, Eslov esto no es Spam. Se llama dialogo...y derecho a defensa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareces (talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary renaming of Swaziland to Eswatini in filenames

I'm not sure where to discuss this other than here, to warn administrators and file movers about file rename requests involving "Swaziland" and "Eswatini"; I'm open to suggestions on where else to open a discussion. A user named User:‎Bestoernesto keeps tagging files for renaming from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini", and claiming Commons:FR#FR3 file renaming criteron 3 ("obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects") to get administrators to accept the requests. None of these are "obvious errors": Swaziland is a synonym for Eswatini and the word "Eswatini" didn't exist in English (or nearly any language outside of that country) until a couple of years ago; the filename is not identifying the wrong place. Administrators, perhaps unfamiliar with the issue, are taking Bestoernesto's requests at face value as "obvious error" and fulfilling the requests without investigation. Renaming files from one synonym to another is controversial, and is not routine page maintenance. Commons:File renaming says that "In general, Commons aims to provide stable filenames as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." User talk:Bestoernesto has at least 3 different requests to stop, and those messages pointed out that the renamings were breaking external use of the files, just as the Commons file renaming page warned. From what I can tell of User talk:Bestoernesto#Natürliche Verbreitungsgebiete diverser Pflanzenarten (in German), Bestoernesto seems to have political views on why the word "Swaziland" must be destroyed, despite the country itself using it in English until recently. I think that this user should be told by to stop making false "obvious error"/"misidentified" requests to fulfill his personal preferences, and/or the administrators that regularly process file renamings should be warned about this user, so that they know that the renaming involving "Swaziland" is not a routine maintenance request. Should I putting a similar message on Commons talk:File renaming instead, perhaps to clarify the criteria? --Closeapple (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's complete nonsense what Closeapple is saying. He's trying to create a problem here where, by definition, there isn't one. Already at the end of 2018 beginning of 2019 was decided here to recategorize Commons to "Eswatini" with a few exceptions. In this context illogical and nonsensical file names appear again and again. For example, in the category Category:Bilateral maps of Eswatini 15 maps are listed, of which one third already had "Eswatini" in the file name, and I suggested a renaming for the rest. Moreover, this change not only simply replaces the obsolete name with the currently valid name, it also harmonizes the name of the image series within the category. This is therefore another permissible reason for a file name shift. And that the name "Swaziland" is obsolete today and only an anachronism should be clear to every halfway educated user. The new official name "Eswatini" has been officially recognized by the United Nations since August 2018 (UN M49 standard (https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/)) and was subsequently adopted into ISO 3166. (https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:SZ) On the Eswatini government website (http://www.gov.sz) you will search "Swaziland" in vain. And a map of this country is therefore today a map of "Eswatini" and not of "Swaziland". And according to Wikimedia rules, a file name should also say what can be found in the file. It is also not understandable why Commons still uses a name that countless other institutions, organizations, associations and projects worldwide have already changed to "Eswatini". Examples:

Further examples:

The list can be continued at will. So once again, I only suggest changing the article name if it is no longer consistent with the contents of the file above. And this is always the case when the name used is wrong under international and state law. This is then an obvious mistake and no synonym anymore, as Closeapple claims. The country has separated itself from the name Swaziland, which was determined by the foreign rule of the British protectorate, and has adopted the name "Eswatini", which it chose itself, as for example some time ago also "Bechuanaland" now "Botswana" or "Basutoland" now "Lesotho". Countless other institutions, organisations, associations and projects around the world can follow the change of name to "Eswatini". But only not Commons? The claim that moving files requires considerable personnel and computer resources does not correspond in any way with current technology. From the feedback of the files observed, it can be seen that moving half a dozen files takes less than a minute. And finally: Those who follow a link to the historical file name from anywhere in the world will be automatically forwarded to the desired file. So this is just an artificial excitement for nothing. --Bestoernesto (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you had request a rename for File:Marula Baum Blüte in Swaziland.JPG under criterion 2, which is a perfectly fine name. pandakekok9 05:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I also would expect that renaming would be done in a senseful way: e.g. Portugal Eswatini Locator.png does not fit into the common system of alphabetical order of the countries. It should have been Eswatini Portugal Locator.png. NNW 10:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. I didn't knew there was such naming convention for bilateral maps. I fixed the filename and the other files in the category. pandakekok9 11:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello NNW, the renaming suggested by me took place alone by changing the country name, not its position, a system was not recognizable there also before. Are you sure that this system should exist? If, as in your example in the Category:Bilateral maps of Eswatini, the country named in the category name (here "Eswatini") should always be prefixed in the file name, this should also apply to the corresponding categories of all countries. This would mean that each map would have to exist in duplicate with a different file name. So for the Category:Bilateral maps of Portugal the same map with the file name "Portugal Eswatini Locator.png" would have to exist again. But this is not the case. There you will now also find "Eswatini Portugal Locator.png" sorted alphabetically. I have looked at a dozen more maps in different bilateral-maps categories. There are no duplicate map versions. Sometimes the name of the category is in front according to your imagination, but inevitably in the other country as well and therefore wrong in your opinion. In the Category:Bilateral maps of Portugal there are 45 files where "Portugal" is mentioned first and 92 files where it is the other way round. In Category:Bilateral maps of Denmark with 105 files "Denmark" is mentioned first and with 40 files it is the other way round. The differences in frequency are probably due to the order of creation. The later a category was started, the more files were already present, but not with the country name from the new category in first place.--Bestoernesto (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There has to be a duplicate of a file? No, I never wrote that. Pandakekok9 understood what I wrote and moved several files a second time to their correct names but not Chile Eswatini Locator.png. Guess why. Perhaps it helps to have a look at Category:Bilateral relations of Portugal and see what's wrong after moving the Swaziland category. It's the same naming scheme there. There are several files in Category:Bilateral maps of Portugal (or even some categories in Category:Bilateral relations of Portugal) which don't fit into this system? That only means you are not alone in not understanding the naming system but that is no reason to make the mess even bigger. NNW 08:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bestoernesto: I don't see what is your problem here. Afghanistan starts with an A, and Denmark starts with a D. Which letter comes first in the Latin alphabet? pandakekok9 06:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@pandakekok9, why I had request a rename for File:Marula Baum Blüte in Swaziland.JPG under criterion 2? What was "perfectly fine" about it when the text of the file name was in German, which could perhaps only be understood by 2.3 percent of the world's population (i.e. it was "meaningless" to the rest of the world according to criterion 2), while the current article name text in English can be understood by at least 13 percent of the world's population.--Bestoernesto (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bestoernesto: Have you read the file's talk page? Don't you know that Commons is a multilingual project, therefore we must respect the original uploader's filename regardless of the language? pandakekok9 06:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Should I be taking this to another discussion page, or is this still the right place? I typed up most of a refutation to Bestoernesto's points, but it's long and I don't want to take up everyone else's time if the rest of us are in agreement that Bestoernesto's renaming requests are disruptive, and if we can be sure that administrators will be denying Bestoernesto's requests. --Closeapple (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Rearranging deletereason dropdown

Hello. MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown currently lists deletion reasons as (1), I propose to change it to (2) for all entries:

  1. Test page or page with no valid content (G1)
  2. G1: Test page or page with no valid content

This is only to align all the links neatly to the left, and also reduces the width by 1 character for each line. The ordering and everything else stays the same. I did make the change (source), but was told that this is something that should be discussed. Hence I've reverted myself, and started this discussion.

The proposal ends here. In addition to the above, thoughts are welcome in reducing the number of entries currently in the list. To pick one as a random example, we currently have:

Which could be consolidated to one as:

  • G2: Unused and implausible, or broken redirect

To match with the Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. Again, this is not part of the original proposal, but may be worth discussing together. Kind regards, Rehman 11:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment on proposal feedback: It seems like most of the opposes are against adding the acronyms. While that is fine, I'd like to clarify that I am suggesting to move the existing acronym link to the left, leaving the text as it is. Rehman 03:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Votes to the proposal

  • Support, as proposer. This does not in anyway mean we are requesting people to learn the acronyms, etc. We're basically moving the existing links to the left for neatness and easy reading. Rehman 12:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Moving the links to the left doesn't help anything, instead, it moves the legible rationales behind useless stuff. We should completely remove those acronyms instead, also on COM:CSD. A deletion rationale should be understandable without consulting acronym tables. --Didym (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I would even prefer to remove those acronyms. --Leyo 20:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for highly-active admins, bad for less-active admins. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose. I am with Didym on this one. I don't think this is any sort of a help for highly active admins, of which I am one. I do not want the existing links moved to the left and a list of A1, B2, C27 down the left side even if that makes it look tidier. I do not think people should have to run to a reference page to understand what is going on. I do not believe these should be consolidated only to "save" space. There is no limit on space on the project and a couple letters here and there is not going to ruin it for anyone. I do not believe that the suggestions of consolidation should be adopted because the things being consolidated in some cases do not have reference to each other and would only end up making administrators have to explain the system to users instead of just using the system. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ellin. Not a good idea in my opinion. De728631 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not helpful for the not very active admins (I am one) either. I think the acronym links can be helpful for people who need non-English information, so I would not suggest to remove them. Although the deletereason-dropdown table is helpful for admins, the actual texts people see when their item is deleted should be the main focus. And for those people the acronyms as a start are not helpful. Lymantria (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I prefer readable text over acronyms. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose File deletions should be as transparant as possible and the reason for deletion should be as clear as possible. This proposal tries to archive the exact opposite. Natuur12 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussions on consolidating

I think all entries should have only 1 link to the CSD section, to not overload the reader with links to various large pages. The destination already has links to those related areas. Furthermore, I also think the dropdown should directly match the CSD policy 1-to-1, with only very few additional entries as exceptions, such as "Per a Deletion Request" and maybe "OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons". Thoughts welcome. Rehman 12:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand the consolidation argument however sometimes it just ain't that simple. Take the Vandalism & Attack rationales - they are both G3 - however they are "not the same thing". Frequently the "attack" rationale comes as a result of cross wiki info - vandalism far less so. Tidiness is admirable however it may not make folks lives easier.
More generally I've tolerated changes to this and other drop down lists that are admin related for years now. My problem is that my fingers know just how far they have to travel to select the correct reason - changes slow me down. --Herby talk thyme 12:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
True, not all should be consolidated. Though, consolidating less-serious ones (such as the redirect example) would help by reducing the height of the scrollbar, and thus slightly speed up selection. What are your thoughts on having only one link in the log? Rehman 14:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose I prefer to explain exactly why the redirect was deleted, so I must add an additional reason to reason from drop-down menu. But if there is exact reason "cross-namespace redirect" or "broken redirect", then additional reason is not needed and I can work faster. If you really want 1:1 relation between drop-down menu and deletion reasons, then deletion reasons must be split, not drop-down menu consolidated. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree fully with Taivo for what it's worth. --Herby talk thyme 09:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Here’s another thought: Recently I had to split several overwritten files. It’s been a lot easier to go to the drop-down, type “t”, and thus have “Temporary deletion for history splitting of overwritten files (G5)” instantly selected. Moving the codes to the front would reduce that efficiency. -- 32X (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Herbythyme, 32X, and Taivo. These are good reasons to not consolidate. Considering this is a multilingual community and the deletion log ought to be simple and concise, I'd also like to know your thoughts of having a single link to the CSD policy, per deletion log. My view currently is that the deletion log don't need to host any other links other than the link to our policy page explaining further why the content was deleted. The policy page already has further links to what a redirect is, other circumstances, etc, and the log itself need not be cluttered with links to large pages, and thus confusing the reader on what exactly to click or which large page to read. But that's just my view, and it's probably worth discussing here while we're at it. Rehman 03:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
My position is totally opposite. You can look my deletion log. Typically there's two links: one to policy page, another to deletion request page. Policy gives overall guidelines, but deletion request discusses exactly one file or file group. Deletion request can discuss the file more thoroughly than policy page. In addition, often the file has multiple problems and deletion request can show that, but you can choose only one policy page from drop-down menu. That's why link to deletion request is essential for me, it's more important than link to policy page. In addition ... Deletion request can say "Main reason for deletion is ..., but in addition the file has other problems." You cannot choose main and additional policy page from drop-down menu. Of course, keep votes and keep reasons are also important. Some policy pages do not exist at all. Sometimes files are deleted with reason "The uploader is a copyvio-only user, he cannot be trusted" or "uploader is indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet". There exist policy page COM:EDUSE and the files are sometimes deleted due to missing educational value, but the drop-down menu has no link to the policy page. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Taivo, sorry I should have been clearer. I'm referring to only the speedy deletion entries, not deletion requests, as the latter could be complicated in most cases. Rehman 13:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems that you are thinking about 1:1 relation between policy pages and drop-down menu items – is it needed or not needed? For me this isn't important at all – that means, I'm not against it, but I do not support it as well. Taivo (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I may be overreacting, but I overwrote two images with warning images before nominating them for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio cb pirate.webp. One of them had the category name "root", their filenames appear to be designed not to match the image content, they have fake source information, and legitimate purposes could have been satisfied by using similar existing Commons files instead, so even though they're probably public domain, these particular uploads might be COM:CSD#G3 but I can't quite prove it. Just wanted to give admins a heads-up in case they wanted to keep an eye on that user. --Closeapple (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and gone now - I think an eye needs to be kept on the user too. --Herby talk thyme 10:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyfraud

user:Copyfraud has been systematically uploading pictures that have been released by the British Museum under a cc-by-as licence, ie a licence that is not compatible with the requirements of commons.

The argument could be made that the uploaded pictures are in the public domain, however that argument has yet to be tested in a UK Court, and in any case WMUK is working to have the pictures released under a commons-compatible licence.

Given the number and speed of uploads, it seems likely that this user is highly familiar with commons, and I suspect that this user may be a sock puppet of an existing user (this was alluded to by user:Qwirkle at [[36]] a deletion request, but not followed up that I can see).

It seems that user Copyfraud has been created in order to protect an existing user from scrutiny, to blatantly 'wash' the licence that the British Museum has released this material under, and that this new user is endangering the relationship of WMUK with the British Museum.

It is also possible that the user is an unauthorised 'bot' account given the volume of material uploaded, but am aware that some non-bot users do achieve similar upload rates. TheOverflow (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you speaking on behalf of WMUK? I am not, but I have been discussing (not least in the mailing list thread starting at [37]) with them the issue of the BM claiming - in apparent contradiction of both EU law and the advice of the UK's own Intellectual Property office - copyright in reproductions of clearly PD material, and haven't noticed them raise any concerns over these uploads during those discussions; nor have they suggested that reproductions of PD material should or could legitimately be "licensed"; quite the contrary: "some [institutions] claim non commercial copyright on out of copyright material. We challenge this where we see it" ([38])
Indeed, nor am I aware of any significant "relationship of WMUK with the British Museum" which could hypothetically be damaged by this or any other action: "Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the cultural sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one of them." ([39], again)
The allegation that this is an attempt to "blatantly 'wash' the licence" is baseless; not least because each file page includes a statement that that is the licence the BM asserts.
It seems clear to me that Commons policy is that these uploads (with the possible exception of a tiny minority of accidental inclusions, as is common in such mass uploads, and dealt with routinely by deletion nominations) are both in scope and acceptable as PD material. As such, the uploads should be welcomed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I also note that TheOverflow has not notified the user whose work they denigrate of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_79&oldid=420876301"