Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:ANB)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Administrator's assistance

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[new report]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
Translate this page
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg



Strange behavior regarding File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg[edit]

Hi all, I recently closed an unopposed second nomination of this DR by Stefan4. This close seems to have since overturned by Otourly without any discussion (or well reasoned rationale) after a UDR was initiated by Steinsplitter, despite an oppose !vote from LGA. There seems to be a considerable lack of accountability here, and so I'd like to refer the matter over to be handled by the community. -FASTILY 07:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this here. You have ignored the previous deletion discussion and closed as deleted without comment. Otourly revert of your out-of-process deletion looks OK to me. You should be moor carefully with deletions of high used files - this could cause crosswiki drama. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned here there are six images at lest applicable for same rational. So deleting one make no sense. Jee 07:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to start a mass deletion request (if needed) or a discussion this on COM:VPC. Deleting only one make indeed no sense. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Link to a related discussion. Jee 08:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The image in that discussion seems to be based on a different photograph, so that discussion is not relevant here. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The first closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg makes no reference to the discussion and seems to have been made without considering what was written in the discussion. There is still no evidence that the photograph was published before the expiration of the term in {{PD-old-70}} or that the term in {{PD-EU-unpublished}} has expired (as required for PD-EU). There is also no evidence that the 2001 publication was made without consent from whoever held the copyright in the U.S. at that time (as required for PD-US). --Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Stefan, can you point me to the 2001 publication of this photo? As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, I haven't been able to find any evidence of publication before 2004. —RP88 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Was it in 2004 instead of 2001? The deletion request is a bit unclear. It seems that the library obtained the photograph in 2001, and as soon as the library started offering copies of the photo to any library visitor asking for one, it would count as "published". If it was in 2004, then it solves the US part, but not the EU part. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
What's being told us over on en-wiki was that it was decided that theengraving based on it being published contemporaneously to the photo meant that the photo is out of copyright. If that isn't accurate, I'll be quite upset, as I put work into the image on that basis. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons[edit]

Hello, I have seen the page above. I am not active on wikidata but it seems they want to make a new structure for Commons. Can wikidata user edit commons content via wikidata? If yes, is this really a good idea :/? Someone with more informations about this? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

See mw:Multimedia/Structured Data and their Wikimania presentation. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If i see correctly it is possible to change content on commons via wikidata. Not sure if this is a good idea... --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
(Off topic) As I mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Multimedia Project - Wikimedia Foundation, File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg is a GFDL 1.2 only + CC BY-NC 3.0; so its use in CC BY-SA 3.0 adaptions are illegal. Please arrange an education program for our staff/presentation teams. Jee 16:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You should also not forget about the CC licence termination teams. By using various images without proper attribution, the WMF team automatically had its permission to use those images terminated. In this sense, CC seems to be worse than "all rights reserved": if you made a silly mistake fifty years ago that you are unaware of, it could cost you a lot of money when you try to use the same image again... --Stefan4 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I just think that the WMF doesn't care about the rights of the content creators, it is quite clear. Bidgee (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the content creators could choose to sue the WMF for licence violation. I realise that it is often not practical to sue someone in the United States if you haven't registered the picture for copyright, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I am very disappointed that WMDE (=Wikidata Project Manegment) like to include new software on commons without asking the community. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) How do you come to that conclusion?! Have you read the documents I linked above? The most mentioned word is discussion, of course with the Commons community. Please don't panic. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We have not even started coding yet. We've started publishing documents and will publish more over the next weeks. We will also hold office hours. We've held several discussion rounds at Wikimania. Let's please not get upset before anything even properly started. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Do you plan to start a COM:RFC before deolying stuff on commons? After seen the documents and job openenings it looks to me verry likely that you plan to do this without asking the community. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I do plan to involve the community at every step. I'd rather not have an RfC. I'd like us to have conversations and do this together. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I request you to establish consensus (RFC!) before deploying things to commons. We need to do the same for new extension and software changes - therefore WMDE should do the same and respect shellpolicy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold your horses. Give them a chance! The current way of associating metadata with files, basically free text, some templates, and some hidden spans with custom CSS classes to "tag" relevant parts of that free text, is hideous and utterly ridiculous. It's a huge technical debt we accumulated from the very start of Commons, when a text-wiki was shoehorned into being an image repository. But that's just not the way to do an image bank. You absolutely need structured metadata in a structured database behind it, otherwise you end up with a largely unusable lump of 23 million images (and counting). Something has to be done. So give them a chance to come up with something before harassing them about RfCs and other red tape. And you know what? We're free to participate in the design and (skills permitting) even the development of this. If experienced Commons users do so, it can only improve the chances that the end result will actually be useful to and be accepted by the commons community. (Well, whatever will be coming out of this, it'd be hard to produce something worse than the current state as far as metadata and categorization go.) Lupo 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I second @Steinsplitter's comment that this initiative has all the appearances of a done deal. I was not aware of this program until now — had the community been consulted about this before all the plans, documentation and presentations were made? Because if the community was supposed to be involved at every step, this first step appears to not have included the community at all… odder (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We have worked with Commons users already on the initial ideas. The next step is to publish them for comments like we've done at Wikimania. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? First I've heard about this. Why does this feel like VE, Flow and MV all over again? Bidgee (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You arere here involved before the first line of code was written. The concept was created with help of Commons users, see Commons:Wikidata for media info etc. This is, in fact, different to the examples mentioned above. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"We have worked with Commons users already on the initial ideas." It seems to me that a clique little group has already been done without the views of other Commons users. Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, my intention as a Commons user was to try to get d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons going as forum for the community to get engaged and involved before the key design decisions are taken -- so we can have thought about the issues and be engaged and informed participants right from day 1 (which as I understand it is still several weeks down the track).
Hence the essay I posted at Commons:Wikidata/How GLAMs can help the Structured Data for Commons initiative, summarising what I'd heard at Wikimania and read up afterwards, which I clearly flagged up at Commons:VP, to try to get us thinking about this so we can talk about what we as a community want, and what we think makes sense given the data that we know about.
As the essay says, there are basically three parts to this. The first is Wikidata, and regardless of whatever else comes about, Wikidata is here now. So as a community we need to think how we want to use the systematic resource that's becoming available at wikidata -- eg if we want to create a template that can deliver a systematic, fully internationalised one-line intro at the top of categories and galleries, automatically, just by including {{intro}} -- with an automatic "See also" link to the corresponding category or gallery. I think that would be quite a useful option, which is why I want to prototype it and then bring it here to see what people think.
Wouldn't it also be nice just to be able to specify {{creator|<name>|Q891011}} and have it automatically linked to wikidata, rather than having to define all the fields in all the languages? Or similarly an institution? Or any of the other metadata in a lengthy {{Artwork}} template that relates to a real-world object?
I thought so. But if you don't think so, then isn't it good to have a WikiProject set up where we can discuss and prototype things in our own user-space environment? That's why I knocked together d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons as a project page -- and announced it at Commons:VP -- because I want the community to be discussed and engaged on this, and to have a identifed forum and locus where we can discuss this, from weeks before day 1, rather than be presented with a fait accompli that we haven't stood up to the plate and become active participants in. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A bit more in response to Steinsplitter's original question. A wikidata user won't be able to edit per-file commons information via wikidata. What they (in principle) will be able to edit are things like the data of birth of the painter who painted the underlying picture, because it makes sense for edits to that kind of information to be updated everywhere.
Separate to Wikidata, it is proposed to create a Commons Wikibase, which will hold things like licensing information, and probably a "topic cloud" to allow tag-like searching. The details of this are totally up in the air at the moment, and for the community to think about. Yes, somebody could edit that information -- or maybe they won't be able to, if they aren't OTRS or the original uploader -- but then people can change the licence on a filepage even today. The point is to get involved and discuss, to be aware of what Wikidata can and can't do, and to think what we would like to included as key elements of such a database. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Finally, there's a reason the WikiProject page is on Wikidata, rather than here. It's a technical reason -- it's because prototyping of templates using so-called "arbitrary access" is going to be enabled on a test basis there next week, but won't be available here on a production basis until early next year. It's also useful to have the Wikidata template definitions available, for discussing things on talk pages. But my intention was very much to be establishing, for the Commons community, a corner on Wikidata that I hope could become a home page there for Commons and our community. Jheald (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As wikisourceror I have always dreamt of a better bibliographic metadata management system that would allow us to share all metadata in all languages accross projects (wp-com-ws) and getting rid of the current insane text-based system, that is why I originally got involved in Wikidata. Since then I have seen so many possible applications and still more to be seen. Progress is slow, but for me the most important part is that it represents the perfect opportunity for reflecting about what we do, about how we want it to be, and to grow with the changes to make them much better than if they had been imposed or not had happened at all.

The world is constantly changing and better to grab the opportunities to change with it. If there are things of Commons that you didn't like, or that you would like to be different, now is the chance to discuss and collaborate to find out how the Commons of the future should look like and to make it happen.--Micru (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jheald:, @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Pleas follow the regular process that exists and start a COM:RFC or a proposals before putting new software on commons. It is a NO GO putting new software on commons without asking the community. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: How do you want that they request anything if the project hasn't even started? And shouldn't the community take the initiative and request that someone takes care of making improvements?--Micru (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Normally you ask the community before starting & planning a project. After viewing the presentation and WMDE job opening this looks like a done deal... I ask you only to follow the regular process that exists and not doing thinks behind commons community's back. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter:: It's useful to separate out OFFICE on the one hand from people like Micru and me on the other. Micru and me are just members of the community. The pages you have found at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons are just pages set up by us as regular members of the community. Possibily it was a mistake (or getting above ourselves) to give them the same name as the OFFICE project, but there you go.
At the end of the day, OFFICE will do what they like, because it's their wiki. If they see the lack of tag-like searching and the difficulty of machine-interpretability of licence information as existential problems that they're going to throw an engineering team at, then that is what is going to happen. The best we can hope for is to have an educated community that knows enough and has thought enough about the issues to be worth consulting. And these are quite big things to think about, so it's useful to be starting to put together information, and have places where we can start to think about things together.
As for d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons, it is also intended as somewhere where ordinary users can come together -- users who don't have extra permissions and aren't installing special software -- where they can come together and explore what is possible for ordinary users in user space now.
If you look at the things being suggested there, it's monitoring how Commons is represented on Wikidata; it's designing prototype templates; it's looking at how information already on Commons in various templates can be put into Wikidata. It's trying to understand what per-file information on filepages shouldn't go into Wikidata, and better educate ourselves as to the full complexity and richness of information that can be here on Commons filepages (which I think people who aren't Commons people can totally underestimate).
Those aren't things that require special permissions. Writing a new prototype template is something any ordinary user can do here on Commons. So is finding ways to extract and check information. So is better documenting systems that already exist.
These are things that don't need permission. The freedom for users to just pick up a stick and just get on and create something -- whether it's a page or a template or a project -- is one of the fundamental pillars of the movement.
The kind of things that do need permissions are mass deployments -- because typically they will need bot permissions; obviously discussion is needed (and damn right too) if one proposes to make systematic changes to lots of pages. But to make that process possible, it is still for individuals to work up a proposal, develop a prototype, and rework it as much as needed in line with things that come out of the community appraisal, before any kind of mass deployment. Jheald (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not believe this project is trying to force anything on us, and while community cooperation would be helpful, by and large the wikidaters will be working on things which we can't help with - we can tell them the way we'd like stuff to work, but they're the ones who know the wikidata systems and can implement them. I was at a talk at wikimania about WikiData and having listened to what they're trying to do I fully Symbol support vote.svg Support their efforts. They are not trying to foist things on us without discussion, they don't have a "thing" they could foist on us yet, even if they wanted to. But there's not that much point in a discussion on Commons before we even know what wikidata can do. This all seems to be scare-mongering. Have a little faith in your fellow wikimedians. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems very odd to me to be creating job proposals out of something that has yet to be put to the community on Commons.
Firstly, I do support the concept and I have seen the presentation given at Wikimania and it certainly is just at concept stage, nothing that I could use on any of my uploads to Commons, nor anything yet agreed that I could adapt my pending uploads to accommodate. I have avoided investing any more of my volunteer time discussing this until something is agreed, I suggest that organizations like WMDE do not pump donated funds into jobs until we actually have some confidence about what is being proposed, and, in fact, something is proposed in black and white that we can discuss. I definitely would expect a RFC before committing to projects, rather than building castles on vague conceptual statements and a handful of people saying how great the idea is (which it may be, but we are in danger of damaging the projects reputation before getting to the starting gate). -- (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fae:. Turning on Phase 2, so that we as individual users can writing and designing templates, is something that WMDE can and are happy to do now, requiring zero resources.
Getting ready for Phase 3 (ability for templates to access arbitrary Wikidata items) is also something we can start doing now, by starting to build prototypes, and making sure the data modelling on Wikidata is sufficient to match the sort of fields we want to fill. Ability to support Phase 3 is core development path functionality for Wikidata, so going to happen anyway. It's a question of us as users getting ready to get the most out of it.
You say it is not something you could adapt your pending uploads to. And that's great, you are your own volunteer, and you have your own volunteer priorities. But for myself, if I'm doing a bulk upload, I would like to know how to be interrogating and updating Wikidata as an essential part of that. For example, so I can just update existing Wikidata items, rather than having to create a whole slew of new Creator templates. Or to support categorisation -- which at the moment is a huge job after a bulk upload. I'm still struggling to work through some of the sets I've uploaded from the Mechanical Curator collection. Fine, you don't want to write such tools, but if we write such tools, they might end up being things you found some use for.
What really could use your expertise is looking at the ontologies that have been created especially by d:Wikidata:WikiProject Books and d:Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure to see what edge cases they're missing -- you have uploaded so many images, what you know could be truly invaluable.
Wikidata is for information about underlying objects, themes, painters, things that could have their own Wikipedia article. Those are its terms of notability, it doesn't want to store anything else.
But there is other information, which exists on a per-file basis, which could usefully be stored in a structured format. This is what the Commons Wikibase is going to be for, and it is for the community to scope out with the project team from the Foundation just what we think could be usefully stored on such a system. It is going to happen anyway, because the Foundation is very very keen to make tag-like searching and user tagging a possibility. But how else Commons Wikibase could be used, what should be priorities, how it might be phased -- all that is very much up in the air. But it's the kind of stuff where if we want to have a say, we need to start doing our thinking now. Jheald (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fae, Steinsplitter: Out of curiosity, can you post the link to the job opening? On wmde page I just found these openings and none seems to mention Commons.--Micru (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
mail-archive --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: It doesn't say anything about any new feature, just "support". In a way wikidata is already supporting Commons through the interwiki links and there might be work left to do for Phase 2 (see below). Honestly I have no idea, but I think is a good idea to open a RFC and sort out any misunderstanding. --Micru (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As a minor clarification I said "I do support the concept" and "nor anything yet agreed that I could adapt my pending uploads to accommodate", I actually said nothing about my interest in writing related tools. The key point is, I have yet to see any solid definition of what I could do right now, that I might not have to then re-do in a few months. For this reason, it is better for me to defer taking any action until there is reliable agreed advice for Commons contributors to follow. With regard to GWToolset uploads, the metadata is already nicely laid out independently of Commons templates, so massaging that into whatever is agreed for structured data would not seem too difficult. -- (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that some admins started a talk "to include [or not] new software on commons without asking the community"! Clin. You should not discuss about Wikibase on the Administrators' noticeboard. Pyb (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am am admin on both Wikidata and Commons, and I do believe the idea should go through RfC here. We can not really afford to strain the relations between Wikidata and Commons, it would be very much unproductive.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose a site notice for all logged in users for the duration of this project. I want to make sure that no one is able to say they were unaware of this project. TheDJ (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

good idea, i also think this is very important. but please make sure, that on the page it links to there is a very short introduction about what this all is about (only 2-3 sentences). it should be understandable for "normal" less experienced users (without obscure terms like "phase 2" or "structured data"), and if possible it should be translated in the main languages before RfC start and sitenotice (i can help with german if nobody else does). Holger1959 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Enabling "Phase 2" access to Wikidata[edit]

  • So one immediate thing we can talk about now as a community is whether to enable so-called "Phase 2" access to Wikidata -- the possibility for templates on galleries and category pages to be able to draw information from Wikidata items that correspond to those category and gallery pages.
This is something that, from the Wikidata side, Lydia has now said that she is happy to make possible to us. Note that per d:Wikidata:Notability, Wikidata items should not be created for individual file-pages, and categories should only get items essentially if they correspond to something somebody could write a wiki article about -- so it is only galleries and those categories that could access Phase 2 enabled templates.
Having this "Phase 2" access I think means we could write much better, more multilingual, more easily maintained introduction snippets to galleries and articles; and better, more multilingual, more easily maintained infoboxes on galleries; it would be good for the data on Wikidata, because data which is being used is much more likely to be right; and it would give us as the community a much better idea of what Wikidata can do, how we can use it and get the most out of it, and how we might want to tweak it and make it better.
But sure, turning on "Phase 2" access is a significant software change, so if it's something we feel we should have an RfC about, then let's have an RfC about it. It might be an idea to hold off for a few days, until some prototype templates can be shown to make more concrete exactly how Phase 2 access works, and what sort of things it can do. But as soon as those can be got ready, shall we have an RfC to see whether we want to start playing with these new possibilities? Jheald (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"In other projects" sidebar[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#.22In_other_projects.22_sidebar. Jee 02:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Missed one sock of IPhonehurricane95[edit]

I know that he apologized on my talk page, and I know that he will probably stop... But I believe that the sooner we block the remaining socks, the better. That way, we can get this over with and move on to more constructive projects. I believe that User:IPhone 4S hurricane 95 is the last unblocked sockpuppet, so can an admin please indef block it? Also, just to be sure that there are absolutely no socks remaining, I would like to request that a Checkuser run a sleeper check on this account and its underlying IP, to make sure that no hidden accounts remain. Best regards, BlueHypercane761 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked that one and User:IPhone 5S and Chairman Mao, which I found in the userlist. Perhaps @Magog the Ogre:, @Trijnstel:, @Tiptoety:, etc, could do the CU when they have time. INeverCry 05:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys so much! Face-smile.svg BlueHypercane761 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"IPhone 5S and Chairman Mao" is Time2wait.svg Stale - not sure about accounts on the IP range of the other. Will consult other CUs. Trijnsteltalk 20:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

American craftsman style in the United States[edit]

Could someone please close Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/05/Category:American craftsman style in the United States? It's a request for synchronising category names; of course I know that categories can now be moved, but once the CFD's closed, we need to tell CommonsDelinker to rename categories on lots of images, so admin rights are needed. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Serious deletion error issue[edit]

I've been getting the following error while trying to do DRs with DelReqHandler, CSDs with DeleteLinks, etc yesterday and today:
"API request failed (backend-fail-internal): An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad"
I've gotten this error 100+ times, and it's made it so that I can't continue doing deletions for the time being. I reported it to Rillke, but I realize he's busy, and I don't want to dump the problem just on him. Anybody else around who can help with this? Thanks. INeverCry 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Get this problem as well. Staff is probably still sick from Wikimania party so no one reads the error logs over there. No idea whom to contact. --Denniss (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be some serious issues over there, I tried to view/undelete some of my recently deleted images but 'script can't find them' is reported. --Denniss (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As a test, I just now attempted to delete several images at en:wp; all went fine, so I'm going to guess that it's a Commons thing, not something affecting everything with WMF servers. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I had the same error several times during file uploads today. ireas (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's where I've seen it; reported on 5 August at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2014/08, section "Storage backend error". Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It's also occuring on dewiki. We had this problem twice in the last 2 years and what helps is to wait some time or to let another admin try to delete the files. XenonX3 (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Swift seems broken, Swift is a long-term problem --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you perform RevDel at all? If so, perhaps you could upload a one-pixel placeholder image on top of the problem image, and then RevDel everything except the latest revision. "It is considered an additional tool for enforcing other Commons policies, and so for example may be used in all cases where regular deletions are permitted but where just a revision needs to be removed", so I can't imagine anyone complaining that you abused the tool. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jorgeroyan[edit]

The page need to be protected and information added to Commons:Deceased contributors. His work File:India - Varanasi green peas - 2714.jpg is POTY #9 in last year. A great travel photographer and a big loss for us. Jee 03:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks INeverCry. Jee 05:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to move images to the English Wikipedia, since the "licensing" was wrong[edit]

In 18 Aug. 2014 I uploaded 38 official photographs from Congresspeople of the Dominican Republic thinking that it was okay since a "license template" said that they were, but it turns out that they weren’t because the one who made the template misinterpretated the Copyright Law, and that template is about to be deleted, so all the pictures that are currently using that template would eventually be deleted too.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

Plus two pictures that already were using it (in this case, two presidents) : [39] [40]

So I request both the deletion and the transfer of the images.

P.S. I hope this is the right place to request it.

Inhakito (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Montage containing deleted image[edit]

File:Woman Montage (1).jpg contains the deleted image File:Eva peron official state portrait 3.jpg. Not quite sure how you want to proceed on that one, but I guess the montage should be deleted too. Can I suggest that if you do delete it that the description is preserved somewhere so editors can recreate it without the offending item. SpinningSpark 19:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, amend that, the infomation in the image description is wrong, the image has been replaced. It is only the versions in the history that are copyvios and need deleting. SpinningSpark 19:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Old revisions deleted, description updated. INeverCry 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Isle of Man RfC[edit]

Can a neutral user (not necessarily an admin) please close the RfC at File talk:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg and judge on whether it was canvassed? If you have time, the preceding discussions are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Sorry if this is the wrong place for this request; there does not appear to be a Commons equivalent of en:Wikipedia:Requests for closure, and requests for closure have been placed here before. SiBr4 (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted before with deletion request ?[edit]

Deleted before with deletion request File:Addie M. Miller, Human Rights Advocate.JPG, could somebody check, see uploaders history.--Motopark (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/File:Addie M. Miller, Women.JPG. Redeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)