Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 38

Problems with deletions

Looks like problems with deletions are back: file related pages are deleted, but not files themselves. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Redundant revisions

Hi! Can someone please delete all the revisions except the first at File:Andrej Glavan. Kovačev hrib, Sevnica.jpg and File:Čajota prerezana in cela 2.jpg. I've uploaded them, but they seem redundant and only take space. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment - They will take exactly the same space, deleted or not. Deleted images are not erased from the server unless there is a special situation that requires that, that's why we can easily restore them in case of need. They are not show to non-admin users, but they are there.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio problems?

Please see the comment from 157.132.224.85 (talk · contribs) on File:Emperor Penguin Kiss.jpg (see also the diff). What should we do with it?

I am the photographer. This picture is not in the public domain. It has very specific usage restrictions, and cannot be used for profit or commercial purposes without my written permission. Usage restrictions can be found at: http://photolibrary.usap.gov/information.htm

Glenn E. Grant

Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 21:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, while the source page[1] doesn't mention any restrictions, their usage policy page[2] indeed does. However, if Mr. Grant works for the "National Science Foundation", which is a US federal goverment body, I fail to see why PS-USGov shouldn't be applicable. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"If copyrighted text is included on an NSF web page or in an NSF publication, it will be specifically identified." http://www.nsf.gov/policies/reuse.jsp

For this particular image it is noted - "No one may reproduce the photos for personal or commercial profit, use the photos on products for sale (i.e., t-shirts, coffee mugs) or use the photos for advertisement without express permission from the photographer. Found at http://www.nsf.gov/policies/reuse.jsp

"The photographer release states - "I grant the National Science Foundation and its contractor permission to use and distribute, but NOT SELL, the described image. I understand that anyone who wants to sell the photo for profit will contact me." http://photolibrary.usap.gov/documents/PermissionForm.pdf

Wiki allows images from Wiki be used for commercial purposes.

I believe this image should NOT be categorized as PD even though it was taken from a NSF website. PeteBobb (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether some statement on a website trump over US federal law — always provided Mr. Grant works or worked for the NSF. --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

USAP usage policy page suggests that they also accept photo submissions, so it's possible that he was not an employee of USAP, the only question here is if Glenn Grant was hired by USAP at the time he took these pictures or not, perhaps we can verify this by contacting USAP photo librarian.  ■ MMXX ^talk

Probably, this problem applies to other files from NSF too...  ■ MMXX ^talk 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Promotional userpage

User:Šulija Partners Law Firm Vilnius, is it promotional, see logo--Motopark (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I've deleted the userpage and blocked the account indef. INeverCry 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please add to abuse-list

Please add to abuse-list address www.shox-cheaps.com founded from userpage User:Nikeshoes04--Motopark (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And blocked. This is one the typical spambots which exists cross-wiki. Trijnstel_talk 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Richero crosswiki spam

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marian_Richero_Duomo_Milano_2011.jpg&action=history

Please delete. --M7 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Deleted Yann (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Alt winmaerik

Please check this user's latest contributions. If he isn't vandalizing he has at least serious problems. -- Ies (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That certainly is a problem. I've blocked the acct for 1 day to prevent further overwrites, and I've asked the user to explain their actions. INeverCry 18:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Two odd images

File:The Pyramid Stone plaque - geograph.org.uk - 671012.jpg & File:Plaque on the Old Inn Cottage wall - geograph.org.uk - 578981.jpg have a file but no file information page. They were deleted in a DR, but it seems that only the file information page was deleted. Could someone look into this? British FOP only covers art, not text, so the deletion looks correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They were obviously remnants of the deletion bug that has plagued us for months. Now gone. --Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Close a CFD, please

Could someone please close Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/01/Category:Historic buildings in the United States? Jmabel gave an "endorsement for closing this discussion" back in February, and the only comments since then were two in June. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests asking to replace protected SVGs

I don't know much about SVG, so I'm reluctant to handle a number of entries in Category:Commons protected edit requests asking to replace SVGs with "scrubbed" versions - eg File:Button normal.svg -> File:OptiButton normal.svg. Could someone more comfortable with this please handle them - the requests are a month old now. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I had denied few of this move request on Wikimedia's logo. According to his user talk page I'm not the first to complain about this [3]. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see. I guess the Wikimedia logo requests should be rejected, and possibly the "scrubbed" versions deleted, as you suggested. Will you nominate them, as you said you might? That still leaves a number of requests for flags and icons, where the scrubbing may or may not be an improvement. Rd232 (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

NB there are two very old edit requests from User:Docu at MediaWiki talk:Pagetitle and MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition. I promised a while ago not to handle his requests; can someone else please take care of these? Rd232 (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Media missing permission

It appears to me that this category has built up a significant backlog since User:Fastily has ceased administrative duties. I'm not sure that this is the best place to post this; I apologize if it is not, I do not spend much time at Commons. --After Midnight (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Some will probably disagree with me, but I'll say it anyway: It is better to have a backlog on those categories (along with license missing and source missing and the likes) than to have files deleted in a rush and without review simply for being in one of those categories. This is absolutely not a priority (IMO), since all those files are already marked as problematic, and the end user can easily see that. It should be done, yes, but with care.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely, wholly disagree with every word you just said. By leaving these files publicly accessible, we are doing an enormous disfavor to both our sister projects and third party reusers. The deletion tags are overlooked all too frequently, and used in other projects and elsewhere, despite the fact that their ambiguous licensing status inherently restricts such reuse. I have maintained this backlog for nearly two years and have observed, unsurprisingly, that the longer these problematic files are hosted, the more likely they are to be egregiously reused. Remember that Commons is a central host and repository for verifiable, free content, and not possibly free files. Given that I have committed literally hundreds of hours of my time individually checking the state, status, and history of each and every file I've ever deleted, I find it highly inappropriate and outrageously offensive for you to be accusing me of negligence. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was talking in general, not especially about you. Since I've been here at Commons, and from what I have seen, pretty much since Commons is Commons, those categories tend to be routinely emptied in a bot-like fashion, without any kind of review. Someone places a "no source" tag in a 500 year old famous painting and it is deleted without any kind of review for the mere fact that it happened to be in one of those categories. And, please, spare me the "offence" and "outrage", anyone who follows the undeletion requests has already seen many instances where you deleted the files in those categories without the least review, apparently even without looking at the file. But let's not make this personal, it only distracts from the main issue and you are not alone at that. I guess it could even be said that you are merely following a local tradition many years old.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree in everything with what Darwin says. Yann (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you have it all wrong. Given that I have over 257,000 career deletions, it's literally impossible for me to have avoided errors. Run the numbers. I'd say that I get roughly two to three queries per thousand carefully checked deletions, which I always address promptly. Obviously, I'm not infallible like you and your 2786 logged actions, so I suggest you apologize for your vulgar bigotry, and let us call it a day. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Fastily seems to have made unreasonably many mistakes. I took a look at his archive and found that the number of undeleted files discussed on that page was surprisingly low considering that only Category:Media without a license tends to attract around 100-150 images per day. In many cases, the reason for undeletion seemed to be that an e-mail had been sent to OTRS without adding {{subst:OP}} to the file information page (thus meaning that the images were deleted until OTRS had found the mail). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with much of the above. Fastily has made a huge contribution of time and effort to Commons, and I think this should be given better recognition. Every administrator here has made mistakes. Fastily has always been professional and diligent about fixing any that he has made. I would also point out that these mistakes constitute a very tiny fraction of Fastily's work. I don't think we should have to walk on eggshells when doing deletions, considering that one of our most important tasks is to find and delete copyright violations. Uploaders are important, but copyright holders are more important. Caution and carefulness should certainly be used, but the volume of problem files requires us to be decisive, otherwise the backlog will get out of hand pretty quickly. Also, I would point out to DarwIn that he doesn't actually know just how much review any other admin does when deleting files, and that some of the language above regarding this is perhaps a bit over-stated. INeverCry 17:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, let's not make this a personal issue. I have my opinion about some of Fastily actions, but if I thought for a minute that they were especially unusual considering what is routinely done here, I would contact him at his talk page, not bring it here. The problem is not Fastily, and yes, I recognize all his dedication and work. The main issue here is how the system works. I cannot in good faith start demanding a lot from the people who do those maintenance categories, when I've been there already (and sometimes still go there) and I know perfectly well how hard and boring it is to review them. It has been proposed that everything that is not obvious and has been in those categories for 7 days, should be sent to DR. This seems like an acceptable solution to me, at first sight.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The best solution, in my opinion, is for more administrators to spend time on CSD/Missing permission/Missing license/DR etc. I only see a dozen or so admins who focus on this area significantly. We need more help. If more admins focused on CSD and DR etc, more time could be spent on individual cases without leading to an overwhelming backlog. INeverCry 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have considerable experience dealing with similar issues on enwiki, and I was in the neighbourhood, so I thought I'd offer a quick comment. I agree with DarwIn in principle—in the imperfect world we inhabit, it's better to work through categories like that one methodically checking everything (including things which may provide context, but which may not be immediately obvious) than to delete all the files just because they're in the category. I hasten to add that I'm not accusing anybody of doing the latter. The cost of doing so is that these categories become backlogged, mainly because doing the methodical checking is unbelievably dull, so we need to balance this need to be diligent with what we're deleting against the need to be diligent with what we're not deleting. So I also agree with Fastily—that it's important to get rid of the problematic files before others pick them up and assume they're free to use because they're on Commons. More admins is often advocated as the solution, but in my experience, having more admins doesn't necessarily solve the problem. The root cause of the problem (and the reason such tags have to be reviewed) is that many of those who tag the files don't do their due diligence, which means that either the admin has to do it, or we end up losing files because of problems that were easily fixable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't suggest "more" admins, though I don't think it's a bad idea to have more of them. I suggested that the issue could be greatly relieved if the admins we already have focused more of their time and attention on it. This would mean a more equal spreading out of responsibility, and hence less of a load on individual admins. As for the tagging issue, many files are tagged by inexperienced users who really don't know the whole process. Most of the files that are tagged by experienced users are done correctly and thoroughly. So, in the end, admins and their level of participation are the solution, as there will always be new and inexperienced users tagging files. INeverCry 19:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

@INeverCry - I absolutely agree. But we cannot force people to do those tasks, so while that does not happens, if the dubious cases were routinely set to DR at the end of the 7 day period, at least there would be a possibility for discussion about them in a more public place.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This would be a good idea if we can actually get any discussion. When I go through DRs, I see a large number of them with no comments at all. Unless you have community participation, this idea might only lead to the files either becoming a DR backlog or being deleted by just the few admins who work on DRs regularly, which would basically be a repeat of the current situation. INeverCry 19:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly better if we get any discussion, but even if we don't, it is better than the current system, since it exposes the suspicious files to public discussion and provides more time for the uploader, or anyone else, to resolve the problems. It would relief the admins doing the cleaning of those categories of this responsibility (which should not be theirs, IMO) and save their time to deal with the obvious cases. Of course, anyone who wants to do this, can do exactly that now, but it would be preferable if that would be the system, and not a personal choice (the personal choice would still be there, certainly, in the distinction between "obvious" and "not obvious", but IMO that is no big deal, if a file is giving too much trouble simply send it to DR).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea has merit, but I think INeverCry's point was that it risks just passing the buck to DR, which doesn't really solve the problem—it just moves it somewhere else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand INeverCry's point, but I do believe that passing the buck to DRs is still much better that not passing the buck at all. Note that we are not talking about obvious cases, but about those many situations where there is reasonable doubt, such as the classical example of a file marked as missing permission or source, but which has all the hints of being PD-old-100.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DarwIn opening post. Backlogs are better than speedying, unless we get an advice to the contrary from the WMF legal counsel, which I doubt will happen. Despite what some people think, our (and WMF) policy has never been "when in doubt, delete", with very few and clearly defined exceptions (primarily relating to BLP, outing and such). PS. "When in doubt, open a discussion debate" is, of course, a totally acceptable compromise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The "very few and clearly defined exceptions" you refer to apply to Wikipedia and articles for the most part, and not Commons and images. Here on Commons we actually do have a "when in doubt, delete" policy: Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. The "significance" of the doubt is left to the discretion of individual admins, within the guidelines of copyright policy. Also, allowing a buildup of backlogs is a problem. Copyright holders should be protected here, and allowing possibly unfree files to be hosted here for long periods of time isn't acceptable. INeverCry 17:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your last two sentences only, I think we can all agree on that. The difference of opinion is over whether it is better to be as diligent as possible, which takes more time and risks non-free files staying here (and being re-used by third parties), or to be less diligent (which risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the solution isn't simply COM:VPP#Automated deletion of files tagged as copyvios or no-permission by trusted users if no human does it. If deletion nominations by frequent users are processed automatically, then only a few images would remain, and those are presumably the dubious cases which may need a discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with this process being automatized, at least with its current design. There are too many cases where those tags are misused, even by trusted users. And even all those who routinely use it correctly, occasionally do a mistake.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

One good solution we always have is to find experienced users who are able and willing to take on the responsibility of adminship and help review CSD/DR/no permission files, etc. INeverCry 20:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Photo Of Raj Singh Chaudhary From The Premiere of Antardwand.jpg

Could someone delete the first revision of File:Photo Of Raj Singh Chaudhary From The Premiere of Antardwand.jpg. It prominently features two copyrighted posters. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 17:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

 Thank you. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A doubt about relicensing content

Is it possible to a user, even if the user is an administrator, to relicense a file like this? In this file, the user changed from {{self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} to a custom {{Cc-by-2.5-au}}, removing/revoking the GFDL license. I wonder if that is possible and if it is only possible if there is at least one free license according Commons:Licensing (similar with multi-licensing)? Blond (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that directly addresses this, but I believe we generally allow uploaders to change the license(s) to a different free license. In this instance, the previous licenses are irrevocable and the image can therefore still be used under those licens, but we don't require that they remain on the image description page if a free license is still shown. --Avenue (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It seems I was wrong; we have prevented people changing to unrelated free licenses (e.g. as discussed here - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_22#revoking_Licences_by_User:Taxiarchos228) and even changes between similar CC licenses have been controversial (e.g. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/05#updating_the_license_tag_of_own-work_uploads_by_author). --Avenue (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons has been moving away from GFDL, since it really made for media (photographs, video, audio ect), so there is nothing wrong with the license change since it still uses CC-BY-2.5 (though the Australian version) and hasn't been made more restrictive. Also, although not a requirement, please inform the other editor next time so they can have their say. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the license migration, the older GFDL files being relicensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0, keeping the GFDL license. When I saw the photo mentioned above (through searching untagged photos), I got my doubts, because I have only seen a new license being added and retaining the original license, like GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. I belive that a person can change from a Creative Commons license or GFDL to a public domain, but I doubt they can do the opposite. Is it ok to migrate from CC-BY-SA-2.5 to CC-BY-SA-3.0? I guess from CC-BY-2.5 to CC-BY-SA-3.0 is less permissive. Blond (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that is OK. GFDL should not have been removed and standard {{self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} licenses, translated to several hundred languages, should not be replaced with homegrown template in english only. --Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:License revocation: Removing a license tag from a file description page does not revoke the relevant license. Commons tries to show all license tags which apply to a work - even if some are very similar. In general, the copyright holder can add new licenses (see Commons:Multi-licensing), but should not remove old tags documenting existing licenses. Rd232 (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Both of those pages were created by yourself and isn't the view of the Commons community nor are they a policy or guideline. Bidgee (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

True, I created them, but I created them based on (i) facts and (ii) what I thought was well-established Commons opinion. What on those pages, in your opinion, does not fall into those categories? Rd232 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Noticing some confusion here from several people, let's cut to the chase: it is NEVER OK to remove valid license tags, because (i) existing external reusers should be able to show that they followed the licensing correctly and (ii) there may be situations where the old license is usable but the new one is not. Rd232 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, tags should never be removed, but especially should never be modified or added. This case is particularly bad because an Australian CC-BY-SA was substituted for an unported one, and they may be different. See also Commons:Viral licenses are not automatic for why it is not okay to change a license to CC-BY-SA on a derivative work of a CC-BY-SA image (only the copyright holder can do that - if they are unavailable, deletion is necessary). Dcoetzee (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that you strike you comment as it is clearly incorrect, Ganagarra changed the license to CC-BY-2.5-AU not CC-BY-2.5-AU and he is the copyright holder of the photograph. Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Note I dont use a SA license thats not free as it restricts reuse, I changed to the ported cc-by-2.5 because I became aware that under Australian copyright law I(every other Australian) had committed an offense which specifies that moral rights cant be extinguished or transfered in doing so I was unable to persue attribution against another person who had claim to be the copyright holder on a number of works I had created and had recieved reward for them. I choose to continue to use 2.5au because its stable, I understand my rights and obligations in relation to that license and Australian law. Gnangarra 00:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed I restored the original license. --Jarekt (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but whats the point? GFDL is restrictive, CC-BY-SA-3.0 can be deemed as restrictive (since the reuser is required the license it under the same license) but far less than GFDL but CC-BY-2.5/AU is the less restictive then the other two but allowing CC-BY-2.5-AU allows Gnangarra to deal with copyright infringements in Australia easier then just using the CC-BY-2.5. It would be like me removing a CC-BY-SA license a photograph I've uploaded and changed it to a CC-Zero license, under the ground that this discussion has some to, it would mean that the old license would need to be readded? Sorry but you've got it wrong, making it less restrictive doesn't mean the more restrictive licenses should be readded since it isn't what the copyright holder wants and it is kept in the file page's history any way. Start working with him and not against him, other wise we will just piss off the limited Australian photographers that we have in Western Australia. A suggestion is for Gnangarra to create a template like this which uses the {{CC-BY-2.5}} license which is translated. Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with adding CC-BY-2.5/AU to the existing license, but users are not allowed to withdraw the original license. Also the way I see it, licenses come in 3 forms:

• Standard license like {{Cc-by-2.5-au}}, which is reviewed and translated to large number of languages.
• licenses like proposed User:Bidgee/Gnangarra or User:Gnangarra/K20D which transclude standard license templates. They are mostly fine, except for the issue that someone can change a license for large number of images and the license change will not show in the file history.
• finally there are home-brew licenses like the one used by File:Canning river upstream kent st.jpg. They are usually not translated to other languages, and are often not widely reviewed, and can be easily changed without others noticing. They are also not recognized by tools designed to find images with no licenses (we do have a lot of those), so they always pop out on peoples radar.

If User:Gnangarra would like to release the image under {{cc-by-2.5-au|attribution=Photographs by Gnangarra...commons.wikimedia.org}} than he should add that template directly. I have a great respect for his contributions, but we should not have different rules for different users because we do not want to "piss [them] off". --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No I wouldnt like to use that template as the generic templates are subject to alteration, migration etc without my concent thats what contributed to the original legal problems for me in the first place. As I said before by using the template I currently use I fully understand my rights and obligations in relation to that license under Australian law, no I'm not willing to be exposed to another approx AU$3500 on legal and court fees because someone decides that they dont like it or somethings better and compatable. People can pretend as much as they like how detailed their knowledge on copyright is but when it comes down to it its left up the author to ensure compliance both by themselves and any end user. Gnangarra 11:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The template wasn't migrated; the license was, which you agree to when you accepted a license that gave the FSF broad control over the terms of the license. If you don't trust us not to change the license template, I hardly see how you can trust us not to change your license template or the text on the page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I love the idiocracies of this place while here some argue to include GFDL at FP they argue to make to GFDL licensed images inelligable. Means while over at COM:LICENSE it says The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. This is why people get so frustrated Commons rules dont follow policies, policies dont follow common sense and COM:AN and COM:VP make new decisions weekly that have nothing to do with either. Gnangarra 11:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but it seems worth mentioning the new discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Deprecating_software_licenses_for_images. Rd232 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Handful of problematic uploads

Prunejuicemontes (talk · contribs) has been uploading a number of images sourced to flickr and appears to claim permission, but there's no actual evidence provided. They are also falsely modifying and placing FlickreviewR tags on the images. I figured if I just nominated them all as copyvios/no permission the reviewing admin might trust the FlickreviewR tag rather than review the file history, and so I'd head it off by giving the explanation first.

Any admin willing to take care of their files? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done User blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And they're back and socking as Hugomontes (talk · contribs), only this time with mostly claims of self-made work and the occasional "Credit" mention in an image description. They're still using mostly (all?) the same images, though. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sock blocked, some uploads deleted and others sent to regular DR. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 17:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight which are quite rare should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Damian Lewis.jpg potential copyright issues

The image was uploaded with a claim of public domain however, THAT is completely inaccurate based on the fact that the image was on a Wikia fansite for a cartoon which has a CC by SA license. However, in looking at that site, I did not see anything on the Wikia site that there was even any attempt to verify the initial upload [4] as not being a copyright violation in itself.

Note, I do not frequent commons, if you have questions please ping me on english Wikipedia on this page TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the file. This was actually the second time I deleted that same image in the last few days. INeverCry 17:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Kaktus Kid

The uploads by User:Kaktus Kid include portraits of famous people or historical personalities, photos or scans of printed publications, aerial photography, etc., many of which are modern enough to still be under copyright. Kaktus Kid claims to be the author and/or copyright holder of nearly all of these images, and has supposedly released them under various free licences or into the public domain. I found these claims dubious—if Kaktus Kid really did create all these images, he must be in his 70s or 80s, yet still be an active, world-travelling aerial photographer, typesetter, and photojournalist. In August I asked Kaktus Kid on his talk page to confirm the authorship and copyright status of his uploads. His response implied that he was aware of these problems and stated that they would be fixed within a few days. To date he hasn't changed any of the authorship or licensing information, but has continued to upload images with dubious authorship claims. Perhaps it's time for an administrator to go through his "own work" contributions and delete anything that isn't clearly old enough to be in the public domain. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I nominated some of the most obvious problems for deletion. We will see. Yann (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I just discovered that in addition to being a portraitist, print maker, book illustrator, typesetter, aerial photographer, sculptor, and photojournalist, User:Kaktus Kid is apparently also the former president of Brazil. Actually, since Quadros died some twenty years ago, make that the zombie former president of Brazil. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

De-speaking admin please

I kindly request any German-speaking admin to please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cristo7.jpg to see if more discussion is needed or it can be closed. Vielen Dank. Gruße. MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christo2.jpg. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with by Jastrow. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Vielen dank für Ihre hilfe :-) (hope that's understandable) Regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested category split

Not sure if this is the proper place to post this, since all I do on Commons is upload images. Over a year and a half ago, I requested that Category:John Breckinridge be split, since there are several notable John Breckinridges, and the present category contains images of at least two different ones. Now that I am finally getting around to improving a John Breckinridge article on the English Wikipedia (the one born in 1760, if anyone cares), I really would like to see this split happen. I don't think it's that controversial; it's probably just that there weren't enough !votes registered to establish consensus. Can someone please advise me what needs to happen now? If the split happens, I'll be happy to help with sorting out the images to the proper categories and placing the categories in the appropriate place in the category tree. The best way to contact me for help with this is via my talk page on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. Acdixon (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• See Category:John Cabell Breckinridge and Category:John Breckinridge (1760 - 1806) .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Thank you. Acdixon (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Files with missing page

• File:Luftaufnahmen Nordseekueste 2012 05 D50 by-RaBoe 066.jpg
• File:Luftaufnahmen Nordseekueste 2012 05 D50 by-RaBoe 067.jpg

These files page seem not existing, there is no file history. Maybe it's a bug. Blond (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Weird. The file is, the upload log is there, but the description and history are missing. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are several such files locked in Special:UncategorizedFiles and Special:UnusedFiles, but nobody seems to care about that. --Foroa (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

See here. Yann (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Media without a license

Hello,

There are more than 3,350 (!!!) Media without a license, but curiously there is no category for 2012-09 and 2012-10, although there is one for 2012-08, but with only 196 files. Any idea why other files are not categorized by month? Also, I thought that a bot was supposed to tag these files? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The monthly categories need to be created manually, which I've just done. There is a bot that automatically tags no-license files, and it is working just fine. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

These are the files uploaded without a license meaning the user choose, "I don't know the license" while uploading. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

CFD procedure threatened

Hey guyz! This one please. Orrlingtalk 12:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a version of File:Zentrale sk giessen wiki.jpg

Hi, the new user Schreiberling9 (talk · contribs) has uploaded this file first without a license. I wrote him how to do by mail, now he has uploaded a new version of the picture he made by himself ("neues eigenes Foto des selben Gebäudes"). Could someone please delete this first version of the file? Thanks, --Emha (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks a lot, --Emha (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests asking to replace protected SVGs take 2

So Category:Commons protected edit requests had a few requests relating to replacing protected SVGs. I've merged all some of those requests into this thread, so please help decide what to do here.

• File:OptiYes check.svg (719b, valid SVG) to replace -> File:Yes check.svg (3kb, not valid SVG now 475b, valid SVG) [some slight colour difference?]
• File:OptiUS-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg (319kb) -> File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg (444kb)
• File:OptiAt char.svg (3kb) -> File:At char.svg (5kb) [incidentally, how can the @ char not be PD??]
• File:OptiButton normal.svg (2kb) -> File:Button normal.svg (4kb)
• File:OptiX mark.svg (1kb) -> File:X mark.svg (4kb)
• File:OptiStop hand.svg (2kb) -> File:Stop hand.svg (2kb)
• File:OptiCC some rights reserved.svg (9kb) -> File:CC some rights reserved.svg (22kb)

... (more to list, but I've run out of energy, feel free to expand the list from Category:Commons protected edit requests).

So should we replace these files with versions scrubbed with http://codedread.com/scour/ or not? Rd232 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no benefit at all in scrubbing. It neither does it make the SVG easier readable (by humans) nor do we need to reduce size or similar since our SVG renderer converts them to a PNG thumb and caches the PNG. I'd say: "Never change a running system", especially if it isn't required. Making invalid SVG valid or removing references to raster images that don't exist is ok but this isn't the case here. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The first one is replacing an invalid SVG with a valid one; the rest listed the original and scrubbed versions are both valid. I haven't checked all the others. Rd232 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

PS an unrelated issue: how is File:At char.svg not PD-ineligible? Rd232 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The SVG source code might be copyrightable as a literary work. Of course, the PNG files generated by Mediawiki are of course {{PD-ineligible}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Doubled coats of arms in Category:Duplicate

Please, delete the duplicated coats of arms in Category:Duplicate, some of them are pending since two weeks. --Topographie (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Promotional toys pictures

See example File:Marx+Air+Force+Rescue+Battalion+Helicopter+-+Large+8.JPG, metadata includes promotional text and picture info includes link to internet. See also other pictures of uploader. --Motopark (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with that as long as the image has an educational use. If you think, it is a real problem, nominate it for deletion, but with concrete arguments. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are 746 of them, all (at least all that I examined) with extensive promo material in the metadata. We wouldn't allow this in the file descriptions since it violates COM:ADVERT. I see no reason to allow it in the metadata. However, Yann is right, it's not a {{Speedy}}, it needs a mass {{Delete}}. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, fine, but what is more a problem to me is that the source site mentions Copyright © 2010, 2011, and 2012 Toys & Stuff. All Rights Reserved. Yann (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Iberá marshes

Could we please have a decision there? --Leyo 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC) This is supposed to be an easy case.

 Done. You'll have to make the CommonsDelinker request for me though. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File name of Terrell County Jail

I downloaded a file of a jail and mistakenly called it Terrell County Jail. It should be correctly listed as the Turner County Jail. Could an administrator make that change, please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastoids (talk • contribs)

 Done Yann (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom (all files)

This category is now empty and may be deleted, I think, per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom (all files). Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done; category deleted. odder (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Catedral de Nossa Senhora da Luz, Guarabira.jpg

This file was previously named File:Catedral.jpg, which is an overly generic, effectively meaningless name, as there are many thousands of cathedrals in the world. This led to the file frequently being overwritten.

1. Please delete the two revisions that are unrelated to the original photo, as their copyright status is unknown.
2. Please delete the redirect at File:Catedral.jpg and prevent it from being used for future uploads.

Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! --High Contrast (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Errors in files

Half a dozen times in the last few days I have attempted to look at a deleted image and gotten a message such as the following:

• The image “http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3ALjubljana+Central+Market+2010+bird+eye.jpg&file=c2n3ukqoz1c8bqtjjcjctedbn4w8zg5.jpg&token=6df12ea5ab5e4fe6d6d7ba1413ceed06%2B%5C” cannot be displayed because it contains errors.

This looks like a bug, not actually a corrupt image. Has anyone else seen this? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, seen it as well although not with all images. Posted here. --Denniss (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

help with creating file

I couldn't create file with title: "National High Magnetic Field Lab Tallahassee road sign", the upload form directed me here. SPat (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Go here, fill out the requested information, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Kali-(with_Dakini-Yogini-Bhuta)_College_Square_Arnab_Dutta_2010.JPG

Please move it back to this name and delete "05:22, 23 October 2012" version uploaded by Cropbot. Please delete File:Dakini.jpg name. Wanted to actually upload crop as Dakini.jpg. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Category moves, a basic note

Hey guyz. Please make sure that there's more than just one single catmove-permitted user who regularly attends & operates the move bot, that is, at least introduce some time-to-time personal shifts so that we can keep that good feature reliability-guaranteed. As you know, it's been some time that we have some problem, Houston.... Orrlingtalk 01:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the problem? The instructions on that page are clear that if an item is potentially controversial it shouldn't be listed there. A user opposed, so the changes are potentially controversial. We do have processes for handling potentially controversial moves, you know. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that while opposing, he also inadvertently removed a whole series of requests. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What actually is pointed at, is that there's apparently altogether only one user who currently processes move orders. (Ah, and at the end it's the same one who also "opposes"...) The simple topic here, if you just read again, is that one more user is needed with the permit of activating the move-bot; by putting a "What, exactly, is the problem?" you might unintentionally come across as if you have actually not read the post you were commenting at ;-) Orrlingtalk 11:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice editing needed

When I edited Template:File renaming non-reasons/en, I was given an editnotice with a couple of pieces of awkward wording. Please change "You are editing translation subpage of a template" to "You are editing a translation subpage of a template", and "Format usually follows" should be something such as "The usual format is as follows:", unless it means something else completely; I don't quite understand what it means. I can't use editprotected because I can't remember how to find editnotices; ever since they made editnotices available at en:wp by clicking a note on the affected page, I've gone to them that way and can't remember even how they're named. Also, while you're at it, could you protect File:Catedral.jpg? A thread higher up on this page asked that it be deleted and prevented from recreation as an overly generic name; the deletion happened, but the prevention from recreation didn't. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Both  Done, see for the edit on the template here. Trijnstel_talk 21:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoring images uploaded by Rootbeerlc

I am requesting an administrator to restore the images uploaded by Rootbeerlc (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rootbeerlc), because I think their inclusion is justified from OTRS Ticket#: 2012081110005839.

• License: "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
• Author: Byron Randall
• and the additional tag {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012081110005839}}, for reference.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Review requested: File:IN Battleship 006 edit.jpg

• File:IN Battleship 006 edit.jpg

This is blatantly a promotional image, and not owned by the uploader, or at least there is no evidence of such. I tagged it as such in June connecting it to the record label's promo site [6] (now a dead link) but for some reason the copyvio was declined. Am I missing something here? Rehevkor ✉ 10:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

While it's probably a candidate for a DR, it doesn't seem to qualify for a {{Copyvio}}. "Blatantly promotional" is in the eyes of the beholder -- I see an image of a heavy metal band that is widely used, so many WP editors have thought it was OK from that point of view. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a faf, it's clearly a blatant copyvio and should have been deleted in the first place. Still not sure why it wasn't, it certainly qualified at the time. Rehevkor ✉ 12:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's implausible the the uploader owns the copyright, but it's not impossible—bands/representative of bands/etc have been known to upload images like that to Commons before (and they often end up having to go through OTRS to verify that they are the copyright holder). That's why it doesn't qualify for {{Copyvio}}. As for promotional, that the image was created to promote something is not (in itself) a reason to delete something (on Commons or enwiki). I see you've taken it to DR now, but {{Npd}} probably would have been the best tag, complete with the templated information to the uploader. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing claims

As mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AUTOart, the licensing claims of Cstevencampbell do not seem plausable. Even if he took the photographs of the three-dimensional objects, that does not pass the copyright in the three-dimensional objects that are the subject of the photograph. The three-dimensional objects themselves original artistic works subject to copyright. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you are correct. I suggest that you do a Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests

Is someone watching this? Some requests seem quite old. --Nemo 21:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The old requests are probably the issue above at #Edit_requests_asking_to_replace_protected_SVGs_take_3 which has taken a while to get an answer to. More people making a habit of checking the category would be good though, as it's not nice to leave people waiting for requests for days and days (or longer). Rd232 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ohm's law knopf.png

Hallo, hier müsste, trotz guter Absichten, wahrscheinlich einiges bereinigt werden. Habe schon einige Bilder hochgeladen, aber solchen Sumpf hatte ich noch nie :o/ --Peter Abraham (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Habe mittlerweile SLA gestellt, da durch SVG-Datei ersetzt. Dadurch Anfrage erledigt. Vielen Dank. --Peter Abraham (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure of "Anant Shivaji Desai Press" lithographs deletion requests as Keep

The following were closed as "Keep: Anant Shivaji Desai printings are in PD-India, as per previous discussion", presumably Commons_talk:WikiProject_India#Ravi_Varma_press.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viwashanti pravarthak.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shri Rama Panchayatan.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shrimant Narayana.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sita Prayopavesham.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sta Ramanjanai.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vishnu Deva.jpg

Commons_talk:WikiProject_India#Ravi_Varma_press only discusses the lithographs printed by Anant Shivaji Desai, when he was part of Ravi Varma Press. There is no proof that undated "Anant Shivaji Desai Press" lithographs are also PD-India. File:Vishwashanti pravarthak.jpg may has an explicit copyright notice. So as per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, they should be deleted. The same was highlighted on the closing admin's talk User_talk:Yann#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Viwashanti_pravarthak.jpg with no response.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that the logic establishing publication before 1945, based on this source ([7] p386) only applies to Ravi Varma Press, a firm that according to the source closed in 1945. These things are unfortunately murky, but we don't know that "Desai Press" works are out of copyright. Rd232 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Defense of Tuyen Quan.jpg

Hi,

I was wondering if the deleted file is the same or a variant of [8] ? If so, I do not understand the deletion, as the picture is 127 years old. Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Our version was indeed a low-quality copy of that image. I had deleted it per request ("Please delete due to ambiguous copyright. My mistake PHGCOM") by the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Then it's DP (source gives fr:Jean-Charles Pellerin or his son as author : in fact, the copyright belonged to the editor, fr:Imagerie d'Épinal . But we're well past copyright expiration). Could the file be restored, or could I upload another version ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Please check (and eventually correct) the description and consider uploading the above linked better version over it. --Túrelio (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Moui, enfin, l'auteur ne peut pas être Jean-Charles, vu qu'il est mort en 1836 et que l'image a été créée ou publiée en 1885. Probablement pas son fils non plus. Plus vraisemblablement, l'un de leurs successeurs à la maison Pellerin. Mais, publiée avant 1923, l'image ne pose pas de problème juridique du point de vue du droit d'auteur états-unien. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DR template removal

A user keeps removing the DR template from File:Сваркове. Меморіал загиблим.jpg. I've posted the standard template on their talk page, but apparently with no effect. The template has no Ukrainian translation, though, and since there might be a language barrier issue maybe someone who speaks Ukrainian could have a word with them? Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DR template reinstated and page fully protected for 1 week. However, a native-speaker explaination to the user might be neceessary, as his comments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Сваркове. Меморіал загиблим.jpg suggest that he has understood nothing. --Túrelio (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests asking to replace protected SVGs take 3

Resolved side issue collapsed

future-dated to avoid premature MiszaBot archiving, since User:Fastily has decided 3 days is enough, which has twice led to this topic being auto-archived before I wanted it to be. Rd232 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I set the archiving back to 7 days. Obviously there's no consensus to change it, and obviously, the "99%" statistic is just made up. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC) They were definitely not made up; I painstakingly generated those numbers with a bot-assisted analysis of the page and its archives. It was intended as a non-controveresial change to help increase usability and readability of this page, because not everyone possesses a powerful new computer, fast internet, and the latest greatest web browser. I'm over it though, because in trying to do some good, I'm clearly agitating many narrow minded individuals. Pity. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I never thought they were made up - though I had concerns about exactly what the content of the analysis was, the extent of the data, etc. But in any case, I really don't think it was a good idea. Not just that I wouldn't support any reduction from 7 days for AN and similar pages (I want to be sure to include a weekend); but that 3 days is less than half the old number. And there wasn't enough prior discussion (I don't think you even announced it on every page you did it). Rd232 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC) w:WP:BOLD, read it and weep. For the record, MiszaBot archives after n+1 days, so it's actually 4. Nonetheless, I can't be arsed to pursue this matter, so enjoy your silly little victory. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Commons:Don't be bold. And does this mean you've reverted your changes elsewhere? NB Whilst I don't think you're going to persuade me, your analysis/data might be interesting, and it might be that the conclusions apply to some pages (Commons:Help Desk springs to mind as a likely candidate). Rd232 (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC) That is an essay, which is an opinion, and that convinces me of...let's see, um, absolutely nothing. Again, I'm over it. It's a trivial thing. I might have agreed to it initially, but seriously, enough people have voiced concern, giving me the impression that little good would be served anyway. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Commons essay trumps English Wikipedia guideline... :) Well, fine. Allow me to point out that I do applaud the principle of that sort of analysis, it's just the way you here nontransparently reached and unilaterally implemented (wrong, I think) conclusions that was the problem. Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So Category:Commons protected edit requests had a few requests relating to replacing protected SVGs. I've merged all some of those requests into this thread, so please help decide what to do here.

• File:OptiYes check.svg (719b, valid SVG) to replace -> File:Yes check.svg (3kb, not valid SVG) [some slight colour difference?]
• File:OptiUS-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg (319kb) -> File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg (444kb)
• File:OptiAt char.svg (3kb) -> File:At char.svg (5kb) [incidentally, how can the @ char not be PD??]
• File:OptiButton normal.svg (2kb) -> File:Button normal.svg (4kb)
• File:OptiX mark.svg (1kb) -> File:X mark.svg (4kb)
• File:OptiStop hand.svg (2kb) -> File:Stop hand.svg (2kb)
• File:OptiCC some rights reserved.svg (9kb) -> File:CC some rights reserved.svg (22kb)

... (more to list, but I've run out of energy, feel free to expand the list from Category:Commons protected edit requests).

So should we replace these files with versions scrubbed with http://codedread.com/scour/ or not? Rd232 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no benefit at all in scrubbing. It neither does it make the SVG easier readable (by humans) nor do we need to reduce size or similar since our SVG renderer converts them to a PNG thumb and caches the PNG. I'd say: "Never change a running system", especially if it isn't required. Making invalid SVG valid or removing references to raster images that don't exist is ok but this isn't the case here. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The first one is replacing an invalid SVG with a valid one; the rest listed the original and scrubbed versions are both valid. I haven't checked all the others. Rd232 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

PS an unrelated issue: how is File:At char.svg not PD-ineligible? Rd232 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The SVG source code might be copyrightable as a literary work. Of course, the PNG files generated by Mediawiki are of course {{PD-ineligible}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

So, one more time: do people generally agree with Rillke above that scrubbing should not be done? Rd232 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is really no importend need. In fact, information and details may be lost. -- -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 20:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Echoing the opinion of Perhelion, there is no need for those changes --PierreSelim (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A belated "agree" – they seem to be unnecessary. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Per above comments, I'm rejecting these edit requests. Rd232 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nave Sha'anan

Hey guyz! Today we're here with same issue that was raised last week, which was closed as the matter was said to be resolved: A user possessing a "lock"-button applying it on categories they had self previously attempted to obstruct processing within a discussion, being the only one to both try to thwart it then - and then now to introduce the "preventive sanction" upon the very process they'd been (all alone) trying to stop (reasonless, also). Like some of us already argued here last Saturday, using lock, deletion or other such sactions in attempt to fortify ones preferred version and thus "win a war" isn't on the list of what is permitted on Wiki; it was then indeed actually thought to have been settled with whichever means decided by you and was agreed that this ongoing, serial one-man-band violation had stopped; take another read of the earlier posts still on this page and then see Category:Nave Sha'anan from today. You might come to think that despite the long discussion the right actions yet haven't been employed. So it's really good time now, in my opinion. Orrlingtalk 06:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User once again renamed a number of categories according to his personal preferences that are different from the en:wiki. I just restored it and locked the redirect as this user tend to continue renaming categories till it is locked. Once a proper discussion is concluded, we can restore the categories in a normal mode. Older discussion: Category talk:Neve Sha'anan. As this is a fairly recurring pattern, I think that we have to consider the possibility of removing the cat-a-lot rights. --Foroa (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also discussion here: en:Talk:Neve Sha'anan. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Photos mis-identified as Sam Houston

A .tif and .jpg of a photo from NARA are mis-identified as Sam Houston of Texas. I don't know who this is, but I it's not Sam Houston. No way, no how. For comparison, I am showing below the mis-identified photos, two Commons photos of the real Sam Houston of Texas. Both appear to be standing next to the same column, and the unidentified is much shorter than the real Sam Houston, facial features are different, and the unidentified is more of a cone-headed bald man..Maile66 (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• 
  tif file Unknown misidentified as Sam Houston
• 
  jpg file Unknown misidentified as Sam Houston
• 
  The Real Sam Houston
• 
  The Real Sam Houston

The bot that uploaded them belongs to User:Dominic. Perhaps you should address your concern to him? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The question raised is not a problem with the upload bot. It is a problem with the title that was attributed to the original work by the National Archives (or by the author or by whoever sorted the author's work or transferred the original work to the archives). -- Asclepias (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how all the National Archives images got identified, but whether it was NARA said it was Sam Houston or some Commons volunteer going through a list, it was mis-identified. This is not Sam Houston of Texas. Maile66 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That was sort of my point - I don't know who identified these, so was trying to suggest that we ask Dominic where his bot got the information. (Apparently I was unclear, sorry.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Still, all Dominic could tell is that the bot copied that title as it is written in the source notice at NARA, available from the source link. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Has there been, perhaps, more than one Sam Houston from Texas that held a position entitling him to be called the "Honorable" Sam Houston? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam Houston had a son named Sam Houston Jr., but this would not have been him. Mathew Brady photos are generally the era of the Civil War. In 1861, Texas seceded from the Union, and the Confederacy removed Sam Houston from office. Sam Jr. would have only been in his 20's in that time period. Sam Jr. was a student when the Civil War broke out, enlisted in the Confederate Army, became a prisoner, and returned to school after the war. He later became a physician, and then a writer, but doesn't seem to have risen in any particular career to have been notable, to have the title "Hon.". There's also the possibility that these photos were mis-identified as far back as Brady's 1896 death , relegated to storage for more than 150 years. Maile66 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, the clothes on the unidentified man - don't those look like they could be 19th Century judicial robes, just opened instead of buttoned up? Maile66 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

On a hunch, I checked the United States Supreme Court membership - you can drag the chart back and forth, and any member clicked on brings up an image. We can eliminate them - I check all the 19th century members, and this man was not a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Maile66 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The image, whoever it is, has the same identification at NARA [9] (search 529951529950 in archival descriptions, open result link and click digital copies tab) (or use the link just below) Dankarl (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the link you were looking for is [10] for the mystery man or [11] for Bingham. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks; typo at the end of some frustration Dankarl (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, NARA 529951, Senator Kingsley S Bingham of Michigan has the same column. Bingham entered the Senate March 1859, the same time Houston left. To identify the mystery man, I'd look in Washington 1858-60. Dankarl (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

NARA says that the photos were digitized by a business partner. If we go to the website hosting the photo with the paper notice to which it was associated, we see that the identification of this photo as "Hon. Sam Houston, Texas" was already present: [12]. The Brady photos bear different numbers on that site, possibly the numbers originally attributed by the War Department. This photo of the mystery man is number B-5862. If we look at the neighboring photos in the numbering sequence, they're of different persons, so they don't help. Some records have been clarified with annotations, but not this one. The description of that photo in the record may well go back to the recording made by by the War Department. There are many photos of other "Honorables" at different places in the numbering sequence. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Alebruno

User creates out of scope pages after deleting them--Motopark (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day by Mathonius. However, IMO it's not impossible that the user is indeed the artist Alejandro Silveira Bruno. Will request OTRS-permission. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Please, can a sysop review what Wide Awake Again it's doing? He it's changing OTRS templates. I have blocked the tickets; it's not pending, I reviewed it and the permission email it's unclear. +PrinceWilly 12:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User indef blocked as sock of a known banned user. --Denniss (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed

Hi. Can an admin please take care of Template_talk:FormatnumDigit#Update_needed? Thanks. Huji (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Socks at Commons

Checkuser results are in for an SPI case on en.wiki which is also relevant here. The case is here for admin review.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying.

Now this becomes reasonable. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts. INeverCry 21:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Lostrust and User:Lostrust III

Both seems to instrested about Adobe logos and other are blocked.--Motopark (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 16:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Summersleek (talk · contribs) potential copyright issues

The file File:Ann Dunham, Madelyn Dunham, Stanley Dunham, 1940's.jpg was uploaded under the claim it was the users own work, given that it was also supposedly taken in the 1940's by a user with a history of copyright violations seems to be a dubious claim. (note I am not active on commons, ping me on my en Wikipedia page if there are questions) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Same problem with more than half of his uploads. One found to be a plain copyvio of an AP photo. --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Request: Please rename or delete two files. I messed up the names

I loaded up 18 animated gif-files today. But I messed up some of the names.

Please can anybody rename

from "Standing wave SWR 8 (traveling, standing).gif" to "Standing wave SWR 9 (traveling, standing) open.gif"

and from "Standing wave SWR 9 (forward, reflected).gif" to "Standing wave SWR 9 (forward, reflected) open.gif"

Or, at your convenience, just delete the files.

Thanks in advance.

User Pyrometer Talk

--18:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Spanish speaking admin needed

It'd be good if we could get a Spanish speaking admin to take a look at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cesar8807. The technical check has already been performed, so no checkuser rights are needed – just a quick look at some conversation and possibly blocking the suspected sockpuppet. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Lobo (howl?) 14:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Cesar8807 1 month for use his sockpuppet in disrupt editing --Ezarateesteban 14:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming file back to original over redirect

Hi, this move has caused the proofreadpage extension at enWS, where the document was being proofread, to not work correctly for this file. The options to fix are either to move the file back, or move 87 pages at enWS (subpage move does not work in this case). I would appreciate if the file could be moved back. Thanks. --Eliyak (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Ezarateesteban 13:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

new nasty bug!

Bugzilla bug at [13]. Enter any info that may be useful to developers resolving this issue there.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T43615

When I undeleted File:BethTaylor2009Head.png a moment ago, the image itself was restored, but the image page remained nearly blank. The history is completely empty, whereas the logs seem to be correct. Additionally strange is the error message on the "restored" image page, which appears in German, even after I temp-switched my default to english. It says:

• Die Version 0 der Seite namens „BethTaylor2009Head.png“ ist nicht vorhanden.
• Dieser Fehler wird normalerweise von einem veralteten Link zur Versionsgeschichte einer Seite verursacht, die zwischenzeitlich gelöscht wurde. Einzelheiten sind im Lösch-Logbuch einsehbar.

or roughly translated into english:

• Version 0 of the page „BethTaylor2009Head.png“ does not exist.
• Die error is usually caused by an outdated link to the version history of the page, which had been deleted in between. For details see the deletion-log.

Of course, pressing Purge or F5 didn't change anything. Any solution or idea?
Though I don't kow if that's related, over the last few days every now and then, when clicking on a deleted file (in order to compare to a new suspected copyvio), instead of the image only a small empty square was shown. --Túrelio (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Same issue with File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg, which I restored earlier today. INeverCry 22:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with viewing deleted images has been going on for atleast a week. INeverCry 22:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm able to view deleted files by first temporarily restoring them. It's sporadic but the data seems okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can still view about half the deleted files I try to look at without having to restore them. The others give an error message in Firefox saying the file can't be viewed because there are errors in it. INeverCry 23:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

All deletions that are not copyright violations, attack images or issues relating to BLP deletions should cease until this bug is solved! Deleting files which are no a huge issue on Commons is causing more harm than have the file remain, once the file is deleted the history is lost (chances are not good if the cause isn't found and the likely hood of relinking the histories with the files). Bidgee (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me at File:Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg. The history was permanently lost! I can find no way to restore it. Luckily I moved most of the description to a template shortly beforehand, so I can mostly re-create the description, but this is a dire scenario, so I'm going to take Bidgee's advice and edit the site message. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla bug at [14] (filed by Bidgee). I've also alerted devs on IRC. Today was the scheduled biweekly deploy to Commons, so we probably picked up an unanticipated issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

At least two devs are investigating the issue now, we should see the offending change reversed pretty soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This should no longer be an issue due to the rollback. Anyone want to confirm? Kaldari (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed, I am no longer able to reproduce this issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else is watching, this appears to be a Commons-only issue; I've tested it on enwp and it's working. this does not affect the Wikipedia sites; I've checked it on enwp and it works. Reportedly it was deployed to all other WMF sites but was reversed. --Rschen7754 06:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Devs confirm it does not affect most wikis, including enwp. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems they are now trying to restore the lost data, Bugzilla 41649. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

However, its predecessor, the deletion bug, is still unsolved, as I experienced with today's deletion of File:TODOS LOS CAMINOS DE VERDUGOS CONDUCEN A ROMA.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Same thing this morning with File:Leon Williams.jpg. I'm not seeing too many though; maybe 1 every day or 2. INeverCry 20:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:WTC Wormova BelgradePlazaInfoBoard2.jpg, File:Nina Nesbitt 1.jpg, File:Heerde520201.jpg and File:Dobritz (Dresden), Leuben, Kiesse, Trümmerberg.jpg are of those (regularly, not OS) deleted files, which aren't visible even for admins and will likely have lost their history. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been experiencing this bug as well. They cannot be previewed in Special:Undelete, but undeleting it makes it visible again, and even if it is re-deleted it is still visible to admins. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Filed bugzilla:41794. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tags "missing permission" on old images

I just restored a file that got deleted recently, after it was tagged as missing permission, because uploader and claimed photographer were not the same person or at least not documented to be. As this file was uploaded for the first time in 2004 at enWP, there was no established documentation, not OTRS, no nothing. We assume good faith to this stock of files and do not demand that they comply with today's regulations. Please do not tag them as "missing permission", and if you encounter file from the era before 2008 with the tag and in the relevant categories, please to not delete them, but just remove the tag. TIA --h-stt !? 13:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevant: COM:GOF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

HotCat shortcuts

Shortly after introcing HotCat, I created some three letter acronyms to save keystrokes for category names which are frequently used, a few days ago I creted three letter acronyms followed by two digit century value (e.g. lmg16 to generate Category:16th-century paintings, location missing). Now a user named Foroa deleted all eleven redirects without a DR. I am not amused and would like to have them restored, see User talk:Foroa#HotCat abbreviatons, he does not want to restore them. I did not get an answer about the usability. I request herewith to have a broader disussion of this and an option for restoring (hurts nobody). For me, this abbreviation is important because I use(d) it several times a day. Thanks, --Mattes (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. By the way I don't need a category for the redirect source (Category:HotCat_abbreviatons as a parent).

Foroa's most recent comment (as of now) at his talk page is This is an excellent idea: extend your local HotCat with a personal shortcut lookup table. This is however a very bad idea to put that globally as this can lead to thousands of personal shortcut categories that will conflict with the millions of other categories names and redirects.... That seems to point the way to a resolution: create a community-approved list of category shortcuts. It does seem a useful timesaver, but Foroa's concern about a proliferation of categories isn't unreasonable. So let's somewhere make a list of agreed HotCat category shortcuts. Where would be a good place? Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This could be a simple personal list in a cookie. Documenting and maintaining shortcuts is always a problem, a problem that disappears with a local list. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you explain in a few more words -- I do not understand "This could be a simple personal list in a cookie." .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not that hard. A list at say Help:Gadget-HotCat/category shortcuts is not rocket science. Create a simple rule that (i) HotCat category redirects must be on that list - anything not on the list is subject to deletion and (ii) redirects can only be added to the list by consensus. Hard-protect the list for good measure (so additions have to be confirmed by an admin), and we're fine. Rd232 (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The solution I propose is simpler (in organisation) but requires equally a small modification of HotCat: each user can have his own HotCat configuration file (either on Commons or in a cookie) that defines aliases as short-cuts that could contain for example US=United States (for the thousands of categories that start with it), lmg16=16th-century paintings, location missing, pws=Paintings with signatures, plpti=Paintings lacking painting technique information. As can be seen from the deleted examples, it is highly unlikely that I ever will remember/use a thing like plpti. Hotcat should lookup the list for replacement before accessing the Commons API. When an alias overlaps with a category name, which will happen eventually, then it is up to the user to adapt his short-cuts. Alternatively, short-cuts could be preceded by a special character to indicate a short-cut for replacement which might be easier to handle them and use in the middle of a category name. For example @US=from the United States. While we are it, it would be great if HotCat could handle the in, of, from, at words as one single proposition in its search and ignore the "the", but that is probably a problem of the search API. --Foroa (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well, the page Help:Gadget-HotCat/shortcuts is open now :-) Added and edited the rules ... (the link from Help:Gadget-HotCat to Help talk:Gadget-HotCat/category shortcuts may be set it the page content is ready to go public.) If someone has an idea, how a consensus for list entries can be accomplished may go ahead. But I don't know what solution we should establish: The cookie or the global list (I'm afraid the cookie solution needs a lot of tutoring for other non-technology gifted people will have problems) ... --Mattes (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken deleted versions

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T43615

Hi all, has anyone run into the problem that some recently deleted files appear corrupted and can't be opened? The browser gives an error like "The file cannot be opened because it contains errors", or something similar. I'm trying to upload local fair-use copies of the files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donetsk train station.jpg, but can't seem to view most of the files because of that error. Example: Special:Undelete/File:Donetsk_station.jpg. Before deletion the images were displaying fine. What's going on? Jafeluv (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, this is the same issue as discussed above. Jafeluv (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Tara Strong

Highly unlikely the uploader of File:A68uBM2CYAANg5j.jpg actually has the rights to the photo. The uploaded reason and the edits at en Wikipedia article when it was uploaded appear to be a joke. (i do not hang out on commons, please ping me on en Wikipedia)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

and also File:Tara Strong 2012, from her Twitter Account.jpg. Apparently, Strong has twitted a message asking users to upload a phot from Flikr which appears not to have appropriate licensing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

and now here again File:Red TS.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 November 2012‎ (UTC)

 Done. The files have been deleted. INeverCry 22:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And another File:Tara Strong @ Spike TV's Video Game Awards.jpeg TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 17:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:None (add license tag in the box below)

Are this template valid or shall we delete it ?--Motopark (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be deleted. Currently, the template consists of nothing but the text "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/". (That address is also linked to from relevant PD templates on Commons through {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}}.) The template is uncategorized and undocumented, and has a name that sounds more like an upload form instruction than a template name. It's currently used on 21 file pages, which all look like they could use a bit of cleanup. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It was created today and it looks like a mistake from a new user. However, the mystery is how that previously non-existent template came to be inserted on 21 pages months ago, before it even existed. (And probably on many other pages that were cleaned up after the upload.) It seems that those files were uploaded through the flickr upload bot. The insertion might be due to the user making some sort of manipulation error when using the bot. It probably happens only in a small proportion of uploads. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed all usages, deleted the template and protected it to prevent re-creation.  ■ MMXX ^talk 16:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Girlz

Despite posting here 4 days ago the message linking to the locked category, Category:Nave Sha'anan and its affiliates are still in the same unworkable mode. I don't know why. Up to now, trying to reach in the edit interface to do the move session still renders out the "read-only" version, which reflects the not-update edit version. Be sure to unlock the cat; You may notify me as the categories are unlocked, so I can self complete the mentioned fixings for that tree, or alternatively process them yourselves. For your convenience there's again the list of items in need of unlocking, as we know locking it in the first place has already been agreed here to be illegal,

• Category:People of the Palestinian territories by occupation
• Category:Writers from the Palestinian territories
• Category:Nave Sha'anan
• Category:Nave Sha'anan water tower
• Category:Nave Sha'anan, Tel Aviv
• Category:Nave Sha'anan, Haifa

and look for more. Thanx a lot, Orrlingtalk 14:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See #Nave_Sha.27anan. The others are locked till there is an agreement on the category structure in Palestine. --Foroa (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's related. Someone has locked these categories while being personally involved in an edit war to gain advantage using just their "lock"-rights. See archived discussions where this was said to be treated Orrlingtalk 14:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear admins, one just cannot process the tasks on these trees while some of the pages are locked, there's quite a lot of work to do on there – why this delay with abolishing the lock? Orrlingtalk 14:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also discussion here:

• en:Talk:Neve Sha'anan.
• Category talk:Neve Sha'anan.
• Commons:Requests for comment/Palestine and Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

guyz

There's another now similar manifestation of a user applying a "Protected Category" feature upon 4 different cats where he/she also were actively engaged in a dispute over these very categories. They thus fixated these cats in an ill-edited mode, actually, and you can only approach the "View source" of each of them. Fixit:

• Maps of Belgium
• Photographs of Belgium
• German Community of Belgium
• Cities and villages in Belgium

Thankz Orrlingtalk 13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another Problem after Rename/move of files

Hi!

Something went wrong with this request, which was executed today:

request to rename or delete 2 files

Seems the problem is this redirect, which prevents me from uploading the picture I want to carry that name.

User Pyrometer Talk

--Pyrometer (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please could someone remove this redirect: redirect? I want to upload an image there. It is part of a series you can admire (or at least see) here: de:Benutzer:Pyrometer/Baustelle/swr/swr. --Pyrometer (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done, you can now proceed with uploading the file :-) odder (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Now it is complete. (And I can proceed). :-)))

But I messed up something: I loaded up the right file with a wrong name, so now there is this dupe to kill:

File:Swr-fr-rm08.gif

addendum: I tagged this file with {{duplicate|File:Standing wave SWR 9 (forward, reflected).gif}} --Pyrometer (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done, the duplicate file has been deleted. Thanks. :-) --Pyrometer (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Lostrust III and User talk:Rolyin

First blocked and second account created after that and both instrested about adobe logos. Can someone check--Motopark (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct and blocked. Seems to have had a number of accounts so far... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Massive Copyright violation

Drex202 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

User:Drex202 have been uploading many files which are sport clubs logos. I'm asking you to delete those which you consider copyvio (all of them, I guess, since this file have been deleted due to Copyright violation: Sport club logo. Not text only). Genericool (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

May need a review, but many of them are {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed all logos uploaded by this user. At least they all match the claim: logos claim to be {{PD-textlogo}} are very simple indeed, and a few are old with a date provided. Some dates and sources are missing, certainly none should be speedy deleted. Yann (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think all of them are trademarks. I found a Mexican website that provides some clarity to the issue of football clubs logos: For example, the shield of a sports team is a work protected by copyright within the graphic design industry, it is noted that according to the principle governing automatic protection to copyright, the works enjoy protection from the moment they are embodied in any tangible medium that makes susceptible reproduction, regardless of whether they are registered with the Public Registry of Copyright. So to legally use shields or sports logos, you must have the permission of the owner of the economic rights (automatic translation, may contain errors). Also, this Australian website says something like that. So, although they're just basic shapes and text, we don't have any permission to use them freely in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericool (talk • contribs)

Trademark is a different issue than copyright. It does not prevent us publishing the file. As for copyright, we accept logos which are under a certain simplicity threshold, which vary from country to country. Yann (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

TimedText

Anyone know anything much about this namespace? I realise I probably should but I have very very rarely seen it used. However the past few days have brought a number of new pages in this namespace dome of which look like test edits (at best) to me. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's intended for closed captioning of videos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok - then I think it is probably being misused by some IP edits. Mostly well outside my language scope though. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's definitely a bunch of vandalism there. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Caro Scheilegers :) and User talk:Leitoxx

Please check talk page history from both, some strange chatting.--Motopark (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 Reverted and nuked the files of both of the accounts. Thanks for notifying us! Trijnstel_talk 17:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

cancel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.152.146 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Cancel? Trijnstel_talk 17:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And now both are  blocked for 1 day too. Playtime is over. Trijnstel_talk 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Lady Gaga BTW Ball Antwerp.jpg

Please delete the latest revision, uploaded by Vitalygagasmile, which is an obvious copyright violation and completely unrelated to the original photo described by the file description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, also found that File:Troitsk Water Tower.jpg is a copyright violation. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rinse and repeat. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done and re-uploader blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Close Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012

Will an uninvolved admin close Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012 since it has had no further comments since June 14. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Chronographchro moved an other user's page to template namespace

Chronographchro (talk · contribs) moved userpage User:Postdlf to Template:Wedding Mekot 2012, apparently in some kind of attempt to advertise wedding dresses. Could an admin revert the move? The same user also attempted to insert spam links to Village pump: [15] MKFI (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done and I also blocked and checked the account. This is a known long-term spambot vandal. Thanks! Trijnstel_talk 22:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

Should File:アメリカ人野郎.jpg be renamed? The filename literally translates to "American bastards". wikt:野郎 has similar connotations to "asshole, fucker, rascal, jerk, bastard" in English. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 03:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Even Google translate gives the title as "American assholes". Obviously what's occuring in the image is unpleasant, but I would say the filename should be changed to something more descriptive and not inflamatory. Suggestions? INeverCry 03:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

All other uploads from this user have now been identified as copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This one in concern could be deleted as a duplicate of File:Bathing_japanese.jpg (it's not an exact duplicate, though). If a new name is needed, how does "Japanese prisoner stripped and tortured by U.S. Navy soldiers.jpg" sound? --whym (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the wording in Japanese, 野郎 certainly brings unwanted connotations and should be avoided here. This word can be derogatory when referring to a person or a group of people. On the other hand, it can also be used just for adding some "manly" or "wild" flavor, as you can see in a movie title, 野郎どもと女たち (translation of Guys and Dolls), for example. Anyway, I don't think we want such a flavor on Commons. --whym (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a duplicate of File:Bathing_japanese.jpg though with a minor crop additionally the original has the source, author, licensing information as well as describing the situation. IMHO just delete it obviously its just trolling upload. Gnangarra 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and has been deleted. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How to mark successful undeletion requests?

Hi all, as an admin I'd like to know how to mark a file that was deleted and then undeleted as the result of a successful undeletion request. As far as I know, there is no automatic way to do it and it seems as if there is not a standard way to do it (it seems as if there isn't even a policy). Any clue? --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC) PS: see for instance the files undeleted after this discussion. This talk page states that the file was removed but no info about restoration is provided.

I will often, but not consistently, add a note to the DR and put the {{Kept}} tag on the file page. Perhaps this should be the job of the person who closes the UnDR. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all for it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Idem as Jim. Yann (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's a responsibility of the person closing the request, but I assume it should be stated in the relevant policy, shouldn't it? --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 23:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of Alejandro Andrade Ponce

Please, take a look to this request, it is open sinse several days ago --Ezarateesteban 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• This user was blocked indefinitely by Abigor in June of 2009 for repeated copyvios. He has asked politely to be unblocked. Abigor has not been active here or on Meta since August. I am inclined to do the unblock, but I would like to hear from others before I do it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I support unblocking this user. INeverCry 20:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Me too. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 23:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

{{rename}} doesn't work

The file File:Shakemap BíoBío Chile, 23 April 2009.jpg has the wrong name. The shake was in 2010, as correctly mentioned in the description. I tried to set a "rename" tag but the server anserwd "name was already changed, please delete the rename tag". Can anyone mend the filename?. thanks in advance, --Createaccount 16:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I placed a rename template on the page. Maybe you wrote the old title in the template parameter? -- Asclepias (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Move request

There are no objections to this move: Category:Pubs in the London Borough of Greenwich; I'd do it myself, but I can only move files. Could somebody oblige please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. No special rights required here, though. Jafeluv (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Site notice

Um, the site notice doesn't have a link... This, that and the other (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems fixed. Perhaps there are/were caching issues. This, that and the other (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Emmanuel Ngabirano

Please see history who have made this user page.--Motopark (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked three socks, deleted promo user pages. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

more tara strong

can someone please revert to the old version of this image File:Tara strong 2009.jpg which was actually free and delete the one in the red shirt which was uploaded over the same file name but is not actually free? see [16] (note that i do not frequent commons, so please ping me at english wikipedia if needed.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Rosenzweig τ 13:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

and now we also have this obvious studio image File:Tara Strong lives on.jpg - it is tagged as unlicensed, but can probably go as speedy.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Warn user: Special:Contributions/Foroa

Edit-fight Orrlingtalk 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Two are needed to fight. Can't you discuss peacefully? Yann (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-GermanGov-currency

This is now our oldest open DR. I don't normally like it when people bring older DRs here, but this one is from July and the next oldest is from September 7, so closing this will reduce the length of our backlog from sixteen weeks to ten weeks.

I'd close it myself, but it has a lot of German discussion, so it would be better handled by one of our German-reading colleagues. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that someone taking this on use {{DR proposed close}}, since it affects a lot of files and is really quite complicated and confused/confusing. Rd232 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Abhijitkool

He has been uploading copyvio images, a good number of his images have been deleted. And recently he is removing deletion templates from images inappropriately (he has done twice in two different images). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I've deleted the 2 images, and warned the user. INeverCry 19:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The rest of this user's files were also obvious copyvios, so I deleted them too. INeverCry 19:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hit and run copyright abuse not being adequately dealt with

I know that most Commons admins take copyright violations seriously and work to keep Commons free from copyright violations. I have made a number of deletion nominations to point out an obvious pattern of copyvios, but the message doesn't seem to be sinking in. The pattern is this: public nudity or explicit sexuality related images uploaded by a brand new user as their first upload. Note that I'm not speaking here of the always popular phenomenon of male users uploading snapshots of their own penises, or images from Flickr. The content is generally -- but not exclusively -- public nudity or outdoor nudity or public urination.

Two recent instances of this have made me concerned. In the first, a user uploaded a copyvio image of a woman urinating outdoors in public and explicitly claimed it as their own work. The image was deleted, but the uploader was not blocked. I questioned the admin who deleted the image, but their response was "I'm not blocking someone for a single copyvio, even if it is their first upload". The user later claimed on my talkpage that the image was uploaded by a friend using their (never before used) account. I pointed this out to the closing admin, but the account remains unblocked. Users whose first upload is a deliberate copyvio should be blocked. Doing anything else only invites more copyvio.

In the second instance, I nominated an obvious copyvio of public nudity for deletion, providing links to two versions of the image posted on the internet months before the upload here (by a brand new user). To my surprise, two experienced Commons users (one of whom is an admin) voted to "keep" the image. When the deletion request was closed as "keep", I explained the situation to the closing admin and asked them to take another look. Instead of taking the time to look at the links I provided, they argued with me and suggested that I was a prude because I am asking for a copyright violation containing public nudity to be deleted. They have stopped responding in the conversation and the copyvio image remains on Commons (along with a derivative). The original uploader remains unblocked.

The pattern is obvious enough that I can be confident that File:Nuda.jpg, File:Young-woman-urinating.jpg, and File:Polish Nudism 2.jpg are copyvio. (Actually, I took the time to find a version of Nuda.jpg here that predates the upload to Commons, but it is available on many sites.) I'm trying to help you out here, folks, but I'm getting the impression that some of you either don't care or are heavily invested in ideological viewpoints that override any concerns about copyright. Please deal with this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not block people for a single copyvio, and I have not ever blocked people for a single copyvio. Copyvios are sometimes mistakes - people don't realise what we do here and what the criteria are. To ban people for their first upload being bad - and most likely if there is a bad upload it will be the first upload - is just banning potentially good contributors. You block people once it is clear they don't understand the process and will never understand it. If they are talking to you, they're not at that point. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about uploaders who upload one file and walk away - those uploads need more scrutiny than average uploads, and maybe for certain topics even more. But I don't understand how blocking these uploaders helps any. If they only upload one file, it's obviously pointless; even if they upload multiple files, they'll probably do it before someone notices and acts on the copyvio, and have stopped uploading by then. Only if they're still meaningfully "around" when someone notices the problem does blocking achieve anything - and then you may as well talk to them (and blocking is always an option if they're not listening). So, yes, we could do more, but swifter blocking isn't much of an answer. Rd232 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Accounts are being created to upload copyvio content of a similar nature. Perhaps some of those accounts belong to the same person or persons. If that were the case, and I suspect it is, then hard blocking would be an effective deterrent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, you would have to pick them up early and even if we could do that, they would just create a new account when the previous account is blocked. Bidgee (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

He specifically mentioned "hard blocking" (see mw:Block#Blocking_options). Not a magic solution, but it does help a bit if someone is consistently trying to evade blocks. I don't see any evidence that people are doing that in order to upload copyvios though. Rd232 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, if you don't block people, you won't see evidence of them trying to evade blocks. You'd have to soft-block them first, and then see if the same IPs register sock accounts to do the same sort of upload. (It might be worth having a word with Commons checkusers; I'd be very surprised if this sort of thing had never happened here.) Andreas JN466 08:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

When I have the time I tend to review autoblocks and always have done...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, several of your statements are wrong:

1. There is certainly nothing obvious about the DR you created.
2. Your suppositions are based on wrong assumptions: I don't see why an account which upload only nudity pictures make them probable copyvios. In fact, if I would upload nudity pictures, I would create a different account for that purpose only, as my account is quite public, and I would not like nudity pictures to be associated with that account.
3. Uploading a few copyvios is not a reason for a block, at least not if the user stopped doing that.

Yann (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yann, I do not know why you are still arguing about this:

1. I clearly stated Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nudist couple walking at the beach.jpg that the file (and the upload from which it was derived) was a copyright violation. I gave you links to where the image had been uploaded to porn-sharing sites months before it was uploaded here. You closed the deletion request as a keep, apparently based on an incorrect statement from Simonxag. I came to your talk page to ask you to look at the closure again and explain your error. The image is a copyvio. The evidence is there for anyone to confirm it, but you seem to be hung up on admitting that you could have been wrong. As an admin, you have a responsibility to look at the evidence. If you are not willing or able to do this, you should not be closing the DR.
2. I am not making assumptions. This is a pattern that I have observed and others can confirm. Why would you not like nudity pictures to be associated with your account - are you a prude?
3. I am not suggesting that any account uploading copyvios be blocked. I am suggesting that accounts which fall into this pattern be blocked.

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

More examples

I took a look through Category:Human female urination. Here are some more copyvios.

• File:Young-Woman-Urination.jpg - possible source
• File:Peeing in Roskilde.jpg - possible source
• File:Female urination.jpg possible source

Are you starting to get my point? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To comment on point 2 above, the reasons that people may not want nudity photos associated with their accounts is wide and varied. And not many of them have to do with prudery. One major reason is that having nudity photos linked to your account could set one up as a target of ridicule and harrassment; both on and off the project. As to File:Young-Woman-Urination.jpg, this has a 2009 upload date to Commons and an October 2012 date to the imagefap website, so it is unlikely that any admin would delete that image from Commons based upon that evidence. russavia (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's deal with the easy one first - if you look at the link, it says "Date Added: 13/04/2007". I do not know where you are getting the October 2012 date. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The imagefap site here says: "Date Added: 2012-10-10 12:06:28" (as per this screenshot). I don't know where you are pulling the 2007 date from, but from my end it is clearly incorrect. russavia (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Turn off your Javascript and try it again. I think you will find that you are seeing the "last modfied" date. I'm taking the liberty of striking your offensive comment myself, since seem to have ignored my request. I suggest you leave it that way unless you are willing to take responsibility for what follows. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have turned off Javascript and I see the date that you see (2007). However, when I look at this image, it has the same upload date with javascript off (13 April 2007), but it is watermarked with eroberlin.com. A cursory check of when that domain was first registered indicates it was first registered 5 years 75 days ago. This is confirmed by a double check. Meaning that the eroberlin.com domain was registered on 28 August 2007 -- several months after this image was "apparently" uploaded to the imagefap.com website. Turning off javascript on the imagefap website is obviously returning dud results. Without evidence to the contrary, all indicators lead one to fairly assume that the imagefap image is a copyvio of the image hosted here on Commons; not the other way around. russavia (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

With Javascript turned off, the imagefap website appears to return reasonable dates of upload. With Javascript turned on, it appears to return the last modified date rather than the date of upload. Another copy of the image is on the same site, which has a different timestamp of "Date Added: 08/06/2010", so the dates obviously vary quite a bit. You have made assumptions about the credibility of these dates based on a watermark on a porn image and the registration date of the porn site - that seems like a poor way to approach things. You are welcome to contact imagefap and ask them to clarify, but this image fits the pattern that I have laid out, so I have little doubt that it is a copyvio form one source or another. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins on Commons are generally required to have basic logic skills I think. As such, you have presented "evidence", by way of turning off javascript, that an image was uploaded to an external site in April 2007 - with javascript turned on it gives a date of October 2012. You state, without any evidence of such, that the 2012 date is a modified date. I'm not seeing any evidence that this is the case. So, as an admin who might need to delete that image, I checked the very next image in that batch on the external site. With javascript turned on (as is the norm for most people) that image showed an upload date of 2012; with javascript turned off an April 2007 date. However, the image has a watermark for a site which was first registered in August 2007; four months after the image was apparently uploaded to that external site. Pure logic tells me that this could not reasonably be the case. So it calls into doubt the validity of such (your) claims for other images in that batch. I don't think there would be admin on Commons who would delete such an image based upon the evidence you have provided, and for which I have provided conflicting information as to your methology on reaching the conclusion you have.

Now having, said that, I am usually suspicious of files which have an {{Own}} statement, but with a combination of no exif data, no date, nor any other information past "woman pissing"; even moreso when it is uploaded by a single-upload editor -- this goes for any "subject", not just sexual/ity images. And that is something that could be taken to COM:DR by any editor. russavia (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone here is being mislead by your statements about "sexual/ity" images, I have been careful to be clear that my observations are not about all uploads that depict nudity or sexuality. Please bear in mind also that this is not about the content of the images - this is about copyright violation. The subject area of public nudity and (female) urination is a particularly problematic area, which should be clear at this point, regardless of the questions about one particular image. How many more examples will it take before people recognize and acknowledge this problem? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Of the three examples, one is now deleted, and the other two have DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female urination.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Young-Woman-Urination.jpg. I'm not sure that getting into specific examples is helpful if it doesn't clearly support some conclusions about uploader behaviour, which might lead to conclusions about how we should handle these things. Also, whilst copyvio can take some legwork to show, the BLP issues I've raised eg at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Young-Woman-Urination.jpg are often obvious from just looking at the file and description. Really we should try to have a big BLP review of these types of files. Rd232 (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, my point here is about an obvious pattern of copyvio uploads which admins should be aware of it when reviewing new uploads or closing deletion requests. Your point about the BLP issues associated with public nudity or urination images is valid, but it is a separate issue. I think it points out that this is a particularly troubled subject area and needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Still more examples

• File:Sauna Jen 1.jpg
• File:Sauna Jen 2.jpg
• File:Sauna Jen 3.jpg

These three images are taken from a much larger professionally photographed set. Here are two examples from the same series - here and here. All three were uploaded by a new account with no other uploads. Have I made my point yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Those were uploaded in TWO THOUSAND AND NINE. That's three years ago. We can hardly block a newly created account that's been around for three years. As for your claim it's a copyvio, the upload was 1 day after photographing, per EXIF, so unlikely a porn site would get it turned round in that time. Perhaps this is... shock... actually a LEGITIMATE nudity upload? And if you are so worried about them, file a DR. Don't come whingeing here about us not blocking someone three years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt, are you confused? Where did I say anything about blocking this particular account? Or fault you for not having blocked it three years ago? I'm more than open to having a conversation about this, but we don't seem to be talking about the same things. Incidentally, the EXIF data is bogus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle, please use COM:DR, and put all of your arguments in there. Your argument that EXIF data is fake should obviously form part of your DR argument, and the community can look at it and see whether your argument holds water (or not). The admin noticeboards are meant for issues which require immediate admin intervention. The issues of potential copyvios you are relating to us will be dealt with via normal deletion processes. russavia (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, you are welcome to file a DR yourself, if you wish. I am alerting the Commons admin community to a larger pattern which is relevant to many deletion reviews. I am offering examples here to support my assertions. I find it interesting that rather than commenting on the general issue, you and Mattbuck seem to be trying to pick at the details of individual examples. As is the case whenever I have raised Commons issues on Jimbo's WP talk page, you have been quick to delete files under discussion. Thanks for your diligence, but I would rather see you seeking out these problems and their root causes instead of waiting for me to point out individual examples. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Even more examples (and a hint)

• File:Female genital piercing.jpg

Again, one image from a larger widely available set of images (see here and here for example). Of course, it is possible that the person who took these images came to Commons, created an account, uploaded just one of the many pictures they had taken in that session, and never returned. It is much more likely that this is just another case of copyright violation. Note that User:Othertree overwrote the original upload of File:Female genital piercing.jpg with some poor quality derivatives.

• File:Solstice Bike Ride 2011 094.jpg

This image and all other images uploaded by User:Fremont Solstice are copyright violations. These images appear to be from 2010, despite the date in the file name. See here for example. Note that User:Othertree created Freemont Solstice's user page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point it's probably more helpful to make concrete suggestions about a general course of action than to pick more examples. Earlier in the thread you suggested blocking more quickly; that doesn't seem particularly productive, as discussed above. Some other possibilities include a systematic review of old uploads, and writing some standards (maybe in an essay to start with) to help guide interpretation of COM:PRP in this area. So let's talk about what we can change systemically. Rd232 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And I would like to again point out that if you have problems with an image, nominate it for deletion. That is helpful. Your current method is not. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt, this is a larger problem than any one image, so I'm not going to do that. This is the admin noticeboard, so I have no doubt that having been informed of a copyright violation, one of the admins will take action to resolve the situation. There are over one hundred of the Freemont Solstice uploads, by the way. I won't be offering any more examples here, although I have no doubt that there are more to find. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, I started this thread so that admins looking at files or closing deletion requests would be aware that of this pattern of copyvio uploads. I think I've provided enough examples here (and in the files already deleted) to satisfy a reasonable person of the validity of my claim, but I get the feeling that I'm wasting my time with certain admins. And the vast majority of admins have not commented at all, so I have no idea if I got my message across. I came here to inform, not to offer solutions, but there are several obvious steps that could be taken and you have suggested some already. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think whatever awareness-raising was going to be achieved by such a thread has been achieved. So thanks for that. We need to now look at some practical systemic solutions now, and this is probably not the best forum for discussion of those. I'll think about it a bit and may start an RFC. I'm also considering a Commons:WikiProject Identifiable People; as discussed above, a lot of the copyvios in this area also have prima facie BLP issues, and the BLP issues don't need research to prove. Rd232 (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Does Commons' admin noticeboard have any kind of a rule about contacting people mentioned? Because I see no sign even now that User:Fremont Solstice or User:Othertree has ever been contacted, ever asked to say when the files were photoed and uploaded at the various sites, or ever been notified about a deletion request for any of the series of 200 files DC keeps complaining wasn't somehow magically deleted.

The thesis for culpability here - if there were a thread about sockpuppetry or copyvios or anything else - would be that because Othertree made an edit to turn Solstice's userpage into a bluelink, that he must be that user; that he is naive enough to make such an incriminating edit while being sophisticated enough to set up all the file uploads with new EXIF data [17] to make it look like they were shot in 2011. That sexual satisfaction is his sole apparent motivation in all this, to spread this file sequence and only this file sequence from one free site to another.

Now by contrast, this can be explained as the action of a legitimate user: who has the motive and opportunity to take the 200 high quality photos? Guy who ran the event. Who has the motive to upload them to every forum possible? Guy who ran the event. What about the dates on the other forum? Maybe it's an error. I don't know about you, but to me this seems plausible; the navigation in that forum seems confusing. If you'd talked to him you'd have gotten his story written down and you'd be able to start looking for holes. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I'm sorry if you think my attempts to assist Commons admins in fulfilling their legal obligations to delete copyright violations as "complaining". Somehow your addled brain has inadvertently revealed that I did not go through all 100+ uploads of that user. Some of these appear to come from the 2011 event, but that does not explain why the others are misidentified, nor does it negate the evidence presented so far. You are welcome to construct some tortured scenario whereby these misnamed files might not be copyright violations, but reasonable people will not be swayed by your nonsense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins have no legal obligations; they're volunteers. And as another volunteer, I don't appreciate you abusing them. He's right; trying communicating to the guy, or just put his stuff up for DR and forget about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Observing copyright and other laws is part of the Wikimedia Terms of Use, which also note that "certain activities" may make volunteers legally liable. --Andreas JN466 13:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where that documents says that anyone has a "legal obligations to delete copyright violations" besides their uploader. Admins have no legal or other obligation to use their admin tools.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, I'm not "abusing" anyone, by any definition of that word. Commons has a legal obligation to delete copyright violations. You are welcome to play internet lawyer and argue that it is the WMF and not individual admins who have the legal responsibility, but I think we can agree that someone has that obligation and admins normally do the deletions. Even if they are not specifically obligated, I believe that most admins here are concerned about copyright violation. They should welcome any information which helps them to identify it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually neither do. The WMF is required to respond to DMCA takedown notices and thats about it. As for trying to be helpful I think most admins who've looked into the matter are aware that contemporary nudity images is an area lousy with copyvios so you aren't introducing anything new. If you actually wanted to be helpful you could have pointed out that the conflicting exif data in File:Solstice Bike Ride 2011 067.jpg and File:Solstice Bike Ride 2011 061.jpg rule out GFDL-self and CC-BY-SA-self. Its also rather unlikely that someone who is already supposedly hauling around a 5DmkII and a rebel (nice canon brand loyalty mind) is going to use their cameraphone.Geni (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Fremont_Solstice, I'm reviewing the other account uploads/contribs to check. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The second one is here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Othertree do not hesitate to comment out there. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 216.73.79.66

216.73.79.66 (talk · contribs)

See edits of this ip, please delete.--Motopark (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rd232 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins can now upload whole Flickr sets with the Upload Wizard (experimental)

I just tested it and seem to be the first to do so, as the 43 files currently in Category:Flickr images verified by UploadWizard (all showing Scotland, from this Flickr set) are all from that upload. While it is nice to be able to upload whole sets, some details still need work IMO:

• the date stored in the Flickr image descriptions is not retained (instead the current date or some other (editing?) date is given; you can substitute any date in the upload procress, but what's the point in automating tasks when you have to correct details anyway?)

• likewise, coordinates are not transferred

• the Flickr links are not to the description pages, but to the absolute URLs of the largest file versions

• the author on Flickr is named, but there is no link to his/her Flickr page

So: still needs work. Any comments? Has this already been discussed somewhere on Commons? --Rosenzweig τ 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: You can upload single Flickr files this way too, not just whole sets. Also parts of sets, you can choose which files to upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the bug reports. This is an experimental feature and likely will need a bunch of bug fixes. I would hold off on uploading hundreds of images with it until the code is a bit more polished, i.e. a weeks or two at least. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems the bugs I signaled during earlier testing are still here:

• Could Geoloc be pulled from Flickr? (eg here)
• If no « real name » is defined on Flickr, no author is given − that should be the user handle (eg File:Cheesecake au caramel au beurre salé et spéculoos.jpg from here).

Jean-Fred (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'no real name' bug is pretty serious. I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn it off for now until we get that one fixed at least... Sorry! Kaldari (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Had pretty much the same issues. Geolocation: bugzilla:42310; categories: bugzilla:42309; timestamp: bugzilla:42308. Some more: doesn't honor our blacklist: bugzilla:42307; crash on invalid input URL: bugzilla:42311; doesn't recognize static flickr links: bugzilla:42305. Lupo 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. These are super useful bug reports. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you want bugzilla entries for the other things mentioned here, too (source links to flickr description page, author links, no real name)? Lupo 07:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that "no real name" is bugzilla:42312. Lupo 09:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Sternpate.de

Please check the links and username--Motopark (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Timed Media Handler - A lot of nonsense subtitles

Dear fellow admins and patrollers. With the activation of the new great TimedMediaHandler it is now very easy to create subtitles for sound and videos including anonymous users. While patrolling 50 edits in all namespaces today, I had to delete 3 nonsense subtitles. Not sure whether we should prohibit creating subtitles for anons. At least it would be nice if someone would watch them. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think I will create an abuse filter that prevents anons to create them if the text does not fit the subtitle (srt) format. This way we get validation and also prevent nonsense to be created. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me and thanks Rillke. I do try and watch that area when I have the time :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Special:AbuseFilter/103. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Spotted it - I tend to look at abuse filters quite a lot... ;) Thanks again --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Consent of identifiable people in photographies

Hello, I got a simple question:
Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Aoi_Sora_Fest_-_Marseille_-_2011-12-04-_P1300310.jpg was closed as 'kept'
Discussion over this kept decision leads nowhere to my concern.

Now the official guidelines on the subject states that:

"Consent of the subject (who is a non-public figure) is required even for photographs taken in public places in some countries (see list below)."

extracted from Commons:Photographs of identifiable people introduction.

Those files clearly lack the consent for publication while showing identifiable people.
They also were taken in France, and are subject to the french law,
Thus requiring the consent of the identifiable person. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France).
They also were never intented to be on Commons, if I wanted them on, I'd have imported them already along with my 9k other file uploads...

Esby (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This has always been a concern of mine. I think we tend to ignore it quite often (wrongly IMO) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You've mixed up the issue of model release with the COM:BLP consent issue. Did these people consent to publication? If they didn't, that breaches BLP and the photos should be deleted. Rd232 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, you may wish to rethink your using of COM:BLP in discussions, as we don't have a BLP policy here on Commons, we only have COM:IDENT. Yes, I realise that the former is a redirect to the latter, but its usage in discussions here on Commons has the potential to confuse editors from other projects where BLP is an actual policy. russavia (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's the shortcut I remember, but I'll try and avoid it in future. Rd232 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply intented for rd232) There is technically no formal consent (=no written agreement, no contract of any kind ) for publication (on anywhere) associated for any (cosplay) photography here. They just know they'll be able to retrieve their picture on Flickr. they'll ask sometimes for a few photos to be removed for various reasons which is ok to me, but still it could lead to problems for re-users trying to use a photography of them without their consent (explaining the detailled information in my flickr profile). I also have 23k pictures with the cosplay tag, and I can't change licences (=using NC tag) on more than 1500 files at once, which means I need to change the licence for each of the 170+ albums... Esby (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how formal the consent needs to be, or whether it needs to be written. I suspect oral consent is fine, as long as they know what they're consenting to, i.e. publication for potential reuse for any purpose. If you or they intend for photos not to be published (eg put on Flickr for limited circulation, not for general public access), then you should be very careful about that. Putting an NC restriction on Flickr certainly will help you a little to retain more control over their use. Rd232 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The consent for publication can only be in a written form. The conditions has to be written specifically or a judge would probably consider them as 'null' because of an abusive contract. Oral consent is just a matter of trust and of having things done easily here: there is a tolerance in the practical way: photographs won't ask for written agreement to people they shoot unless there is a serious usage related behind it. eg: If I were to print the photography of a cosplayer on my visit card, I'll probably need to contact him or her first to get his/her formal and written agreeement for it. There also a few cases where you don't need a consent (eg: photography on a public scene during a public event), but we are not in those cases for 95% of the considered photographies. Esby (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So if you didn't get that consent, why did you publish the photos? You said something about making them available to the photographed people via Flickr, but that doesn't make sense to me. Rd232 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically it's 'Can I photography you, you'll be able to get the photographies in a week at my flickr account: search google for "flickr + styeb"'. So basically, it's an oral consent (which is not enough for any serious publication). If someone don't agree, he just can ask for the removal of the images, you don't have any advantages to make a trial in France: the justice is slow and costy, if your claim is not serious enough, the judge will close the case and it will cost you way more money that you could ever gain here. The photographies are made for the models. I don't care really about my copyright as long I am mentioned and that the model can reuse it how he wants, so I wave it in favor of the model via the creative commons licence, but it does not mean the model waves its rights: the choice is up to him or her not to me. Esby (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a bit of a grey area, but if that's what you're saying, then on the one hand, there is a sort of consent for publication (otherwise the images wouldn't be findable on Google); and on the other hand, there isn't any consent for publication in a freely reusable form. This is a distinction which COM:IDENT ignores (at the moment), but morally and practically there is a big difference between "OK, you can put it on your website" and "OK, you can put it on your website with a license which allows anyone to reuse it for any purpose". Oddly enough, we do recognise this distinction insofar as copyright consent to use works on Wikipedia isn't enough for Commons. Rd232 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(indent reset)

Lacking a formal consent for publications on my flickr account is my concern.

Now because I get some sort of consent does not mean any reuser (including Wikipedia) would get it too. Some cosplayers would probably agree for Wikipedia usage, but they'll probably restrict on which articles or themes it can be used.They would probably not agree for any usage.

To say it in another way: Consent for a given website stays limited to a given website, it does not affect the licence, it being free or not.

If you wish to make a truely reusable free image, you have to ask for the person to allow the usage the media for any usage, which is less likely to be accepted. It would probably need an OTRS permission here.

More importantly, if you use an evasive formulation such like 'Are you ok to put the image on Commons?' while not explaining what is Commons and that the media there must be free including for any usage, including a commercial one, a court would probably declare the consent as void, as major information were hidden.

Most of the media depicting people on Commons are usually not concerned by such consent because they don't need it: such people in these are not recognizable or there are public personalities in an official and public activity outside of the private sphere.

-

Now back on the issue: I find quite strange that we refuse to delete photographs which cannot be used for any purpose. Would it be a copyright matter, most people here would claim 'it's not free enough for Commons'... We just cannot disregard the lack of consent saying "It's not a copyright issue, this is not our concern." Commons aims to respect the US law and the law of the country were the photograph was taken, here in this case it's France, the laws are granting rights and protection to the photographied people in a form of a mandatory consent, I don't think we can ignore it, even if it is not technically speaking a copyright issue.

Esby (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have said to Esby several times on this topic -- he is conflating the privacy laws and the laws requiring model releases for advertising.

In some countries, notably France, any publication of a photograph of an identifiable person requires their consent. In fact, even the taking of the picture requires consent. This is true even if the person is in a public place. I am not sure that the consent needs to be in writing. In many other countries, including the United States, a person in a public place is fair game, even if they are doing something ridiculous or demeaning, as long as the caption does not misrepresent the situation. This subject is covered at COM:IDENT. This means that an image of a person taken in the USA may be used for many commercial purposes -- it may, for example, be published in a text book, or used on a web site that supports itself with advertising, both of which are forbidden by an NC license.

This is quite separate from the model release required if the image is going to be used directly in advertising. If I go out in public in the USA wearing an Izod shirt, I can be photographed and the photograph can be used in a book without my permission, but for Izod to use it in advertising would require a formal, written release. With possible minor exceptions, I don't think there is any place in the world where an image of an identifiable person may be used in advertising without written consent -- and certainly all smart advertisers will require it to protect themselves.

Therefore, I think that Esby's images are OK for Commons. He clearly had the consent of the individuals when he took them, both because permission was necessary to actually take the picture and because he told them that they would be published on his Flickr account. It is true that there are no model releases, but that is irrelevant -- we have millions of images of people and no model releases. As I said above, those images are all available for commercial use provided that they are not used for advertising. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

But consent for my Flickr account is not consent for Commons or anywhere in the world... I also already told you I don't have a written one, so don't count me on for supporting it on a (french) court...

Also don't use the 'we have millions of images' of people. We also have tons of copyvios, that does not allow us to keep them. Either the image is legal and we can keep it, either it is not and we'll have to delete it.

Esby (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Flickr has far more users than Commons, probably in more countries, permission to publish an image on Flickr is more far reaching than permission for Commons. I don't think that any court would say that a person could have any expectation of privacy for an image if he or she had given permission for its publication on Flickr. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not. Could you stop using fallacies. Permission for a given media is stricly limited to a given media. The fact a media is published with consent at esby.free.fr will not give you the right to publish it as Jameslwoodward.com. This is especially truer in a court which will ask you to show evidence that such permission actually exist: you won't be able to prove anything there without a formal written consent. Even if such consent were given to exist, if you can't show it, it's as if it was not existing. The more I discuss here, the more I feel the urge to tag the files for lacking OTRS permission so you can invent the missing non existent permission...

Esby (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are the questions I consider we have to follow to meet French legislation and Commons rules:

1. Are the person on the picture public persons? -> No, so we need a proper permission.
2. Got esby has a model permission allowing the reproduction on every media? -> No, he only says the photo will be available on Flickr and get a from the models an acknowledgment they noted the photos will be available on Flickr. This is NOT a permission to distribute to any media, nor a permission to allow commercial use of the photos, not a permission to allow derivative works of their photographies for every use. This is even NOT A PUBLICATION CONSENT.
3. Why this is not a publication consent? A contract is created when both parties (esby as the photographer and publisher, the model) have an agreement (a *shared* desire), ie when both parties agree on the thing and the price. When you buy a loaf of bread at your bakery, you agree on the good to sale ("I would like this bread" "Here you are") and the price ("1,50 € please" "Here you are."). As soon as you agree on the thing and the price, you concluded a sale contract. Here, we need to check if the model and esby at one moment had a shared desire to request and allow the model release for every media and every use. --Dereckson (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you (and Esby) miss the point. The French law is designed to protect the privacy of individuals, even when they are out in public. That is the law and we try to obey it. But once they consent to have an image published on Facebook -- the most widely used web site in the world -- then they give up all expectation of privacy for that image and they can have no reasonable expectation that it will not be published elsewhere. They have not consented to the use of the image in advertising or other uses covered by their personality rights, but we do not require that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

you are wrong. [18] -

"(...)notamment l'autorisation de capter une image n'emporte pas acceptation pour sa diffusion et l'autorisation d'une diffusion particulière n'induit pas la possibilité de procéder à une autre forme de diffusion."

which can be translated as "(...)especially the autorisation to capture an image does not mean acceptation for its publishing, a particular autorisation does not induct the possibility of using another form of publishing."

"Ce qui n'a pas été expressément consenti, doit être considéré comme refusé."

which can be tranlated as "What are not been expressly consented must be considered as refused."

Esby (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your argument "Published on Facebook" = "Universal license to publish the picture everywhere" isn't suitable juridically, as to publish on one platform doesn't mean you allow reproduction to other platforms, regardless if Facebook is or not the first site in the world.

I understand you, Jameslwoodward considers that if someone does act A, to be coherent with its intent, he also allows us to do act A', but (1) your analysis is biased on the fact you have a certain conception on Facebook and are aware of privacy issue (ie you consider publish something on Facebook = drop privacy expectation ; one could be entitled to consider publish something on Facebook = show it to immediate circle of family, friends and coworkers) (2) there isn't as the extent of my knowledge no jurisprudence validating your assertion.

By the way, when I explained you how a contract is formed, this applies in every common law or civil law system in the world, for any contract not requiring special formalism or written form.

And finally, we have to point one more time COM:IDENT proper Commons guideline.

I wonder if you aren't trying to create rights using forceps or a battering ram to validate your theory.

If it's the case, I would like you stop that and conduct proper juridic analysis based on the real sources: the law, the jurisprudence, the doctrine and the coutume. --Dereckson (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, if French law is in any way comparable to German law, I do think Esby has a point. First, there's a bit of a confusion over "privacy" here; the "Recht am eigenen Bild" (as is the name of the respective German provision) is both a personality and a property law. Jim's distinction based on advertisement use might be the correct category in U.S. law, it is not in Germany (and if Esby is right, then it apparently is also not in France). Second, people are not only entitled to the right to decide whether or not a photograph of theirs can be published at all (i.e. on a yes or no basis) but they can determine the exact conditions etc., simply because the law explicitely disallows anyone from using the images (you have to get consent, not necessarily written, also possibly implied, whenever you do publish them, so (matter-of-factly) the conditions are up to the "model" to dictate). I don't see any problem in saying "website A may use my picture, website B may not" (what would be a problem, though, is if you said "Wikipedia may use my image, but Google may not", as one needs to expect that a search engine displays your pictures if you do not necessarily protect it against indexing, see also LG Köln, 28 O 819/10, decided on June 22, 2011: but even that judgement is, also for other reasons, generally believed to go too far, and if it cannot even expected that a people search engine (not Google here) indexes your image, how can one be assumed to expect that another website's contributers simply copy my image and use it on their site?); again, that's also inevitable because of the property law character: you may wish to support A with your photo (by creating traffic to his site, for instance), but you may not wish to support B.
Third, some observations, partly based on that: a) It is practically impossible that a release allows for the usability of the image as far-reaching as implied by a free license granted by a photographer (immoral transaction). The rule of thumb is that the more far-reaching permission is, the more detailedly has to be outlined to what purposes exactly the image is used. In any case, purpose and extent of the use of the image have to be clear to the subject. b) It is hence that "proper consent" to the publication of an image displaying a person would require permission for use on Wikimedia projects (and would be limited by what people can be reasonably expected to understand based on the explanation provided by the photographer asking for their permission with respect to the scope of what we do with the pictures). When I raised the issue in a discussion with the German chapter's counsels, their spontaneous idea for a proper release was something like "... agree to the context-independant use of the image on Wikimedia projects ...". That's probably how far we could get (the scope of the release is then determined based on what we call Zweckübertragunslehre, i.e. the approach known from copyright law in § 31 s. 5 UrhG (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#31). c) The practical implications of switching to such an approach (i.e. requiring explicit consent, possibly via OTRS) would arguably be huge as we would need to make further inquiries into every single of these images. I personally do not think it is necessary, though we should raise awareness of that among affected uploaders and should make it clearer that they need consent. Why the special treatment? I think there is some justification for that given that there is an important point that distinguishes this from copyright law (where we obviously have a much more hard-line approach): The process if of no use to re-users. Look, if I were to use Wikipedia content and copy an image of an identifiable person to my website, it is entirely my business anyway. It's of no use to me that the photo was published legitimately on Wikipedia, because I am not Wikipedia. It follows that setting up a permissions system explicitely concerned with checking for consent of identifiable individuals, is in fact of limited use and I fear that it would be overkill. However, for that lack of documentation, I believe it must also be clear that we have to give in, more-or-less readily, to takedown demands by subjects; we're typically just not in a position to contest their account of the events that led to the creation of the photo. Best wishes, —pajz (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

promotional username

User talk:Midas Touch Oy seems to been than this.--Motopark (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

They may have good intentions but do indeed fall foul of the Commons:Username policy. As they have only one edit, perhaps a bit of mellow advice on how they can request a new account name is in order, before a rush to block? --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked the acct indef. I disabled autoblock, etc, so the user can start a new acct if they want to continue editing. I left them a note to this effect. In my experience, alot of these company accts only come here to upload their logo, and are never heard from again. INeverCry 17:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pity they don't hang around long enough to chat with, we might get some nice officially released images. Oh well, only so much time in the day. :-) --Fæ (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

When you run into these, try using {{Bian}}, which gives a polite message suggesting that they open a new account. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:ManilHavas and User talk:Manilboursas

same spam from both--Motopark (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I blocked ManilHavas this morning as an obvious sock. He's been given several scope warnings and a lot of spam deleted. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lefkowitz3.jpg

May we get a decision on this highly used picture of a Nobel Prize winner? --Leyo 23:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem

I noticed a problem and I could not find the space to discuss such issues. There is an image that was pirated from an infographic published by Chilean newspaper (El Mercurio) and is presented here as a user's own work. The image in Commons is:

The real source can be see on: [[19]] Thank you very much for passing the problem to the appropriates persons.--186.107.65.85 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Users files have been deleted and editors advised about copyvios. In future, obvious cases can be brought to our attention by using {{Speedydelete}}. russavia (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

For less obvious cases, in the left hand side of your window when you are viewing an image, you can see a 'Toolbox' section which includes a link to 'Nominate for deletion'. Please raise any image you are concerned about so it can be reviewed. If you are think a file is a copyright violation but are unsure of the rules, it might be an idea to discuss it further at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing off Commons during an RfA

The subject of canvassing has come up in a number of RfAs in the past year, but we have never really discussed it, so I thought a discussion here might be a good idea.

It is my opinion that we should strongly discourage looking for votes at any of the other WMF projects or on IRC. A great Admin on WP:ABC is not necessarily an acceptable Admin here, as the body of knowledge required is much different. While our Bureaucrats are good at discounting votes from people who have limited experience here, such people should not even be part of the process. I should add that WP:EN agrees with this:

"What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see: "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate is the goal, rather than measuring their popularity. Canvassing is generally looked down upon. Consider using {{RFA-notice}} on your userpage, which is a more neutral way to communicate your RfA to other users."

On the other hand, I think we should be more formal about announcing new RfAs on Commons, just as we do for CUs and 'Crats -- with an announcement at the Village Pump and here. We might also add Template:RFA-notice for use on the candidate's user and talk pages. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have imported Template:RfX-notice and Template:RfA-notice and made appropriate changes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as long as merely mentioning or discussing a RfA (on-wiki or off-wiki) isn't made a wiki-crime. Let's avoid creating a policy that kills freedom of speech. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For me canvasing is asking for votes in support or against something, so just announcement of discussions should be OK. In case of RfA, it only draws "support" votes if person is doing a good job in those circles. Making those proceedings more secret will probably not improve them. Also more announcements would be better - I totally missed User:Yarl's RfA. --Jarekt (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

An announcement here would be a good idea, but announcing a Commons RFA on other wikis isn't. Several of the votes in Yarl's RFA were from pl.wiki users who have very little experience here on Commons. They may see Yarl as a good editor over on pl.wiki, but they don't know what being an admin here on Commons requires, and so aren't qualified to vote in a Commons RFA. Yarl would've passed easily without the pl.wiki involvement, as he had numerous support votes from experienced Commons users, so the announcement on pl.wiki didn't add anything to his RFA. Announcements should be designed to improve and add to a discussion. Would anyone see it as appropriate if an en.wiki RFA were announced at the Village pump? INeverCry 04:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What about using a template like this at the top of a page: en:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 08:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing includes notifying a group of users expected to be more likely to support (or oppose) than the average user. A general announcement on the home wiki has issues, because most users there don't know what makes a good Commons admin. But a few words to friends, or in a location like a user/user talk page where friends are likely to see it - that's bad. That said, we can't exclude the possibility that home wiki users have valuable info about a candidate, so one way to go would be the opposite way: some standard home wiki announcement in a relevant home wiki place, linking to a quick explanation (in the relevant language). Possibly such input could be directed to a separate subsection in the RFA to help identify it ("if you came here via this link and haven't been active on Commons in the last 7 days, please comment in this section" sort of thing...). Rd232 (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I should add that while Yarl's RfA was certainly a reminder for me, it was not problematic. We have had a few in the past year where the home WP voters with no Commons experience might have been the swing votes. I'd like the policy clarified, so the Yarls who come before us don't get into trouble for something that isn't policy, but the others can be rejected if there's not solid Commons support.

I like Rd232's suggestion if it isn't too complicated -- or just a notice at the top of the page that reaffirms the 'Crat's obligation to ignore votes that don't have solid Commons experience. The WP note that I quoted above isn't bad, either..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If votes of users that are not active at Commons are our concern then lets develop a policy that prohibits voting to users that are not X months old since they registered and or made their first edit and have less than Y edits before the vote started. That's a more objective criteria rather than relying on the subjective closing 'crat impressions if X editor is or is not allowed to vote or their vote "weights" more or less. Some large wikis like es (criteria: one month old and 100 mainspace edits before the start of the vote), and de afaik have such voting rules. Commons has a large active community that can choose admins without the need to ask for voters elsewhere, don't you think? Regarding announcements: I used to colaborate on a wiki where all RfAs are to be announced both at the Village Pump and in a Mailing List so the community was notified. Regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A qualifying requirement would work if it is coupled with a clear statement on each RFA along the lines of "You do not need to meet any requirements in order to comment here. However in order to vote in this RFA you need to meet the following requirements: [...]. If you don't meet these voting requirements your comments are welcomed - please feel free to provide any relevant information that will help Commons decide whether this editor should be given adminship." Rd232 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marco, as amended by Rd232. A month is fine, but I would say 100 contributions of whatever kind -- "mainspace" doesn't work here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Any advice on how we should handle negative canvassing or a travelling circus, on or off-wiki? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Striking my question after the threat of off-wiki homophobic abuse and the likelihood of another on-wiki smear campaign against me. I guess that there is no free speech here on Commons when discussion is controlled off-wiki by abuse and threats, particularly if you happen to be openly gay. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1278 – What are your thoughts on this recent Wikipediocracy thread? It isn't an attempt to canvass voters. I believe that Wikipediocracy should be allowed to scrutinize and criticize RfA hopefuls. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't negative canvassing be handled the same way as positive canvassing? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to treat it differently. And, Michael, while that may be true this time, there have been a number of WO threads int he past that have advocated one action or another, whether that be keeping or deleting in an Articles for Deletion discussion or trying to pound down another point of view in a policy discussion via weight of numbers. That sort of thing is canvassing and should be treated as such.

Furthermore, isn't one of the definitions of canvassing the notification of a group of people that are known to be largely supportive of just one side? That would make such a notification non-neutral regardless of how neutral the notification was itself, because you're still notifying a group of people that you know are all going to have the same opinion. Doesn't WO fall under this definition as a whole? There's been a few disagreements, but they usually vote as a bloc. Silverseren5 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How many users are there on Wikipediocracy? Dozens? Hundreds? This sounds like a formidable voting block. Too bad it doesn't exist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the size of a voting bloc really change that it's canvassing? Silverseren5 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You have claimed, with no evidence, that Wikipediocracy members "usually vote as a bloc". I just checked - there are currently 243 members. It should be very easy to find evidence of such a large voting block. Where is it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to active members, obviously. I don't know why you're trying so desperately to try and reroute the subject, bringing up clearly irrelevant points. Silverseren5 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@Silverseren5: We already have a solution: Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions#Emphasise_NOTAVOTE. Numbers aren't all that important. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You and I both know that, to a fairly significant extent, the amount of votes do matter. There might be a few exceptions where the result is against the majority, but in most cases, the majority wins. Silverseren5 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

same uploader than blocked ?

see File:Adobe ColdFusion 6 logo.png and description, are uploader same than Special:Contributions/Lostrust_III and other blocked accounts ?--Motopark (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, if you like a checkuser checking this case you have to ask at COM:RFCU providing evidence. Otherwise we could of course try to find other similarities or evidence before. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it. I blocked this account. If he continues on the range I found, I'll soft-block that one too. Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Trijnstel_talk 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Replacement is done under user account

Dear fellow administrators and filemovers, recently CommonsDelinker did not work, thus causing a lot of Wikipedia Articles looking broken or otherwise ugly, so I started to think about how we can avoid having to wait for it with image replacement.

The result is a new version of MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js. When you move files using Move & Replace or you process duplicates using Process Duplicate, the script will now immediately replace all usages if it finds that it is possible. Otherwise or if errors are encountered, CommonsDelinker is being instructed.

This is achieved via CORS, a Cross Domain Ajax call and requires that you are signed-into all wikis. If you are signed-in with different user names, the edits will be done even with your different user name!

It is also required that your browser allows Cross-Domain-Scripting; some browser extensions or security settings prevent that. As written above, in case an error occurs, the script should fall back instructing CommonsDelinker like it did before. It will also fall back if the amount of pages where the file must be replaced is too huge.

If you encounter serious errors in the new script, please simply undo my last change to MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js.

If you wish a personal opt-out for this feature, please let me know.

Thanks in advance in hope moving files now causes less trouble -- Rillke^(q?) 19:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: To opt-out this feature by default, you can use

window.aqdCORSOptOut = true;

in your common.js. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rillke! Rd232 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Big thanks. Everything seems to work smoothly. Note: Users affected by bugzilla:29234 still need to partly rely on CommonsDelinker. --McZusatz (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File:GB 2.jpg and File:GB 19.jpg

ResolvedBoth files were recreated outside of process by the uploader and are now deleted again. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And now there is an OTRS ticket on them and they are restored. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Are these the same files previously uploaded under those file names, which were deleted for missing permission? (See also Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:GB 2.jpg and File:GB 19.jpg.) —LX (talk, contribs) 16:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically yes. The contents of both files are the same as their previous upload, respectively. The old version of File:GB 2.jpg looks like a stretched version of the current one. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:The MonkFish

Uploader add out of scope text to his talk page.--Motopark (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the promo content and warned the user. INeverCry 19:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

tara strong again

File:Tara Strong at Spike TV's Video Game Awards.jpeg claiming to be a free publicity photo lifted from a fansite is the same one that has been previously deleted multiple times per inappropriate copyright. see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_38#more_tara_strong. (not I do not frequent commons, so please contact me on english Wikipedia) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated I've found no evidence that those three accounts are related. The file is deleted though. Trijnstel_talk 22:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are unrelated as far as sockpuppetry is concerned. They are all in response to Tara Strong's Twitter post urging people to replace her Wikipedia photo with her "hottie pic." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of a twitter post of her. Problem solved then. Trijnstel_talk 12:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy spam

Greetings. I've been doing a bit of categorisation of our Geograph backlog, and I've suddenly hit a bit of a problem. The system won't let me create a category Category:St John the Evangelist’'s Church, Copthorne because it offends the spam blacklist. Which seems odd because I can't see anything with Copthorne in it on m:Spam blacklist. So would an admin be so kind as to create Category:St John the Evangelist’'s Church, Copthorne for me? Just put it in the category copthorne, West Sussex and I should be able to do the rest. WereSpielChequers (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The apostrophe is wrong. Try Category:St John the Evangelist's Church, Copthorne. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure why that came up as a spam warning though, or how to prevent that happening in future. Is this some new rule that has just come in? WereSpielChequers (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there is a hidden character there, that I think caused the problem. Char 146, the left single quote mark crept in, rather than char 39, the plain single quote mark. It might be caused by some sort of auto-correction when you typed in the category name. As I'm looking at it, char 146 is invisible and is immediately before char 39 in the first version. It looks like you have to be extra cautious with working out how to type in the apostrophe. --Fæ (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Char 146 as an apostrophe is of course from Windows-1252. The only accepted meaning of char 146 (U+0092) in Unicode is PU2 or "Private Use 2" (a C1 control). AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Luiskraz

User adds out of scope text to his talk page.--Motopark (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion/deletion discussion closure required

Hey, can an admin please delete the images File:S7301533 (6024774145).jpg, File:S7301541a (6029278595).jpg, File:Boys - Water - Action (6024787437).jpg, File:S7301546a (6029279029).jpg, File:Instagram 010 (6025778840).jpg and File:S7301450 (6024773875).jpg (and possibly others)? The photographer has been contacted and does not wish for the images to be on commons, as can be seen here, and on top of that the email from the photographer shows that they clearly violate COM:IDENT. There's no need to let the deletion discussions run its course any longer. Thanks! --Conti|✉ 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If another admin doesn't do it before me, I will close them off before long. russavia (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. :) --Conti|✉ 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done russavia (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Russavia, perhaps you or some other admin could delete the rest of MaybeMaybeMaybe's uploads of boyscouts? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted 24 images. As far as I am concerned, that is all that is covered by my close. If you have more images from other streams which need discussion, then you will open them for discussion via COM:DR. russavia (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Surely all images of scouts uploaded by MaybeMaybeMaybe from that Flickr account should be deleted for the same reason as these 24? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have a list, drop them on my talk page, and I will look at them. If they are from the same set I will delete them, otherwise you will need to take them to DR. OK? russavia (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a list. Someone will need to wade through the thousands of Flickr uploads that MaybeMaybeMaybe has done over the last few days. You could start by looking at Category:Topless boys. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You sincerely asking admins to delete a whole category because of a user, but you can't bother to get a list yourself? Is this for real? If you want a picture deleted, there are {{Copyvio}} and {{Delete}} to be used, otherwise I must ask you to stop. Béria Lima ^msg 22:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Beria, I think there may be a language issue at work here, because you seem to consistently misinterpret what I am saying. I am not asking for a category to be deleted. I am suggesting that admins will find some of the boyscout images in that category. Why would anyone assume that because I brought the issue up that I have some special ability to create a list of uploads from literally thousands of bot uploads by the same user. I am sure that admins here are much more experienced at finding such things than I am. I am quite aware of how deletion requests work and have used them often. I must ask you to stop, also. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there a simple way to see a gallery of all the uploads made by a user? --Conti|✉ 09:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:MyGallery, then change username. But it doesn't work for Flickr2Commons uploads because the user account uploading them is the Flickr2Commons bot, not the person's account. Rd232 (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This lack of transparency is an actual argument for restricting access to Flickr2Commons (eg the way AWB access isn't open to all). Rd232 (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, it should not take long to create a user category and populate it. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, the Flickrbot could simply add a category for the actual uploader with every image it uploads. --Conti|✉ 13:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to wait for such an improvement if you use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr_mass.php OR http://toolserver.org/~magnus/ts2/flickr2commons/ - you simply add your chosen user category in the "Add after" or "Append everywhere" section, so no excuses for anyone to avoid adopting this as best practice. I have done something similar for past large uploads as shown by Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Fæ using a script. This is the sort of advice that MaybeMaybeMaybe would have benefited from early on I think. I have kicked off a script working on setting up a user category for MaybeMaybeMaybe and trawl through all past uploads by bot, not sure how long it will take, possibly several more hours before it finishes the search through my local XML dump of Commons, but it is reliable. --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly useful, but I see no reason not to do this automatically (or rather, give users the option not to make it easier to go through their uploads). I see this akin to using a bot: It has to be immediately obvious who is responsible for an edit/upload, and we simply need something akin to a contributions list. Anyhow, thanks for doing the work (semi-)manually for now. :) --Conti|✉ 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Uploads by MaybeMaybeMaybe should slowly be populated now, might take overnight to fill up. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Make that a couple of days rather than overnight. My local xml dump from Commons was too out of date to be useful for such recent uploads. As a result Faebot is having to trawl through the upload bot category which means checking 176,000+ files, however the category is filling up faster than anyone can read through them, so this solution is not really a bottleneck. They should be added in alphabetical order, so anyone that wants to help MaybeMaybeMaybe with more feedback and suggestions, should be able to keep track of what has been looked at, as well as moving image pages to the reviewed sub-category created by Russavia. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The images have all now transcluded into the category, and I am failing to see anything that is problematic in the sense of so-called scouting images, and the like. There are some duplicates (due to f2c not picking them up before being uploaded, and in some instances f2c uploading multiple duplicates in the same upload session), some out of scope files (due to MMM uploading entire streams), some COM:DW copyright violations, but these are in the extreme minority. For all intents and purposes MMM has uploaded several thousand useful images for Commons. As per User_talk:MaybeMaybeMaybe#Unblocked and User_talk:MaybeMaybeMaybe#Another_suggestion, and other threads on their talk page, the editor is responsive, and is cleaning up and fixing these other unrelated issues themself (thereby saving the community from doing so). Perhaps we can close this witch hunt wild goose chase down, as there is no other admin intervention required. russavia (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What part of this is a "witch hunt", Russavia? The other images were deleted (by you, if I recall correctly) and I don't think there is any disagreement that any remaining images from the same batch need to be deleted. Are you saying that you have gone through the uploads and found none? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I actually meant wild goose chase. If there are remaining images from the same batch, then please point them out as requested above. One can not expect ANYONE on this project to trawl thru thousands of images to find the needle in the haystick. I have had a cursory glance at the uploads (not every single uploads) and nothing jumps out. You came to this thread to add  Not done and insinuated that there were other images. We can only delete images which we are consciously aware of. So I will ask you again, if there are other images from the same batch, please point them out, and we can delete them under the same DR. Then there is no problem. russavia (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Russavia, have you looked in Category:Topless boys as I suggested days ago? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I've been advised that the bot is not yet complete, it's up to about M/N, so there are probably still a few thousand photos to be inserted into that category. Nevertheless, there is no need to drag this out by keeping this thread open. If there are other images from the same batch still hosted here, one can point them out; perhaps bring them to my talk page and I'll delete them as part of the same close, as I noted above a couple of times. Other than that, there is really no more admin intervention required here I believe. I'd ask another admin to close this off as appropriate. russavia (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I really don't understand how it could possibly take this long to find and categorize the images uploaded by one user, but it points out the need for improved methods of handling bulk uploads. If Fæ is going to be finished soon, I don't see what harm there is in leaving this thread open until the images have been identified. Can I suggest that MaybeMaybeMaybe might be encouraged to help with this effort? After all, they have a better chance of spotting those images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I am sure if you would help instead of nagging, it would be done twice as fast. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
          • It is my understanding that Fæ is running some kind of automated process to identify the bulk uploads started by MaybeMaybeMaybe - how do you suggest I help with that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

---

I think we can end this here, given that the thread is going nowhere. If you wish to nag Russavia further, do it on his talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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