User talk:Russavia

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

Enjoy your time here on Commons, and remember to stay mellow.
Feel free to leave me a message below.

Evidence of consent

Hey Russavia,

a question regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Austin photoguy50.

Independent of whether there are other reasons to delete these particular images, can you clarify whether you agree that these types of images should be deleted if no evidence of consent can be provided?

I'm asking because as an admin, my expectation is that you consider it your responsibility to enforce Commons policy and Board policy. Admins are given generally some discretion in the implementation of policies, but adminship is supposed to mostly be the routine application of existing policies and community consensus.

The policy that we don't host images from people in private places where evidence of consent is missing seems pretty clear to me. I think it's reasonable to give the uploader time to provide evidence of consent, but it's also reasonable to delete the images after the end of the DR and undelete if evidence is provided later. Do you disagree?

I don't think the hypothesis that the images are or could be revenge porn is even relevant to that question. Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), it's still desirable to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used on Wikipedia.

Thanks, --Eloquence (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Erik, happy to any questions you have here, and I will get something up for you by Monday. Just so that others are aware, this is following on from discussion on this mailing list (the [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up thread). Will respond before too long. Cheers, russavia (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Erik, I will initially answer some of the questions you have asked. Of course the images should be deleted if consent for their initial publication was not given, as required from the photos being "in a private setting" with an "expectation of privacy". This is how it has been for such images on this project, with a few misses along the way, for a long time. It is not unreasonable to delete the images if no affirmation of consent is given and then undelete them if permission is received; however, my opinion in that DR is that regardless of consent being affirmed, that they should be deleted on scope grounds (this is above and beyond, but also including, the consent issue). Whilst we obviously need to get that affirmation of consent, if that is forthcoming, then we have to then look at whether they are in scope. For this set of photographs, I don't believe they are.

Erik, Commons is an amazing project, with amazing people doing a lot of amazing things. Editors on other projects oft don't hear about the fantastic work that our editors do; they often only hear negative things. Erik, this project is not perfect, but it is far from "being broken"; that being the popular war chant we hear of on an almost weekly basis, often coming from those who spend absolutely no time on this project. As an example, what I saw on the gendergap mailing list was just another manifestation of that; I only joined it the other day and I hope to god it hasn't been like since forever, because it is quite simply atrocious. Simply put, it is easy to sit back and do absolutely nothing on this project, and criticise our editors and admins, whilst totally ignoring the massive project we are participating in and the amount of work that editors on this project partake in to keep it running.

I'll show you another example, and it is from that list. The other day it was raised on the list that of the 9 images (7 was incorrect) in Category:Bagby Hot Springs, 3 of them were of topless women. Another list member said they would organise for photos in July. Great! I then provided a good source for photos which would be suitable and would "dilute" the toplesness in that category,and are available right now. It's now been 4 days since, and still not a single image has been uploaded. Yet, I guarantee you, that category will still an issue in the backs of people's minds, even though they have the power to do something about it. We welcome all editors of all persuasions and opinions; they simply need to bite the bullet and get involved in this project.

And the last comment goes to WMF board members as well. It is fantastic that WMF board members engage with people on mailing lists, and at events like Wikimania, etc; but that is NOT the community. This right here (not my talk page) is the community, and it long overdue that the WMF engage with it more actively, to hear our opinions on issues relating to this project, and do so with an open mind. Just the other day, you mentioned an issue in relation to workflows on this project. It may interest you that the day before you raised that, this discussion was started on our Village Pump to make it easier for anyone to bring problematic files to our attention; be they copyright violations, images with scope issues, or the very rare instance of child pornography being uploaded. Messages were sent to JW[1], Philippe, legal, etc, (via email) but not a single one of those has offered input. Now that you are here, and hopefully ready to engage with this community, would you care to provide your input, and hopefully support, to this idea? Or chime in on this project with other ideas that you might have? russavia (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Category "X"?

Hi there, I see that you uploaded one of your Flickr photostreams about the "Elin Kling X Guess By Marciano Capsule Collection Launch", and bot-assigned all of the images into Category:X. This category is intended to show media pertaining to the Latin letter 'X' or the Cross symbol 'X'. I have manually removed that category from several of the uploaded images (leaving them with no assigned category), but frankly grew tired of finishing the task. Can you please assign this photostream to a more appropriate category? Thanks! Grolltech (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've done that. Don't worry about the images in no category; I am systematically going through and cleaning up all uploads, including categorisation, etc. BTW, are you familiar with Help:Cat-a-lot? If categorising is something you do, you might find this useful. russavia (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr location cats

I realise the whole method of tagging on Flickr is very different to Commons categories. However when fixing it, can you try not to entirely strip it of location-based information?

For instance with this, Wembury is the correct location category. Or with this, Devon shouldn't have been removed. Ideally it should have been replaced with either a better location or topic-in-location cat (Category:Insects of Devon for instance), but its better to retain the file in the top-level location than to remove it from the location's tree.

Its only the superfluous categories that should be outright removed, for instance a file in Category:Exeter, Category:Devon, Category:England should have Devon and England stripped.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Heya, thanks, it's interesting we have Category:Insects of Devon, I didn't realise we were into categorisation that deeply. :) Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep that in mind, especially for these categories. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RfA

I was not trying to uncollapse the whole thing, but just my comment as it contained evidence directly pertaining to the matter of the RfA. Could you please uncollapse my comment?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you remove the  Comment from the voting tally I will allow your comments in the comments section to be uncollapsed. There is no need for essentially the same things being said all over the page. russavia (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why that would be necessary, but I did it anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You placed a  Comment in the "Votes" section, instead of the section that is clearly marked "Comments". Sorry, this should have been made clearer to you. russavia (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) my comments got collapsed too, I don't mind, because I'd rather the whole thing would just stick to the on-commons contributions rather than having people bring up the everywhere else crap. (and it's not because I'm blocked on en.wiki either, which is totally fashionable) Penyulap ☏ 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding that this is about Fae and his contributions to Commons, not about anything else. Cheers, russavia (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting info

Hi! Did you upload this image? Note that while it's indeed licensed with a good license (CC BY) on Flickr the text blurb accompanying it conflicts the license (no derivatives). I've marked a few of those with {{noderivatives}} but I don't know if that's the right thing to do here. Confusing and irritating... Palosirkka (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for the message. Normally "noderivatives" would be the way to go if it was uploaded here under an allowable licence, but the source stated otherwise. In this case, they have chosen CC-BY on the Flickr stream. But yes, this should be clarified, so what I have done is removed the speedy deletion tagging for now, and I will make contact with them via Flickr/email and verify that they are fine with the CC-BY licence and tell them if they wanted no derivatives that they should relicence that stream. If they confirm that they are fine with the CC-BY licence as currently is on Flickr we can keep the photos; if not, I will delete the entire stream. That would be a shame, given some of the subjects they have uploaded. Thanks again for bringing that to my attention. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable. Thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ljubljana, Triple Bridge (6223252762).jpg

You've uploaded a derivative work

We're sorry, but File:Ljubljana, Triple Bridge (6223252762).jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a derivative of a non-free work, please explain why on the file description page. In case the file has already been deleted, you may contact the administrator who deleted it or make an undeletion request.

Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, File:Ljubljana, Triple Bridge (6221278902).jpg. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Eleassar, instead of speedying FOP files, could you instead DR them so that they can be added to "FOP" categories and possible undelete categories. We recently saw Armenian FOP change as per {{FOP-Armenia}}, and we never know if it might happen in Slovenia. If Slovenian law does change, by doing that we are able to undelete all of these files in the future; or when copyright expires. Cheers, russavia (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm listing these files at the relevant DR discussions in any case. This seems more efficient to me. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, no problem. That's fair enough. russavia (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Front de Libération de la Bretagne.jpg

???

Was it so important for you that you were brought there from COM:AN/U? Or should that demonstrate that you were influenced by this COM:ANU-nonsense? Although, Fry1989 started a superfluous threat there, he should not gain the impression that your decission is based on something unfair. Otherwisely you will find yourself on COM:ANU with a comparable nonsense threat. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Me saying that I came there as a result of seeing it on AN/U, does not mean that I read the AN/U thread, nor cared to read it. I simply saw there was a DR being discussed; I saw that it was well over a week late being closed, and closed it not by counting votes (I don't know where Fry1989 get's the idea that DRs are votes in the first place), but based upon my own knowledge of COM:TOO#France and based upon Jcb and PierreSelim's reinforcement of that, and then by the obvious and rigorous application of COM:PRP. russavia (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ooops

I just thought we may wish to provide a more decent image in case someone does want to search for the purpose of commons. If Larry Sanger finds out he may just make another cute 'search wikipedia' video with it. I am still wondering if a vandal adjusted code somewhere. My image still showed up when I searched and I wonder if we should try the file name next.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and I wasn't suggesting you were engaging in vandalism -- if someone didn't know the backstory (which I did) it's possible they could have thought so.

As to the problem, I really don't know. This bugzilla request is open, but I don't think anyone knows what the problem is. russavia (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have thick skin. You can call me a total <insert vulgarity here> if it helps the projects. At the same time I was replacing the image with a mellower one I also wished to test if it was the image itself, which it wasn't. I think the only things left could be the description, file name or backlinks. Will it cause any harm if we re-name it, strip the description, and remove all the wikilinks. I still smell a rat in the code. Searching for purpose in commons seems too far a stretch for a machine glitch. The pie image with 'result' search was mentioned as possibly being "The pie image has the French word "résulte" in its description so I would imagine that's why it's coming up.." It was total fluke that I thought of searching 'result' to see why 'purpose' failed. I tried 'addition' and other flow terms that came out fine. Can you think of any other words that would fit in the same set w:Set theory as 'result' and 'purpose'? We may be able to dump "résulte" from the description of the pie image and see if it fails/passes to test the above theory. If it does then we will either have one or two in the fail set. We could try all at once and see if the 'purpose' image fails to top out again. Rename to jpg8655443.jpg, remove all text including licences, and remove all wikilinks. We could even remove/change the filename from from the wikilinked pages as well. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message at User_talk:Grin#Can_you_help; Grin is native Hungarian speaker, perhaps it is within that description.

Failing that, perhaps Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence needs to start being looked at. We have a foundation with $40 million in donations; I am sure we can demand of them some of these funds to help to fix what is a perennial problem here, and it's often not of our doing. russavia (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I never realized that there were problems with search before this issue. I don't think I have ever had problems searching for images but one can never tell. I recently searched 'Philip Timms' to gather all his images in one category but if anyone spelled it wrong what are the odds of those images showing up? I don't know how search engines function so I usually start broad like 'Timms'. If that produces more results that I care to sort through then I narrow by adding 'Philip' and even 'Philip T. Timms' if it needs to be finer. A handy search feature would be files with 'Philip Timms' that are not already in Category:Philip T. Timms I am sure this can be done by a bot but it would be a nice feature without a bot. I just got your message as I was typing this. Great find and good work! I wonder if it is because it occured twice. We should try adding it 20-50 times to another DR and see if we can game the search results. If so it would be a very bad thing and open to vandalism. We may wish to add a policy that since this is a known issue then anyone exploiting it will recieve an instant 48hr block that can escalate. --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added to the buzgilla request a note that Commons space shouldn't be used in determining search results. Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence is something that is looking better and better to me every day. Perhaps we need to get something like this implemented by the WMF. I've also noindexed the page to see if that will fix the issue inline with the note i've left. russavia (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think it is an issue for the WMF. I remember a girl very upset, and I think in tears, at help desk in en:wp. She googled her name and the deletion review for her article was the top hit, I think. The article had been deleted, but all the dirty laundry was still in the DR. Someone mentioned that the DR should have been 'noindexed'. I think 'noindexed' needs to be ignored specifically by search sofware but if that fails or is not set then all of our dirty laundry will show up in search. I know that 'Canoe1967' shows many of my pages in google search but I don't really care. The same as I don't care about the images of mine that other sites host without attribution back to the file page. It isn't worth the legal battle but if The New York Times tries it I will have lawyers down their throat very quickly. They can either quietly pay me off or I will drag them through the mud. I should see if that is blackmail in some countries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you revdel my edit summary on the image? I didn't realize that search may still find the word through edit summaries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• We also have a time delay. I added Canoe19671967 to the description in File:Visual consent image.jpg a while ago and it still doesn't show up when I search Canoe19671967. Do we know how long the delay is? This may help our test edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not too sure, I'd say give it 24 hours for starters. #wikimedia-tech on IRC might be able to give more info. russavia (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. My removal of the Hungarian word for job or work may have fixed as well if there is a long delay. The search translator may see it as purpose and not job or work. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you do a speedy courtesy delete on File:Signature - Chanel Ryan.jpg. I got an email a few days ago that she doesn't want to have it in her article. Two other admin recommended OTRS but she may be too busy or OTRS may be too slow. I removed it from the two en:wp sandboxes it is in. They may go live before OTRS comes through though and it will show in history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am taking your word on this, and have deleted the file. Of course, this does not mean that someone else will not come along and upload it for use in the article; there's no copyright related issue on it. In relation to that article, I would suggest delaying any publication in the mainspace until such time as the OTRS issue is sorted; it's going to take some time from what I have seen. russavia (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. She forwarded me 10 emails for images and I forwarded them to OTRS. Although she was producer for most of them and has rights to release, she decided to have all the photographers fill out templates as a precaution. OTRS replied to me that she or they need to send them so I relayed that to her. Is it kosher if I give her your email to assist? On her twitter she says she just did 4 states in 10 days so I can see why things are slow at her end. She is working on her 2014 calendar so there may be other images coming. She doesn't want to edit or upload so it seems it will be me in the middle. I may try to arrange one ticket number for any future images she has rights to and save all the headaches. Something like "all my images uploaded by Canoe1967 are fine with me" type thing. --Canoe1967 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to pop over and ping you that I replied to you at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Why does EVula still have admin privileges?. Normally I wouldn't, but a good chunk of your comment is based on a very inaccurate, though fairly reasonable, assumption (which nobody bothered asking me about, which is why it had never come up in this fracas). Just trying to clarify things a bit so that I'm not being accused of something I didn't do...

Now, being accused of something I did do, well, I can't really complain about that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the comment was based on pretty accurate information. You did delete a heap of files that were previously kept at DR, one of those files was in use, you did tell tm to fuck off, you did dismiss concerns with "I'M IN UR COMMONS, DELETING UR PORN", etc. As admins we are expected to cop abuse; I get it on a daily basis from around the place and ignore it. Anyway, matter's finished as far as I am concerned. Got stuff to do. russavia (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was specifically the "deleting multiple images in use" part that I was objecting to; I didn't (and I've explained the situation around the one image that was in use). But yeah, I think the matter's pretty much run its course at this point, so there's not much point in beating the horse.
Also, a major thank you for changing that subject line on my talk page; I wanted to do it, but didn't want to be accused of trying to hide anything on my talk page. Same with the file name for File:Pin.jpg; it needs to be renamed (regardless of my opinion of the image itself), but I'm not touching it until that AN thread gets officially archived, just to make sure nobody thinks I'm trying to hide stuff while a discussion is going on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be renamed. Give me the name you think it would be renamed to, and I will do it. I haven't checked the AN/U thread again since, but if they are still going on about stuff there I hope they drop it soon. Don't worry, we'll find something to bitch about on Commons, something new pops up every other day; just like the bitching that occurs about Commons on enwp and elsewhere. russavia (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, looks like mattbuck already renamed it to File:Pinterest nude bodypainting.jpg, so it looks like there's nothing standing in the way of us all moving on to the next thing to bitch about. Woohoo! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate but not exact

File:Nude on stone paving.jpg and File:Male nude by Sasha Kargaltsev-6.jpg are duplicates but presumably the version on Flickr has been touched up as the light balance differs and so they have a different checksum. My original seems to have better flesh tones on my monitor, though your version has a geotag. I'll leave it to you to judge what the best call here is. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Fae, both of these are the same file. Can you give me the other file. Cheers russavia (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, link fixed. --Fæ (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will delete my file. russavia (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Handling privacy

Thanks for handling a recent sensitive DR with caution for the privacy of the model and photographer. Taking the initiative to do the necessary verification without leaving a trail of permanent records was a mellow and friendly way forward, without compromising the mission of this project or our associated values. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)