Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Invalid voting by the user[edit]

User:LuisArmandoRasteletti is voting support for all closed nominations and all current nominations, What do you all think about that? --Laitche (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I crossed them out and wrote on his talk page. Not sure what's going on there. — Julian H. 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(To clarify: I only crossed out the invalid votes, not the valid supports. Even though those don't appear to be helping either, since he, as mentioned, literally supported everything. — Julian H. 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
@Julian Herzog:Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, he is continuing to vote for everything support now. --Laitche (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Does someone have a good idea to stop him? --Laitche (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Notification: Now the minimum bar of FP is practically at least 6 supports... --Laitche (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reported this issue to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Since every single FPC has been supported since User:LuisArmandoRasteletti created his own nomination, including closed ones, it is clear that no judgement is occurring. I would support striking-out all of the votes. What do others think? Retaining them will result in incorrect promotions and in images that should be removed/withdrawn early hanging around for longer. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think his vote is not a judgement, he is just carrying out simple work. For this reason I agree with Colin. --Laitche (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree too. Yann (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

::Don't agree. And how about an explanation for this user? Has someone already tried it? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alchemist-hp, why don't you take the trouble to (a) look on his user talk page and realise the answer to your question is yes and (b) attempt to retrieve an explanation yourself, instead of lecturing everyone else. I would be very interested to hear what possible explanation there is for voting for every single candidate, sometimes twice. FPC is not a game. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. My mistake. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I don't understand how we can cross out the votes of a registered user whatever his intentions seem to be. Is there anything in our rules supporting such action? Please explain. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is not the answer to your question but there is an exception for everything. --Laitche (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise we have to write millions of pages of detail rules. --Laitche (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What is this obsession on Commons for rules? When people do shit things, they say "there is no rule says I can't do this". When people want to fix things, others say "there is no rule you can". I guess nobody considered that someone might log on to Commons and vote support for all fifty candidates and so didn't bother to gain prior-consensus and write some rule saying "If you do that, we might strike out your votes". Do you think that's likely to happen frequently? In all your years on Commons FPC has anyone done that? Why not let's waste the next week having a big discussion/vote on what the threshold of stupidity/disruption is? Is it forty-straight votes in support, or thirty? Come on. God gave you brain, rather than a circuit board. Let's discuss, make a decision, and hope nothing like this ever happens again. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In a more general way, it is not the first time there is massive support or almost systematics "easy" support from one user. Maybe that should be fixed a rule to limit the number of support votes at 2 by user by days. -- Christian Ferrer 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't want that. Sometimes people spend an evening or weekend going through the FPC list and legitimately support many images over an hour or so. I agree that some people offer a lot of support votes when making a nomination, but I've never seen it done on this scale. It is hard to legislate against someone determined to game the system in a clever way, but this isn't clever -- just disruptive. Alvesgaspar, if I spent this weekend opposing all fifty nominations at FPC, for no apparent reason, do you think you'd be asking about rules if my oppose was the reason your candidate failed? I think I'd be blocked already and you'd all think Colin had lost the plot. Similarly, and less obviously, if I had an FPC currently, that was only likely to succeed because of someone playing games, then I'd be unhappy about achieving promotion unethically. We're here to decide the best images on Commons, not to fret over rules or permit such disruption to influence the FP list. -- Colin (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • First of all I don’t appreciate your patronizing tone. Second, my long years in Commons have taught me that people usually shout when they are not sure of their own reasons. Third, let us look rationally at what is really happening here and try to answer to some simple questions: i) did this incident cause any visible damage or seriously disrupted the normal functioning of FPC? ii) are stupid or unjustified votes already not allowed in FPC? iii) how many of these votes from a single user are necessary for someone to come here and try to strike them out through a ad-hoc poll? Yes, nature gave me a brain so that I can think with my own head and not be intimidated by this kind of arguments. The bottom line is: there is no way we can eliminated those votes without going against our guidelines and seriously disrupting FPC. Is that really what you want to try? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, going against our guidelines, in other words that is called an exception. --Laitche (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The way of fixing for this incident is just like an emergency evacuation a necessity so please understand Alvesgaspar. --Laitche (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the block, I'm neutral and even a bit favorable but I'm not very favorable to remove votes of this user, and when he will be unblocked : will he have the right to vote? will he have to justifies his new votes? to whom? if he will learn not to vote for closed nominations thus will he have the right for to vote favorably for all other? I understand that these votes can be disturbing, but arbitrary decisions even if they are good stay still arbitrary when made for an alone user and therefore unjust by definition. Behavior can be found disturbing, a vote no, or he have the right to vote or not, as for all of us. If you think it has skewed the results, rather than go here then go to the page and vote accordingly. -- Christian Ferrer 05:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, I am looking rationally at what happened. We have over fifty invalid votes that have skewed those nominations towards promotion. Your "How many votes from a single user" question is exactly the question I ridiculed above as an example of how broken decision-making can be on Commons. It seems like folk have forgotten this is a wiki. Rather than agonise over "what if X happens" hypotheticals, why don't we just concentrate on what we have before us: over fifty invalid votes. You ask about rules, well, scroll to the bottom of the FPC header section and you will find: "Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.". Have a read of Ignore all rules, which is a core principle of all our wikis. This is a community who are able to make ad hoc decisions, and because this is a wiki, we should be able to do so quickly and informally. These votes can be eliminated without "going against" any guideline -- there is no "all votes are sacrosanct, even those cast by users who get blocked for disrupting the forum" guideline -- all it needs is community consensus. For what it is worth, if I had a candidate up right now, I'd withdraw it in protest. There's no joy in achieving a gold star because someone decided to play silly games over the weekend (and has got blocked for it). -- Colin (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A single mass supporter could never affect the vote if all the opposer actually opposed. Unfortunately it's a common practice to support the images you like and not to vote when you don't like. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Let me say again: those fifty votes are not invalid; they were made by a registered user with more than 50 edits. If they were invalid any editor could strike them. Why shouldn't we opem an exception to the rules and strike them? Because that would subvert our system, by opening a dangerous precedent. As Donninigeorgia just wrote above, those votes are really irrelevant. A final point: stating that I'm an interested party, as you did here is unfair and inelegant. This kind of ad hominem insinuations disrupt more than 50 blind votes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
He was continuing to vote for support everything like a carrying out simple work and he was voting for all closed nominations so his vote is not a judgement, that means practically his vote is not a vote. That period, since he nominated his nomination till he was blocked, the featuring rule had been broken by him so we would like to fix the wrong period. --Laitche (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, you misinterpret Donninigeorgia, who writes that those votes can affect the result because few editors actually bother to oppose -- relying instead on popularity making the image pass the 7-vote threshold. Let me put it another way, if a user posted their nomination to the candidate list and at the same time unilaterally and without consultation with the community, reduced the guideline required number of supports to 6, while also receiving support from another editor who would gain from this, how would you respond? I fail to see why you are campaigning at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for this user to be unblocked or insisting his actions are not disruptive. You seem to have a fixed mind that a registered user with more than 50 edits can piss all over FPC and we should do nothing about it. Let me repeat my question: what would you do if I opposed all 50 nominations, including your own. I don't think, for a moment, you'd support me. -- Colin (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There are several images near the end of their FPC listing that stand to be promoted solely because this user has tipped the support ratio in favour of promotion. And undoubtedly several others with longer to go that are likely to benefit from this blind support of everything. This is not "irrelevant" but is in fact permitting the forum to be disrupted by one user (who is now blocked). There are no rules on this that need exceptions, nor is scaremongering about precedents helpful (the "slipperly slope" is Commons favourite logical fallacy). We can restore FPC to a fair promotion, by striking these silly votes, or we can be partners to this disruption because it serves our ends, or we can withdraw our candidates in protest at a rotten vote. -- Colin (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the concern raised by Laitche and the wise comment by Abd on the user's talk page. The block is not just for random voting; instead the refusal to respond even in his talk page, still continuing what he was doing. Jee 11:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jkadavoor (Jee). Adding a comment pointing to possible voting abuse is the normal way to handle something like this. The user, however, was not warned to not vote, and was blocked clearly for failure to respond to requests and warnings, not exactly for voting. When unblocked, the user obviously should proceed with caution. I caution Colin for incivility in the comment above. The user was not "pissing all over FPC." He was possibly adding some systematic bias toward approval, that's all. Perhaps he believes they are all wonderful photos. Only if there is some fixed rule about the number of votes, rather than a guideline, would this be a real problem. I.e, the issue here may come from a trust placed in fixed rules, when normal wiki procedure is that closers have discretion.
Funny that there is no reference above to the actual policy. It's on the FPC page. Voting policy is at [1]. There is no restriction on how many supports one may make, nor any restriction on what could be called "frivolous support." The idea that there is something wrong with approving everything seems not to ever have been established by consensus. The user was not violating any policy.
Then decision policy is at [2]. I have never before seen bot decision, so I was surprised. FPC appears to be a pure vote with an automatic result. However, there is a bypass: "there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules."
The "universal support" could be said to lower the threshold from seven to six votes, if this user continues the behavior and nothing else is changed. Of course, the threshold could be increased (permanently or temporarily), or others, if they believe the user is improperly supporting undeserving images, may vote in opposition. I would suggest that the rule be changed from at least X votes in support to "at least Y total supports after oppose votes have been subtracted." I don't think the fix here is to prohibit any qualified user from voting. --Abd (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to nitpick on "The user was not violating any policy.": He did vote on a whole bunch of nominations that were long closed (those had to be removed). I think that counts as violating policy. It also demonstrates a relatively obvious lack of interest in what he was voting on. — Julian H. 18:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
And to re-iterate the point that Colin was making, it isn't necessary to find a policy that he was violating to demonstrate that he was being disruptive. We don't have a policy for every possible disruption but that doesn't mean we can't identify the disruption. We all have brains and are capable of using them. ;-) Yes, maybe he did find every single image worth supportive, but that only goes to show that he wasn't being sufficiently discerning, given that many nominations are patently below standards. There has to be a middle ground between prescribing detailed criteria that reduce us to mere automaton bureaucrats, and giving everyone completely free reign to vote however they like without any need to justify their voting patterns. That middle ground requires using good judgement and demonstrating the ability to discern good from bad images. Diliff (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Abd may prefer the euphemism of "possibly adding some systematic bias toward approval" which reminds me of a certain UK politician who " 'over firmly' denied having a second job". But this a deflection from the issue. As noted by Julian, this user not only voted on closed nominations but also voted twice on some nominations. A look through this user's contributions will unearth another time in 2010 when 100% support was coincidental with a nomination. I am truly tired of all this "rule for this" "no rule for that" nonsense that kicks any action into the long grass and is fundamentally anti-wiki. There is no rule says I can't post the letter "R" again and again and again on everyone's talk page, but doing so would certainly piss everyone off. There's no rule says I can't decide to support or oppose nominations based on the day of the week or the initial letter of the nominators user name. But doing so would rightly be regarded as Colin playing games. His so-called "voting" is invalid and playing games. It isn't uncommon for some users to be over-supportive when nomination, but few are as naively crude about it as this. If Abd wants to play silly games on this talk page, I'm off. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a euphemism. It's the actual effect. Voting on closed nominations was disruptive, in a sense, but harmless. He wasn't warned for that. Nor for voting twice. He was only requested to stop voting for every nomination, and then warned for doing that without discussion, and blocked for same. It's an error to make him the topic here. The issue worth discussing is if any steps should be taken to prevent what could be considered "frivolous votes." My opinion is that any effort to do this could cause more harm than good. There are possible changes in how voting is evaluated that would minimize the harm from this, but it is not clear that this problem is large enough to be worth the effort. Voting for every nomination is not contrary to policy. Stupid voting is not contrary to policy. There are no warnings about dumb votes in the instructions. No expertise is required to vote, etc. --Abd (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, @Abd: for coming here and try to understand what has really happened. You are right, the user did not violate any policy and, according to the present guidelines, his votes are perfectly valid. Another fact that people failed to mention here is that this kind of situation is not new, as many other editors often come here and blindly support a lot of pictures in a row without seriously assessing them. Many times we have tried to find a scheme to oblige people to justify their oppose and support votes, but a consensus was never reached on that matter. However it should be stressed that this kind of isolated episodes can hardly be considered more serious than a nuisance, as their effect is easily corrected by the other reviewers. Considering that the intentions of all those editors are malicious and eliminate their votes via some ad-hoc process, as is being tried here, is a gross violation of the AGF principle and a dangerous precedent that may subvert the FPC system. This is not a minor decision, as the proponents of the measure are implying. Now, we are considering as non-valid the support votes of a registered user, just because a couple of editors considered them suspect. What will come next? I say again, this time more emphatically: it is this very proposal, as well as the aggressive way it is being conducted, that is disruptive to FPC, not the fifty support votes of User:LuisArmandoRasteletti. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, his votes are completely valid, and that's the problem, if invalid striking-out all of the votes, that's it. But we can't. That's why we are having a discussion here. So your assertion is out of focus from this discussion and this incident, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do I understand correctly that a Commoner made a nomination then proceeded to support 50 previously nominated images? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think nobody knows his intentions because he has never responded to any attention and any warning, please see his talk page. --Laitche (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it (and I'm not absolutely certain of every detail so please correct me if I'm wrong), he did. Not only did he support ~50 nominated images, but he supported every nomination without exception and without any additional comments to support the vote. These support votes included those that were already expired but still on the page, he on one occasion double voted, and continued to support new nominations even after being asked politely/warned not to support everything blindly. He showed, IMO, that he was not applying any discrimination whatsoever in his voting patterns and was not heeding warnings nor responding to those who contacted him, but as Laitche says, we can only infer intentions as there was no response from him. Diliff (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. --Laitche (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Any reasonable person would interpret that behavior as either blatantly currying favour or being so stupid as not to recognize it would be interpreted as such. In either case the behavior should not be tolerated and the nomination and the votes set aside. The case is sufficiently extreme, and instances like it sufficiently rare, that such a summary judgment would be an appropriate course of action. Creating a policy is certainly not warranted for the same reasons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet there are some arguing here that since we have no rule against it, he did absolutely nothing wrong... And that's the problem, as Laitche says. If we can't agree that the voting patterns were unconstructive - the equivalent of vandalism - then something is wrong here. If identical text was applied to every article visited by the user on Wikipedia and refused to respond or stop, he'd have been blocked for vandalism. What's so different about this? Diliff (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we need a precedent(like this). If we have a precedent, when exactly the same thing occurred, and if we have no rule against it, we can say We already have a precedent.. For this reason I think we should set a precedent through this opportunity. That’s why I’m saying We would like to fix the wrong period. Means striking-out all of the votes, because his votes are not regarded as a vote. In my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course we need a consensus to set a precedent for this incident. --Laitche (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it really worth the time and energy to have an endless discussion about this? The only case I could find where this user's vote might actually make a difference is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg/2. If this should really turn out to be a recurring problem in the future, we can still think about counter-measures then. For now, just throw in a bunch of opposes (if necessary) and be done with it. --El Grafo (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the 'endless discussion' is because there is a fundamental disagreement about the philosophy what is considered reasonable voting behaviour, not just the event itself. Yes, we could place opposite votes to nullify his votes, but rather than add false opposes to 'solve the problem', why not accept that in extreme circumstances, the simplest way to fix it is simply striking out the votes? Seems to me to be a much better solution since it removes the problem vote rather than neutralises it with a counter-vote that would unnecessarily misrepresents the nomination. The only reason we're still debating this is because there are those who feel it is vitally important that we consider his votes to be legitimate because there's no rule to say they're not... Silly thinking like this should be debated, because it tends to keep recurring if left unchecked. It might not be exactly the same situation next time, but if there's a precedent that we can never strike a vote out no matter how silly and indiscriminate it is, it could have a much larger effect on how FPC is run. Just my opinion anyway. Diliff (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If one wants to care about the effect of his votes, it must be that they would improperly cause a not-good-enough image to be tagged as a Featured Picture. So to oppose would not be a "false vote." It would be a real vote, and one came to make that vote by seeing that a user made a series of votes considered frivolous.
I see nobody arguing above that it is "vitally important to consider his votes legitimate," nor that the reason for this is that there is no rule preventing it. This is the fact: unless the votes are removed, they will be counted by the bot. To remove votes on a basis of the judgment of the voter's motives or behavior opens an enormous can of worms, and could create fear to vote, claims of bias, etc.
Consensus here is that because a concern was raised, and the user continued to vote as he was, without addressing the concerns, he was properly blocked. But he was blocked for not responding to concerns, not exactly for voting.
Part of his behavior was some level of actual illegitimate voting, i.e., voting in a closed discussion. Or perhaps a double vote. Probably simply in error, out of a rush of some kind. He was not actually warned for that, so he was not blocked for that. When some have written here that "he did nothing wrong," they were not referring to those votes, but to the bulk, what was first raised here, and the real issue to consider.
It's been expressed that there is nothing here that is a serious enough problem to worry about how to fix it. The possibility, nevertheless, has been raised that there may be indiscriminate voting and that this may damage the results. That possibility has always existed and there have always been indiscriminate votes. Voting systems are designed to not be particularly sensitive to the vote of one voter. *If* there is a problem, then look at improving the voting system (there are possible ways). Attempting to disable or sanction or disqualify users based on perceptions of motive are doomed to create nothing but disruption, and for obvious reasons. I'd suggest taking that part off the table.
Keep it simple. --Abd (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The point of voting on FPC is to judge the image, and give your opinion of it, not to try to game the nomination so it goes a particular way. A vote cast just to reverse the effect of one brainless support is not a vote that judges the image at all. Also, I don't think it's ever been argued that it is only about whether the votes affected the result of the nomination. It's about whether they were disruptive and counterproductive votes, regardless of whether they actually affected the outcome. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the voting system, it's just that it assumes the maturity to judge the images fairly and judiciously. When it's clear that one individual isn't showing those qualities, it isn't the voting system's fault, it's the individual's fault. Therefore we should strike the votes out if he refuses to respond or change his behaviour, not change the voting system to account for the occasional idiot. That's 'keeping it simple'. Diliff (talk)
I agree with Diliff. A human is not a machine so I think we can’t solve this issue by a system therefore we need an accumulation of actions although so far we never have any actions to this issue and I think that’s the problem. That’s why I proposed a precedent. But that word 'precedent' is sort of a metaphor. I couldn’t find an appropriate word to I wanted to say. --Laitche (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
But even now I can't find more appropriate word than precedent. --Laitche (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
After all, that is a precedent... --Laitche (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As already mentioned here, no real damage was made by the blind votes of LuisArmandoRasteletti, either than a slightly larger probability of a single picture being promoted. Also, this kind of incident is sufficiently rare so that it does not justify the creation of a specific (and complex) rule to deal with it. Finally our system is resilient enough to easily accommodate such incidents with no relevant impact on the outcomes. If that is the case, why continue some editors insisting on removing the votes of LuisArmandoRasteletti? A clue was given by Laitche above, who explicitly stated that the goal was to create a precedent. Well, that is precisely what we should not do! Today we are dealing with the benign case of many unjustified support votes. Tomorrow we may be faced with a bunch of unjustified opposes. Next week, perhaps we will have someone invoking stupid or technically incorrect reasons for his vote (as a matter of fact, this is happening all the time!). I won’t probably need to go any further to make people understand to what kind of difficult situations such an innocent ad-hoc decision may lead in the future. A box of Pandora indeed! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alvesgaspar: I guess probably you are misunderstanding my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Alves, as I and others already pointed out though, this is not about whether damage to any individual nomination was done, it's about what the most appropriate response should be, both in terms of keeping the nominations as a true reflection of the sentiment, and in terms of maintaining proper order. I don't really think anyone wants to create a specific rule to stop it happening again. I know Colin has been raging against the very idea of it, and so have I. As Laitche says, I think you've misunderstood him too, because I don't think that's what he wanted either. I believe (if I understand correctly), what he has suggested is that if there is a precedent for striking out the votes, we won't need a specific rule written down, we'll merely need to reference a previous occasion (this one) to justify striking out votes if it happens again. It's a bit like the way case law works in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. Instead of having a specific law for each and every specific scenario, a previous case can be referred to in which a judge has ruled on something similar. I haven't seen any good reasons why striking the votes out is not the most appropriate response to this. Yes, we could leave the votes standing, but that would not reflect the true sentiment of the nomination. We could also oppose vote to counter the support votes as Abd suggested, but this would also not reflect the true sentiment of the nomination. The only way IMO to reflect the true genuine sentiment of the nomination is to remove the vote that was made without sufficient consideration. Why is that conclusion so difficult to reach for you? Why does the 'but there's no rule that says he couldn't do it' outweigh the goal of keeping the nomination uncontaminated by what we all agree are votes that are completely and utterly unconsidered? Diliff (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Diliff: And still, you didn't even mention the really important point of my comment - as if you hadn't read it -, which is precisely the danger of creating a precedent! Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess I didn't mention it because it relies on a premise that I don't agree with, and argued against it in my response above. I just don't see the danger of creating a precedent if it's a justifiable and appropriate action. I say again, why is striking out his votes not the most appropriate response? Diliff (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How can't you understand? Suppose that some user comes tomorrow and support all nominations but one? Will you invoke the precedent to remove the votes? What if he supports just 90%? Or if he opposes 89%? Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
So I mentioned above that we need an accumulation of actions to each case without any actions we can’t solve this issue forever, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a completely different scenario. We're talking about a precedent for someone who votes all opposes or all supports and refuses to respond to anyone. Someone who shows that they are capable of voting with discrimination will not fall foul of this 'precedent'. Diliff (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Alvesgaspar, you are trying to go to ignoratio elenchi. --Laitche (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 with Alvesgaspar, and what for the future votes of this user, if the next time he do only 5 or 6 stupid votes, will be these votes accepted? or is he banned? and from an other user, these stupid votes are accepted provided they are not too many? I consider as impoliteness dumbest yet, can we remove the next vote I will judge stupid? What photo was promoted because of its votes, if there is one have you opposed on it? -- Christian Ferrer 05:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 with Alvesgaspar. I think it isn't forbidden to be (perhaps) stupid and give (perhaps) stupid votes and who can decide what is a stupid vote? Who like to be here the photographer God with his absolute opinion? Please end this discussion or I lose my respect for many here on Commons! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alchemist-hp: I agree with ending this discussion. --Laitche (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I would like to continue this discussion a little more but for the other members... I agree with ending. --Laitche (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
My only response to that is if we cannot be reasonable and decide what is a stupid series of votes then we have serious problems here. The ridiculous thing is that we have already agreed it was a series of stupid votes. Nobody has honestly disputed the idea that he was voting indiscriminately. Also, let's not forget that Abd blocked this user for failing to respond to requests to stop, so even he identified that there was a problem with the votes or it wouldn't have needed blocking. Did he play God? At some point, someone has to actually be proactive and do something to stop disruptive behaviour and if you call that playing God, so be it. Diliff (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We should not discuss about a hypothetical question(including "What will happen in the future.", etc) because that fear of leading the discussion to ignoratio elenchi. Of course we have uncountable cases and problems in the future. And that is exactly why we need a precedent. So we should focus on only this incident and as Diliff says "Someone who votes all opposes or all supports and refuses to respond to anyone." now. --Laitche (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Diliff’s line is also a hypothesis so I’ve struck out that part. That was my mistake. We can not set a precedent to a hypothesis. Setting a precedent is limited to the only things which have already done. --Laitche (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • One of two things is happening: either people do not really understand what’s going on; or pretend not understanding. Both possibilities are disturbing. I give up explaining any further before, as Alchemist said, I lose the respect for the editors. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So even if there's a chance that people don't understand 'what's going on', you're going to lose respect for them anyway? I assure you I'm not pretending to not understand anything. I just happen to believe in what I'm arguing. If disagreeing with someone is enough to make you lose respect for that person even if they're simply trying to explain their point of view and trying to understand yours, I find that quite sad. Diliff (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Now the discussion is here, I think we should make a proposal of rule: Any user who has a disturbing behavior by his votes, comments or editions in the FPC page and who have been blocked by an administrator because of this disturbing behavior may have its comments or votes deleted striked out on all active nominations of the page FPC if the community deems necessary. And for who is not favorable for this rule, yes ok... but don't ask for to delete votes. -- Christian Ferrer 11:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Your English is a bit confusing for me, but nobody has suggested we delete the votes, only strike them out. But a large part of the discussion was about the fact that we don't need more rules, we just need more common sense about how to deal with issues like this. Diliff (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry for my English by delete I mean strike them out, for me it was the same result. And the discussion would not have been so large if there were such a rule. It is a small flaw in the system that would be so easy to fix with such a rule. You don't need more rules? in what a good rule is so bad? just on principle? as you want but you can discuss long.-- Christian Ferrer 16:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    It is even possible that embittered users expect that such arbitrary decisions to tackle the comunity FPC, such a rule could put us away from all ambiguity : the same rule for all. Why anyone would want anything other than that? I really don't understand why this aversion for the rules...-- Christian Ferrer 16:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly if this kind of rule, written with better English than mine of course, would allow the community to strike out this kind of stupid votes without large and long discussions, I really don't understand why you don't want this rule, it's the ingrown common sense... -- Christian Ferrer 17:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I add just a little thing, this is the reason for existing of rules : avoid seeking consensus in interminable discussions that are as likely to conflict. That's what I call common sense. EOD -- Christian Ferrer 18:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Update. Luis is back and he's supporting every single nomination again. Strangely enough he's skipped a few nominations (an accident?) but every single vote is a support, as per the problem we had last time. Where do we go from here? Diliff (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would advise to ignore him and apply the universal rule: "don't feed the troll" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, but how? his votes are completely valid so we can't ignore him and that's the problem. --Laitche (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Again?... I think doing nothing is more danger, seems Alvesgaspar doesn't agree with setting a precedent but that's not an absolute and can be broken anytime and less strict than rules, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I blocked him again, and left him a message. He voted on almost all nominations again in less than 2 minutes [3]. I don't think he understood what FPs is about. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me put it this way. Unless we agree the rational, common-sense and one-off action of striking out all of this person's votes, then I expect every person who voiced an opinion about "against the rules" or "we need rules" to ensure they vote on every single one of these 40 new nominations that have been harmed today [all to those lurking quietly without supporting striking, I mean you too]. If you believe these edits are harmless or precious, then make sure they are by overwhelming the review with sensible ones. It seems to me that petty lawyering is more important to some than the outcome -- which is to recognise the finest images on commons through careful review. I want my featured pictures to gain that star because enough of my peers genuinely believe it does, and not because someone is playing games with the system. If you believe in that to, then act. It isn't my responsibility to sort out the problems you make by failing to deal sensibly and swiftly with this -- you are going to turn your words into action. If instead your first response is to fill this talk page with more words than 40 reviews would require, then you lose my respect certainly. -- Colin (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I complete agree with Alvesgaspar. First of all, judging the votes of anyone, their quantity or quality would be a nightmare. Who is qualified to do that? At best what can be done is to strike out out-of-time votes, other than that it is foolish to set up a rule to qualify "legitimate" votes. I would first suggest that people learn how to evaluate photography before they attempt to censor anyone´s opinion, which is what rules around here to begin with. If someone wants to support every single nomination, or oppose it, so be it. Part of life. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Set nominations...[edit]

I thought as per this previous discussion that we had decided what the criteria for sets would be and that we were ready to accept set nominations again. However, I wanted to nominate a set today and I couldn't find any instructions on how it should be constructed. I see from previous set nominations that there was once a process with different functionality that would process it as a set, but it seems we no longer have this? Should I use the regular image nomination form and then reconstruct it with a gallery? That would work but is it the best way of handling it? Your thoughts? I'll wait until I have feedback before submitting the set nomination. Diliff (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Diliff:, this have been deleted from the FPC page, if you nominate a set I think you should use it and maybe we should add this to the FPC page too, however the issue stay for the POTY election, one image of the set as candidate, all the images of the set as candidates, or set as candidate.

Set nominations ONLY

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


-- Christian Ferrer 15:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors[edit]

Hello everyone, in this gallery there currently has about 320 pictures, I'd create this sub gallery : Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings that contain only the interior pictures of religious buildings, a subject that is also very popular with our talented photographers.
So we get these two galleries:

The current navigational template would become:

I have not yet found a satisfactory icon for this new gallery to put in the navigational template, so if I create this new gallery I would ask to the Graphic Lab some tries for a new icon.
Before creating this new gallery I'll wait a while your informed opinions, good day.
-- Christian Ferrer 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Good idea. What about one of these crosses as an icon for the category? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Religious buildings do extend beyond Christianity though (although admittedly, the vast majority of current religious building FPs are Christian). It would probably be more inclusive to find a symbol that covers other religions, but I'm not sure how you'd do it - this wouldn't make a very good icon... Diliff (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
      • There's certainly room for improvement there, but I think it is possible to include elements that appear in buildings of various religions (arcs, narrow windows, ...) somehow similar to this: Religious interior.svgJulian H. 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
      • (ec) A cross would be one-sided. How about using an icon of an arch or a dome? Aren't arches or domes very common in religious interiors independent of the religion? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Arches can be good idea but domes are much for the exteriors IMO, Julian idea is not bad too. -- Christian Ferrer 19:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought to ask a graphist to work from something like this since columns and pillars are present in buildings of all religions. -- Christian Ferrer 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pillars and arches is a good idea, I think. How about the reference Christian gives, but simplified to simply an arch suspended by two pillars? Julians proposal is good too, but maybe looks a bit too much like "a detail of an exterior"? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - May - Panoramas[edit]

A little advert here for the Commons:Photo challenge. I'm sure many of those who create images for FP would benefit from joining in. This month has a challenge that surely fits with the sort of image many here like to take: Panoramas. Photos must be new to Commons and uploaded during May, but may have been taken earlier.

Pinging Poco a poco, ArildV, XRay, Christopher Crouzet, Diliff, Llez, Tuxyso, Slaunger, Code, Jacek Halicki, Ximonic, .. any others? -- Colin (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • DXR also. Can't think of any others off the top of my head but I'm sure there are some. Diliff (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the ping! Any chance to make it May-June? I'll spend a good chunk of June in Norway and a bit in Sweden, but right now I am fairly busy... --DXR (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Böhringer takes beautiful panoramas of landscapes. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
        • And Benh. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Not sure how it works but will give it a short look. - Benh (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
To be clearer, I don't expect the rules to be bent to my holiday plans, but this is a theme that can benefit from more time, imo. I don't have any publishable panos on file right now and for such a broad challenge topic users are somewhat disadvantaged if they upload good panos straightaway. But of course I also understand if the rules are fixed. --DXR (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
We'll see how the challenge goes. Sometimes if a challenge doesn't attract many contributions, it is extended, and this happens more if the challenge is restricted to newly-taken images (which this one hasn't been). But if there are too many entries (e.g. well over 100), it can be tiresome to review for voting. Why do you think there is a disadvantage to uploading straightaway. If anything, those uploaded earlier will be ordered first in the voting page, which probably has a small advantage. Btw, requests/changes should probably be discussed on the Photo Challenge talk page. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, fair enough. You are right, it should depend on the participation rate. Let's see how it goes. BTW: I meant uploading straightaway after capturing the image over the course of the year (that is, not building up a large stock of great, but unpublished images), not over the course of the challenge. But I get the motivation for allowing older images to be entered and you are right that this is not a good forum for such discussions. --DXR (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Colin, I didn't know about the theme chosen in the Challenge for May, but the last weekend I uploaded for the first time this year a bunch of pictures (taken with a WMAT camera during Christmas) and there are a bunch of panos among them (Sorry DXR :) ). I added some of them, you can almost call it flooding :) No limit of nominations per user, right?. I still have some material that will upload in the next weeks, also some panos. So, it was a lucky strike, since I have no camera yet and therefore participating in the Challenge is hardly possible to me. Poco2 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No, there's no limit of nominations per user. But from a tactical POV, it's probably a good idea to enter just a few good ones in order to avoid being your own competition ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't sure whether the more the better or just a very narrow selection is welcome. I can remove a couple, thanks. Poco2 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: That was just a general thought, I've not seen your entries yet … --El Grafo (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Too late :) I removed a couple, but there is still a bit of everything there Poco2 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Poco, the challenge encourages to "choose just your best and most varied images" and I generally recommend submitting no more than a handful (however you interpret that word). Unlike QI/FPC, where all images can get votes and reviews, reviewers at FC have only three votes that count towards the winning totals, and perhaps well over 100 images to review. If one submits many entries of similar quality then any votes one gets are likely to be spread thinly, making each less likely to pick up any award. Plus it isn't really fair on other entrants to see their one or two entries swamped. And if there are lots of entries overall, the reviewers get tired and end up being expected to choose which of your pictures are best, when you could have done that for them. Variety is the key to making the task of reviewing a joyful one. So I encourage you to trim a bit further. If it turns out the challenge is low on entries, you could add some back later. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noting about this! Lately I've been in hurry with my studies and some work stuff but I will try to keep this challenge in mind. I've recently done a new Norway trip and have quite many potential panoramas to make among other pictures + older ones still on the way. Of course, for me the most important thing is that people will have a good use for the pictures I give to Commons and in that sense I promise to continue, no matter if there was a challenge or not. Anyway, will see... I hope people are active for this. :) Keep up! --Ximonic (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it should not be extended. It is very easy to find subject matter for this theme and I expect the page to fill up quickly. -- King of ♠ 01:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Our little troll[edit]


Religious interior.svg  Gallery of Interiors of Religious buildings[edit]

Hi, this gallery was created, you can use it for your next candidate images if relevant. The navigational template was also amended. I have not yet transfered all corresponding images from this gallery, I will do it gradually. -- Christian Ferrer 05:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Christian Ferrer, for your continued efforts to maintain our galleries of FPs. Nice job! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

SOS: Uncategorized images[edit]

The images which become FP are getting not categorized for Category:Featured pictures by country. Who did it was @Thierry Caro:, but the user stopped doing that. I suggest request to the nominators that when finished the voting period, if the image becomes FP, categorize it with [[Category:Featured pictures by (name of country)]]. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a few. BTW I created Category:Featured pictures of people of the United States. Some of these were in Category:Featured pictures of people, some in Category:Featured pictures of the United States, and some in both. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Added. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Møns Klint beech trees in gorge 2015-04-01-4864.jpg[edit]

The last Slaunger promoted nomination reminds me to create a ludic gallery for the most supported nominations, more than 20 or 25 support and classified by numbers of supports... -- Christian Ferrer 08:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

After seeing your comment I was curious and I checked some of my FPs from this year and 25 is really good. I only found 2 with more votes (this one 26-0 and this one 26-3). On the other side I wonder how does Commons benefit about this ranking. It could rather bring some people to the idea of "asking" for support for certain nominations. Poco2 08:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec):Hmmm... I am really happy for all the support that nomination got, but I am not sure I can see the value in manually mantaining a gallery of the most supported FPCs. This 'popularity contest' would for me be quite redundant with POTY, which serves to highlight the most popular FPs as judged by a wider audience of Wikimedia project users. I am concerned that such a gallery will not be maintained or be incomplete. A simpler proposal, if we want to have a bit of a friendly popularity contest (cf. the sortable table in Featured pictures by creator) would be to add logic in the {{FPC-results-reviewed}} template. In that template there are already fields telling exactly how many support/oppose/neutral votes a closed nomination received. And that can be used to add the nomination sub pages to one or more hidden maintenance category, such as Promoted Featured Picture Candidates by number of supports with a sort key identical to the number of support votes. In that manner it would only require changing one template and create a couple of maintenence categories to have this kind of ranking more readily available and be done automatically. It could be interesting to have a look at the correlation between the number of supports and the POTY ranking as a feedback to our review criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's indeed quite playful and fun, and establishes a ranking that puts very good pictures in value by another process than the picture of the year can be interesting for to see what have the most success here, because all FP, nor even the success, are not equal. I see nothing bad to highlight the best success of our best FP. Of course far to me the idea to influence the process in the wrong way, it's just a gallery, not any assessments, and I'm not sure a simple and alone gallery can have the power to influence the process in the wrong way. It's just a playful and fun gallery for our very best success... -- Christian Ferrer 09:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I get the objective of a fun internal competition on this, and I am also not concerned about the fishing for votes. But what do you think about my proposal to implement this with hidden categories instead which rely on the data we already have in {{FPC-results-reviewed}}. In that manner, the overview will be created automatically and without human maintenence efforts, at least as long back as we have used that template (since August 2009). -- Slaunger (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course your idea of an automatic way is very good, I like it very much. In more to highlight the very best, this can be a very interesting statistic tool. Different and maybe much interesting than the POTY, or at least well complementary IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 09:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of this idea, and here's why: I like the fact that, after about 10 support votes, additional support is really not changing anything any more, and is purely a non-political sign of appreciation of a great picture. Everyone can relax because the nomination isn't chasing any metric any more. Those nominations are sort of nice islands of tranquility in an otherwise relatively harsh environment here. I'm not sure if this is complete esoteric nonsense, but that's my opinion until someone changes it. :) — Julian H. 11:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, perhaps we should rather count the time that a nomination put for to have 7 or 10 supports... :). The very very good images 1, 2, 3, have always more of 15, 20 supports and however are not necessarily in the POTY final. The ranking would have the advantage of bringing out the real success and to show the true finest in the finest. I don't see nothing wrong to say that this image had more supports than this one, it is the reality, no? A QI is not a FP...and it is a fact that all FPs have not of the same standing, why not highlight the very best? -- Christian Ferrer 12:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm also not a fan of this idea. How about the following case: 25x support or 25x support + 1x oppose within our first 5 days rule ... The second one can earn more supports after the five day rule!? And how about a statistic about our FPC visitors, when is the chance to meet the greatest number of visitors? We have times with o lot of visitors and times with fewest visitors??? The idea is nice, but what do we get out of this? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, you're right. It's very hard (impossible) to make a thing like that with the rules of the 5 days, I did not think to that...-- Christian Ferrer 12:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think an FP-image is an FP-image, is an FP-image. It doesn't matter whether 7x supports or 25x supports or more. To get a lot of support is curious, nice and interesting, but not more :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I would also be opposed to any sort of measure that focuses on images with many support votes. As has been said above, it would be easily gameable, and in any event there is little connection between large numbers of votes and either photographic quality or usefulness of the image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Counting 'most used' Featured Pictures?[edit]

  • How about some other challenges: which image are inside in the most articles in all Wikipedias (Commons counter)? Which image are used in the most websides outside Wikipedia (Google counter)? etc. etc. ... ??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The idea of adding some 'challenges' along those lines sounds promising. Use of an image outside Commons - whether on the other Wikimedia sites or not - is a useful metric of 'quality' or 'value' in the sense of contributing most effectively to our open content aims. So far as I am aware, nobody is measuring these sorts of metric at the moment, gaming would be difficult, and if people were encouraged to add images to the Wikimedia projects that would be a positive effect. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A caveat about uses, is how they are used. For instance, in Wikimedia projects, I believe only main space uses should be considered, and usages via template transclusions should not be considered. For instance File:Batus barbicornis MHNT femelle.jpg by Archaeodontosaurus is used on 26086(!!!) main space wikimedia project pages. But if we start to look at the details, it is because it is included in a stub template on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, where it has been transcluded on more than 26000(!) pages as a very tiny image. The FP is 'only' in use in 'normal size' on 25 regular main space pages (non-transcluded). Using glamorous it is actually not possible for me to see what the most varied FP use is, where a deliberate choice has been made to add a photo on a page. The top most hits are due to inclusions in navigation templates, etc. I think it will not be easy to find a meaningful metric for, although the idea is interesting. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a false good idea. I look at the utilization of images of the PHOEBUS project because I have to communicate on this subject several times a year. I avoid looking for my own name because I'm sure it's going distort my judgment. That there was an emulation is a good thing; but there was a competition is not good. In VI we try to work in this direction. The mutual assistance, dialogue, to be able to making an ethic. I believe in the value of the Sample If you do good work others will see it and follow it.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)