Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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 section]

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 at COM:HMS.

Archives
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)


Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Misuse of admin tools - Arthur Crbz's deletions[edit]

It has been brought to my attention on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard by Ciell that Arthur Crbz has gone through and deleted hundreds of files (estimate) as missing permission that were tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. These files were deleted with the use of VFC and I suspect no manual review was done on the files. OTRS pending files can only be deleted without a discussion after 30 days. A ton of files now need to be undeleted from the following categories...

All the files in these categories were incorrectly deleted:

It's worth noting that more than these categories were deleted from, these are just the ones that should undeleted from today onward (30 days). It appears these deletions have been happening for the last month based on Category:OTRS pending as of 1 January 2020 being deleted 12 days later.

Normally, I would discuss this directly with an admin but due to the scale of these deletions, this needs to be a larger discussion. Due to the cleanup aspects as well, more than one admin needs to be involved in this discussion. ~riley (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd definitely like to hear form Authur on this. Was this just some...particularly largish scale misunderstanding? GMGtalk 19:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Did some talk page stalking. It appears based on User_talk:Arthur_Crbz#Works_of_Jana_Skalická that Arthur believes these are acceptable deletions. While his logic is sound with one or two files, a spot check shows he has deleted collections like the Rietveld Collection (95 files) and the van Achterberg Collection (141 files). Compiling a list of 200 pages to undelete, undeleting and then trying to replace their usage is resource heavy. We also have files like File:Weilbach am Main (Mayer-Orgel) (1).jpg caught in here that were OTRS verified but also had an incorrect template. Automated deletion, without looking at the file page, is extremely concerning because of this type of collateral damage. ~riley (talk)
I've now notified Arthur about this thread. --Túrelio (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Was opting for pinging rather than templating an admin, but that works too. :) ~riley (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi!
I have recently been involved in the "cleaning" of maintenance categories related to OTRS. Namely :
According to the category description, files can be deleted 7 days after being added to this category. This short time delay makes sense to me. It encourages uploader to send their permission quickly after uploading the file. As a reminder, Krdbot tags files with {{OTRS received}} as soon as we receive an OTRS permission (if the file name is readable, so 90% of the cases ?). I don't see any misconduct here. If there is, please change the category description accordingly.
According to the category description, files can be deleted 31 days after being added to this category. There was (and still is) a huge backlog in this category. I don't see any misconduct here. If there is, please change the category description accordingly.
According to the category description, files can be deleted 7 days after being added to this category. Before deleting, I'm checking files in this category that are very unlikely to require a permission: old artwork, old picture, pd-text, pd-shape, etc. Then, I delete files.
  • Regarding the requests made on my discussion page :
The more you delete files, the more messages you get on your discussion page. Almost all messages posted on my discussion page are uploaders complaining about their files which have been deleted. In most (or all) cases, file was in Category:OTRS received for weeks and the permission tag wasn't added to the file description. In most (or all) cases, the copyright holder didn't reply to the OTRS agent's last email. I'm always happy to explain why the file has been deleted. Other emails are about undeletion requests because OTRS permission is finally received.
If you think you can do a better job, apply as admin and do it. Whatever the Wikimedia community you are involved in, you are always more likely to receive criticisms and attacks than gratitude.
Cheers! --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Arthur Crbz: {{OTRS pending}}, per the template documentation and CSD are only eligible after 30 days. {{OTRS pending}} turns to {{No permission since}} when eligible for deletion (30 days, or longer if backlog). If an OTRS-related file does not have a deletion template on it, and you are deleting it, chances are it is a premature and an out of process deletion. I understand you are going off of the category description, but that is not policy. The issue with Category:OTRS pending's description is that it is only accounting for the permissions-commons backlog; it does not account for the fact that commons permissions are also sent to the 30 something language specific permission email addresses. The entire reason {{OTRS pending}} exists is to get the content on wiki, allow it to be examined by an OTRS agent, and approved without being deleted before this process can be achieved - by deleting at 7 days, you are screwing up this process for the non-English users.
I appreciate you already undeleting the 7 files that you deleted without opening, but you have made no comment to all the other files I have identified as out of process deletions. I have already identified the 236 files from Hansmuller (permissions-nl) who is standing by and waiting for you to undelete these files as part of his Wikipedian in Residence project. He has contacted you on your talk page and while Ciell was going to take him off your hands, I am turning this back on you as the deleting admin to undelete these files. There is an additional 20 from Gampe (permissions-cs) and Mharrsch had a collection of 20 files too (permissions-commons). Again, this is just looking for collections in your deletions from a one week period.
There are 8 more files from Cmcmcm1 that had {{PermissionOTRS}} on them but were deleted anyways, which shows you never opened them. If we wanted to automatically delete the files in Category:OTRS pending, without any review or manual confirmation, we would have an admin bot do it.
You have said that "file[s] can be easily undeleted" so you undeleting these should be no problem. I am not trying to be punitive, but I am trying to give you the perspective of the work you are creating for other admins. Everyone involved in this discussion so far is an admin, so I'm going to sidestep your "If you think you can do a better job" comment. I am sorry if I am coming down strong, but you are offering no insight into your deletions and by not offering to undelete the previously identified files, it seems you aren't willing to work together. I hope as we continue this conversation you can prove me wrong. ~riley (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
If the wording on the category page is unclear or confusing, it seems easy enough to change it to be more helpful. The files can be undeleted, true enough, and I'm happy to help with that (if someone can explain how one finds deleted files no longer in a deleted category). But the real issue is that Commons is already confusing enough for new users, without having our volunteers explain on-wiki and via email how the system is supposed to work, only to have it actually function in a way that is totally different. That's likely to accomplish little but frustrate everyone involved, discourage contributors, and make more work for admins and agents alike. GMGtalk 12:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The change in the OP-category description is from January 22nd by King of Hearts and Jcb changed the number of waiting days from 30 to 8 on January 25th. Pinging them, for they both maybe want to explain the changes they made. Ciell (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell, Arthur Crbz: Back when I made the change, the backlog was over 100 days long, and sometimes people would just delete anything over 30 days old without checking the length of the backlog, so you would end up with images getting deleted even though an email was sent to OTRS. Since then the backlog has gotten a lot better; I guess I should have implemented it as a min function but I just didn't anticipate that the backlog would disappear. -- King of ♠ 02:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi King of Hearts, can you add a min. function now? While I could figure it out, I am sure you could do it in a quarter of the time it would take me. Thanks! ~riley (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to argue, I think I have provided complete explanation about these deletions. I will just answer one last time to your points. Regarding {{OTRS pending}}, you highlighted an inconsistency between the category description and the template documentation. Actually, it was changed by King of Hearts on the 22 January 2019[1]. I strongly encourage you to change the category description so it won't happen again. Don't blame an admin for applying a policy written on a page (even if it's a wrong policy) and assume good faith.

The cases you highlighted (Ciell, Gampe,Mharrsch) refer to this inconsistency issue. Regarding Hansmuller's files, I didn't intervene because Ciell was taking care of these uploads. I will be happy to assist to handle this OTRS ticket.

Regarding Cmcmcm1's files, I made a mistake. I won't blame the OTRS agent for not removing the {{OTRS pending}} template after adding the permission. It's called making a mistake, can happen everytime. Maybe for you too?

"file[s] can be easily undeleted" is a sentence that I always write to uploaders (including in OTRS emails). It reassures the uploader, encourages him to send a permission and not to reupload deleted files. It's called, being nice and friendly with people. As a Commons admin, I know that undeleting multiple files can be painful (remember when the permissions-commons backlog was so long that files were already deleted). As we say in French "On ne sauve pas des vies"}}, we are only speaking about deleted images.

You can always tell people if they are making mistakes. Check here for best practices. Cheers! --Arthur Crbz (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Crbz,
I think it would really be helpful if you could reflect on your own actions a bit more, in stead of only pointing to others.
As an admin, YOU are still responsible for your own actions. It is up to you to check if rules are being followed, before you undertake an administrative action like deleting. By using the visual file changer, you cannot review every file before deleting, and furthermore: the description on the category page wasn't changed until January 25th, but you've been deleting OP-images before deadline since the New Year a stated above by ~riley. Ciell (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: I think you have your dates a little mixed up. That's Jan 22 2019, not 2020. Of course, that doesn't really change whether this adjustment to "policy" was done without consensus from or consultation with the community. GMGtalk 15:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, you're right! Striked my last comment. Ciell (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Crbz: I am disappointed with the amount you are deflecting. I can't speak for Ciell, but I think what we are looking for is instead of saying, "I won't blame the OTRS agent for not removing the {{OTRS pending}}", you should be saying "I won't do automated deletion without reviewing the files in the future". I am hearing a lot of this is why it happened, but very little discussion about how you plan to clean up this mess. The goal behind this discussion is not to hang you out to dry, but to ensure this is not repeated and to get this cleaned up. Can you please respond with how you will clean this up? ~riley (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Crbz As a fellow-OTRS agent, and a fellow-Commons admin, I'm asking you to restore these categories and images please. They shouldn't have been deleted yet. Ciell (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As indicated in previous messages, the misleading policy has been visible for months on the category page. I have actively participated in the maintenance of the categories Category:OTRS received, Category:OTRS pending and Category:Media missing permission since December/January. Hundreds of files have been deleted during this maintenance. Note that only deletions performed on Category:OTRS pending are questionable (because based on the misleading policy) and represent a very small percentage of the deletions made (most of daily categories have less than 5 files). So, there is no point to undelete all the files that I have deleted recently (and it's not a feasible solution).
How will it be cleaned? Actions should be taken only for files deleted because of Category:OTRS pending's misleading policy. For "small uploaders", it will be solved by OTRS agents/Commons admins on a daily basis. I don't think it will create a tremendeous workload (because of the small number of files deleted). For "heavy uploaders", I will handle undeletion in the coming days. Here is the list of affected uploaders highlighted in previous messages (please mention other cases here or in my talk page):
I will update this list as soon as undeletion is performed.
I trully think this is a reasonable solution to the problem. Again, these deletions were performed according to the policy written in the category description. I consider that I can't be fully accountable for this "mistake". As the topic has been already discussed multiple times, I will no longer respond/comment about this issue (except for the undeletion mentioned previously). --Arthur Crbz (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's worth clarifying that text in a category page is not policy, admins are expected to identify policy and apply it correctly. That said, I completely understand how this mistake was made and there is discussion above to ensure this mistake isn't repeated by modifying the category page.
I agree it is not worth your time to delete all of these and that the best approach is to only undelete collections. That said, I am asking you to go through your deletion log dating back to when you first started this deletion. I think that's more than fair to ask, rather than imposing it on us to highlight affected uploaders. You have more knowledge of your deletions than we do and may have some remembrance on what collections or large batches you deleted.
I am waiting on Mharrsch's files to be undeleted per ticket:2019102210009673. ~riley (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Crbz, If you could finish up restoring the images, I can proceed with the permissions. Ciell (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Time for abuse filters to block (temporary and permanent)[edit]

Hi. To me we have some persistent LTAs and enough spambots getting caught against filters, that I think that it is time that we consider the ability to apply blocks with spam filters, either short term application or permanent. The blocking ability is now in place in numbers of wikis, and has been for a number of years and it is not seen as problematic or out of control. If we did go down the path, we would want to look at some concepts and practice around what would, and how would we apply temporary or permanent blocks, though as we already have a good blocking policy and application of that, then it is not about novel concepts of why we are blocking. If there is a general feeling of agreement, then I will put forward a more specific plan. We did it a little while ago at English Wikisource for these same mentioned reasons. @NinjaRobotPirate, ~riley, Wutsje, Achim55: admins who know the issues to which I am referring.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This crossed my mind today - there is a clear need for this. Look forward to reading a more specific plan of action. As always, thank you billinghurst. ~riley (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This would clearly be useful. Wutsje 02:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to clear up any possible confusion, I'm only an admin on English Wikipedia. I think this could work if done carefully. Another thing that would help is if the WMF gave the global community an easier way to collaborate on dealing with these long-term vandals. As it stands, an admin who blocks a vandal sockfarm on one wiki is likely to be harassed to another wiki. Vandals are getting more sophisticated these days, and they can sometimes figure out how to evade global blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    We do have global abuse filters, though the large wikis were not included in them, and most have chosen to not be included since, so there are means existing for which the wikis have control. We do have global blacklists, though the issue with the m:title blacklist is that we do not have logs available for these, so any person who has a hit can just keep fiddling their way through variations without being noticed and without consequence until they have success, c.f. m:spam blacklist where local hits are locally logged in Special:Log/spamblacklist. The network of checkusers are able to collaborate on these matters and take actions or request actions from stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • {{Oppose}} blocks should be only done by humans. Terrible experience from fawiki blocks performed by Abuse Filter. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say the block feature of the AbuseFilter is actually a double-edged sword. As 4nn1l2 has mentioned above, blocking has been active at the Persian Wikipedia for a rather long time now. As an abuse filter manager there, I think it's very risky. I believe that abuse filters are a good way to fight long-term abusers as they just block them before the LTA can start their vandalism. That being said, there are usually false positives. A false positive is acceptable when talking about tags and warnings, can be acceptable when talking about disallow, but can't be acceptable when talking about blocks and range blocks; we can't block good-faith editors using an automatic tool that doesn't even tell them what they should do if they think the block is not justified. The current situation of abuse filters at the Persian Wikipedia is not appealing to me. The community is not satisfied with false positives, but is interested in blocking vandals automatically. This has led to abuse filters with the ability to block that are barely supervised. I'm worried that the same thing might happen here. I wish we had a tool similar to the abuse filter, maybe the abuse filter itself, with the ability to use AI. The current tool is rather inflexible, bypass-able, and ineffective, compared to a tool that can learn the LTA's behavioral pattern over time. So, though I really like to fight long-term abusers, {{Oppose}} for now, I suppose; at least until we can find a proper way to deal with false positives. Ahmadtalk 13:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2, Ahmad252: Any implementation can be abused, and anything can be fouled up (deletions, merges, CVs, ...) and we don't stop using those due to mistakes, we instead implement a system that works with appropriate checks and balances. That faWP poorly implemented and managed abuse filters and blocks should be more of a warning and a lesson, than a harbinger of death. You have identified that the process that is implemented and tactics used that is pertinent.

    For meta I can show you the block log for abusefilter m:special:log/block/Abuse filter, and there was one false positive out of 500, and that person was temporarily blocked for two hours. At meta I can show you spam filters that has had 2 false positives in 2 years where the IP address was blocked for a day. [2]. Because the rules of implementation are test test test; block as a last resort; short term temporary blocks can be used to great effect with LTAs; actively curate your abuse filters. There are some good and simple processes that can be implemented to ensure that we can utilise abuse filters adequately, and suitably, and I definitely am a "hasten slowly person". However, when admins and people are being repeatedly harassed onwiki, existing means are not working as LTAs can prey on the weakness that exists at this wiki; AND we can better deal with it in real time, with some automated tools with zero or negligible negative impact, then we should explore doing so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks. I think we should test it before anything else. I suggest writing a filter, waiting for it to be active for, say, one week or two, and then checking its log to see the result, and decide based on that. I can't actually predict the result based on Wikipedia or Meta, as these projects are different from Commons. I struck my oppose, but I strongly think we need a test to examine the risk. I think we also need a policy for it to ensure that the block feature won't be overused. Ahmadtalk 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: I struck my oppose vote. Let's try this for some months and then decide. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Has worked fine on Meta for quite some time now. Simply not that many admins interested in this aspect of the project to hope that this sort of thing will always be taken care of by humans. --Herby talk thyme 13:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For those who are opposed, I would be interested in the possibility of clearing this for a limited trial, two or three months or something, then have a !vote after we can gather real-world Commons-specific data on effectiveness. At the end of the day, Commons is qualitatively different than Wikipedia, and this may or may not work very differently than on other projects. As a comparison, I believe English Wikipedia still has a filter to prevent the use of "fuck" in mainspace. That would never work for Wikquote, as the instances of legitimate uses are simply different. GMGtalk 14:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, this should probably go at COM:VP, and not COM:AN. This change would require community consensus, not administrator action. GMGtalk 18:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That is a conversation about abusefilters in practice, not about the ability to block. Blocking at any time should always be a last resort, and it should only ever be for as short a time as needed, and that is no different as a personal decision, or with an automated process. Admins here actually need to pay greater attention to abuse filters, not less, and maybe this can be part of an improved approach, and some conversations about what is appropriate for an abuse filter. Some abusefilters in place have not had adequate and timely review in my opinion. Having written and managed a few at meta for global filters, I am aware of that subject.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Presumably this would be an option to step-up a filter (where simply disallow or other outcomes aren't sufficient as a long-term fix), and that if there were problems (false-positives, or even now when this mode isn't an option) we would use other options. So let's see some examples of filters where one might want this, and then we can look at its history to see what false positives there are. Just like we always can review filters to see if they are overly broad or something. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support A few days ago I was dreaming about such possibility when I was modifying an AF's rule which detects one of well known cross-wiki LTAs who adds rather predictable content but uses open proxies. --jdx Re: 21:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I hesitate. Where are the best vandalism-detecting filters? In English Wikipedia, of course. My first ever edit in English Wikipedia was considered junk and reverted by bot (in en:Oops). Twice. Probably the situation is worse in other languages. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: See my commentary above with links to meta abuse logs. There are some clear rules, practices, discipline and processes that need to be in play for abusefilters that block. Controls like … no one admin should a decide on a blocking filter. With regard to our LTA, I have found that a 2 hour block is very effective as 1) it is a short block, though for an LTA on an OP it is very useful as it will feel like an eternity. Similarly for an abusive LTA with an account name like here it gives an admin time to act and confirm a block; or a steward to be notified of its creation and to lock.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support regarding LTA vandals, Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral regarding spammers as it won't be helpful. --Achim (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A formal proposal with suggest admin guidance follows @Taivo, Jdx, DMacks, GreenMeansGo, Herbythyme, Ahmad252, 4nn1l2, Wutsje, ~riley, Achim55:

 — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete previous versions of File:Melos Sparta and Athens 416 BCE.svg[edit]

Would one of you admins kindly delete previous file versions of File:Melos Sparta and Athens 416 BCE.svg? I created this map and, being a perfectionist, kept fiddling with it and re-uploading edited versions. I would like an admin to delete the preceding revisions. Thanks. Kurzon (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Spanish admin?[edit]

Could a Spanish speaking admin please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madhava sine tabe in Devanagari.JPG? I don't like relying on Google translate Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe Magog the Ogre speaks Spanish. Masum Reza📞 18:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I do. The uploader responded that it was written by a 14th century author. I asked who the translator is and never got a response. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

QI[edit]

I'm not familiar with usual QI practice, but to me

look like SPAs. --Achim (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

He is vandalizing QI Candidates, please help --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Achim55: I placed some preliminary blocks, this should probably go to CU to identify a sockmaster or sleepers. ~riley (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

File name request[edit]

Hi, Could an admin kindly move File:Davey2010 - DSCN6548 40.jpg to File:Chalkwell Coaches LJ04LFB, Chatham Bus Station, 23 January 2019.jpg as used the latter name on the wrong file, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Ahmadtalk 21:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ahmad, Many thanks for doing that I appreciate that :), Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 22:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem! Ahmadtalk 06:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Issue[edit]

I believe that I've mentioned this somewhere that there's an issue with incomplete uploads made by users. Such as File:Iamanujsharma.jpg & File:Iamanujshrama.jpg. Incomplete as in the file can be seen but can't be edited. Am I the only one facing this issue? Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Found it, mentioned at the help desk. (see Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2020/01#Bug?). @Ciell: Just to inform you. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
To add on, the uploads are logged at the upload log but can't be seen at Special:Contributions/Call me Aime. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Minorax, strange that it happens again. It might be a bug, could you please create a phabricator ticket about it and report it to the developers? Ciell (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: @Phabricator:T245339. Note: This is my first time creating a ticket and would appreciate if someone could fix it if it's in the wrong format. Thanks! Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 12:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: If this is within the policy, do temp-undelete the image so as to let others see what's going on. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Minorax, thank for the report, and don't let the devs scare you over there. They mean well, like all Wikimedians.
Yes, I could do an undelete, but I'll let Andre Klapper decide what is needed. He is in charge of the main bug triage. Ciell (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:IWM[edit]

Please can someone close and enact Commons:Deletion requests/Template:IWM? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to implement blocking by abuse filters[edit]

Following the scoping discussion #Time for abuse filters to block (temporary and permanent) (permalink), a formal proposal for consideration.

One of the standard abilities for abuse filters in mediawiki is to allow blocking of accounts or IP addresses (Block the user and/or IP address from editing) based on criteria in a filter. It has not been something that we have typically needed over the earlier years as we haven't had persistent vandalism or spam. Things have changed, and it is the time for us to move to having blocking functionality available.

[technical detail https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=abusefilter.php and setting $wgAbuseFilterActions['block'] = true;]

If that occurs we also need to define a default period for blocks. I suggest that the default would least demonstrate that we are looking for a minimal approach, so let that be the most gentle setting. Though noting that this would just be a default, and a dropdown with other values will always be present for selection.

To have this change made at Commons, we would need to demonstrate a consensus of the community, and lodge a phabricator site request. Noting that this is a technical change, not a policy change to what we block, or to the blocking policy. Accordingly I propose:

  • Wikimedia Commons moves to have enabled the ability to block through its abuse filters.
  • Default periods for blocks to be 2 hours for user accounts, and 2 hours for IP addresses.

I also note that if consensus is reached that Commons administrators will need to work to operational guidance and that is being developed in a separate section, and is outside of the scope of this technical request, and will have a separate consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

  1. The referenced consensus is weak, two supports and general discussion is not convincing. This type of systems decision can and should be made on convincing reports and analysis. We do not have to implement the filter in order to do testing, we can simply run a test of the proposed filter against past contributions and analyse what the impact would be, both positive impact for reducing disruption to this project, and negative impact for possible good-faith contributors. Without this, it is unclear what a "minimal approach" is, or how it would be measured. So, let's have some test reports so the community can vote against more than hypotheticals. -- (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have personal bad experience with vandalism-detecting filters in en.wiki. I do not know, what kind of edits are considered vandalism by bot. I have seen no analysis yet about proposed filters. What if quarter of blocks will be false positives? I do not know that, I feel, that nobody knows. After test run and analysis my vote can change. Taivo (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Taivo: Every edit you have been making is already going through every active abuse filter, there is no change involved here. The suggested change is an action that comes from an abuse filter. From your 167k edits, maybe you can explain and relate on your experiences with abuse filters affecting your editing here, I can see about 42 interactions in the logs.

    With regard to the processes, I covered that separately below, and our process would not be getting that criteria, that is why we test and manage. We already know what is happening here. I gave specific links to meta's logs (abuse and block) where there is the process in place and it can be demonstrated what is happening. I perfectly understand a cautious approach, and that is what is being proposed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on procedural grounds. This should go at VP and not here. VP has twice the page watchers and is the appropriate place for seeking community consensus. GMGtalk 02:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

Comment[edit]

In response to . Umm, I referenced no consensus, this is the discussion for consensus. I mentioned a scoping discussion.

With regard to your request for analysis, there is plenty of evidence of spambots active here, and those attempting to be active here. We have been manually been blocking these for years, and this is to stop having to do this manually. This proposal does not change what we are blocking, to that there is no change, it is the processing from manual to automated. This becomes about ensuring that the filters are targeted appropriately, and tuned appropriately for their use, and to agreed measures, some here are close though would need tuning to go the next steps. I linked to some of those active blocking filters at Meta, which would be similar, though not exact that were performing well on 700+ wikis covered by global abuse filters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggested guidance followed at #Draft of operational guidance for use of blocking by abuse filters. Feel welcome to make suggestions, or asked for clarifications to be made.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: As I indicated previously, if you are seeking broad community consensus for site-wide changes, you need to transfer these discussions to the village pump. AN is a place for requesting administrator assistance, not a place for building community consensus, and having this discussion here instead of there is out of order. GMGtalk 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
When I scanned the referenced discussion, it read as a proposal with votes. You mention "general agreement" a few lines in, but the title "Time for abuse filters to block" I read literally. If you want to discount that discussion as no evidence of consensus, that's fine.
However in line with GMG's point, the history here is (1) run a proposal for "general agreement" that people vote on, (2) run a proposal to "implement" that is laid out as a vote, (3) run a proposal for "we would need to demonstrate a consensus of the community", which this presumably is not.
That's 2 votes more than we actually need and seems exhausting for the limited numbers of volunteers that will be interested and know what we are talking about. -- (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Fæ, I wrote the following to the subject line "Time_for_abuse_filters_to_block_(temporary_and_permanent)"

Hi. To me we have some persistent LTAs and enough spambots getting caught against filters, that I think that it is time that we consider the ability to apply blocks with spam filters, either short term application or permanent. The blocking ability is now in place in numbers of wikis, and has been for a number of years and it is not seen as problematic or out of control. If we did go down the path, we would want to look at some concepts and practice around what would, and how would we apply temporary or permanent blocks, though as we already have a good blocking policy and application of that, then it is not about novel concepts of why we are blocking. If there is a general feeling of agreement, then I will put forward a more specific plan. …

So please don't selectively quote or misrepresent what has been said. I said that I would come forward with a proposal, and I have done so. I did not call for votes, and no body counted votes, they expressed opinions as guidance to my opening statement. I would also like to address the contradiction in some of the argument. It is indicated that this is a limited scope argument for a limited set of people interested and knowing about what we are talking. Yet also argued that the conversation should be at another forum where it would be of less interest and less relevance and small knowledge base, so how does that work? This is an administrator only action, and there are numbers of administrators who keep away from the area, so how is that going to progress in a more inexperienced forum.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The contributors affected by this change are not limited to administrators. It is weird to limit the discussion or consensus to those in the sysop group, when it is everyone that will be affected by it. From what you are saying here, I don't understand why you are replying to me, because I am not an administrator, so by the logic above, I have no say here on what happens. -- (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft of operational guidance for use of blocking by abuse filters[edit]

This is a conversation to follow the request for consensus to the #proposal to implement blocking by abuse filters (permalink). Its purpose is to develop an initial set of operational guidance for administrators, and to assist in the reassurance to the broader community that administrators should use blocking filters as a last resort measure, and per the com:blocking policy for the shortest reasonable period.

For spam filter blocking guidance I suggest something like the following, and put this out for comment and improvement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Setting blocking filters
  • only applied after alternate settings of filters have failed to resolve the situation (they are not a first response to a problem)
    • required to have undergone a period of reasonable testing prior to blocking is applied
    • would ideally have a second administrator review filter and settings in place
  • used for the minimal period required, per blocking policy
    • noting longer blocks would normally only be used where shorter blocks are not suitable
    • noting longer blocks will typically need longer testing period prior to applying
  • will have suitable notes made in the filter's history to enable any administrator to review the process undertaken
  • should be actively monitored in the logs on a regular basis
    • where they are not being actively managed such filters should have their blocking suspended
    • those with longer terms blocks should be listed on Commons:Abuse filter, or a suitable subsidiary appropriate page, identifying admins managing the filter and confirmed as being actively managed on an annual basis.

Challenges to the use of blocking filters can be made by other administrators at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, notifying the administrator(s) who have written or manage the filter. With the agreement of a second independent administrator the blocking aspect can be suspended while resolution of the concern is resolved. A single false positive would not normally be seen as a reason to immediately suspend a filter, though a string of false positives could initiate such a suspension. [None of which is meant to override any emergency need to act.]

Written guidance: specific notes should be made at Commons:Administrators/Howto about abuse filters and appropriate management by admins who utilise them; and any determined guidance for administrators should be added to Commons:Abuse filter, or an appropriate subpage, and linked from the Commons:Administrators/Howto.

Discussion[edit]

  • I am not favorable to any requirement for a quorum of administrators. We should not be enacting language that favors the opinion of administrators as opposed to their access. Obviously hidden filters are an access issue, but especially as it concerns edit filters, just because someone has sysop access does not mean that they are technically competent. I couldn't code my way out of a paper bag if my life depended on it, and I'm sure there are many non-sysop users on this project that have a much more informed opinion on edit filters than I do. Any user should be able to challenge a filter, and we should not wait for a quorum so long as the challenge is serious and credible. We should disable first and discuss second. GMGtalk 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @GreenMeansGo: I was taking it as granted that any user is able to complain about a filter, and its action, and to raise those concerns. That is the now, and will always be the case. {Aside: I will note that so far it is not evident that there have been issues logged using the form at Commons:Abuse filter}

    The wording was more nuanced, it was for admins to challenge the action of a filter to block, and that should not require knowledge of the code, instead of its intention, and that should be logged in the notes field of the filter, if not evident from the title or a tag. This is more that the actions of the blocking are in line with our policy.

    I worded the line about 1 and more admins to cover a situation like if a filter has been operational for 200 days without an issue and stops 20 spambots a day, then gets a single false hit, should it be turned off and remain off? Should it be degraded? Can it be left running while the circumstance is investigated? One admin raising an issue can start the investigation but not necessarily have the filter immediately changed, whereas two admins reviewing would be enough to suspend a filter irrespective of whether they code or do not, as they both agree that the situation sufficient to act.

    You don't trust your coding, and I may or may not trust you to code a filter, I definitely value your opinion on whether a filter should or should not be blocking, or the circumstance where it should not be blocking. It is written as admins, as users cannot turn on/off filters, only admins can act.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I generally support the proposal, but I think we should first move it to village pump (or create an RfC). We're practically making the abuse filter an administrator, something that the community should discuss it. Village pump has way more watchers than this page; that will help the community, especially non-admins, to discuss this change. Ahmadtalk 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

DRs opened for more than a month[edit]

Hi! Could a Commons sysop taken a gander and make a decision on the following DRs:

Thanks, --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The current backlog is around 3.5 months. Admins will come around to those DRs on their own time, no need to remind us. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DRs made via Android app[edit]

Is there a means to block all DRs from users using the Android app? I'd strongly support that until the developers get their crap fixed. Since months the DR notifications have been sent to the author, not to the uploader as it should be. Now they've tried to fix that and the notifications go to the requester themselves instead of the uploader. --Achim (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Achim55: Got some examples? There may be enough components within such a post to do something through an abuse filter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
billinghurst, just the most recent, have to go to bed now...
Thanks, --Achim (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in the abusefilter looks readily available to catch the android filter.
The tags for the post "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit" are not available to the abusefilter, and one would guess that they are applied afterwards. Whether there is the possibility to get access to a component of the metadata is unknown to me, maybe @MusikAnimal, Daimona Eaytoy: can lend an opinion there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that actually they are. I haven't used them yet, but according to the documentation there are two variables which seem to be useful: user_mobile and, possibly, user_app. They are provided by extensions MobileFrontend and MobileApp respectively, both installed on Commons. --jdx Re: 07:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Whether the user is editing from mobile app (user_app)	
Whether or not a user is editing through the mobile interface (user_mobile)
@Jdx: Unfortunately those two fields are empty in these two edits, please see the above two indicated lines in the "examines". So the app designers have apparently missed those components or moved onto other means.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it before I wrote my previous comment. But I have a strange feeling that Special:AbuseFilter/examine does not work properly. I have to write a test case/rule to make sure about it. --jdx Re: 10:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey! So, first of all, tags are applied after the edit is saved; hence, AF cannot "see" tags as you correctly guessed. We do have variables for mobile edits (the ones you pointed out), but they don't provide any distinction for Android users vs others. They don't appear in "examine" because those variables aren't computed for past edits; however, they work correctly for ongoing edits. This is T203166, and the same bug also affects other core variables (see T102944). Note, this isn't easy to fix. --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Daimona Eaytoy: Many thanks for the explanation! Yes, I have noticed that these variables do not provide distinction, but I think that in our case it does not mater whether one uses Android app or regular web interface for mobile devices. The point is that "mobile users", especially anonymous ones, produce a lot of crap that has to be dealt with. BTW. Until this day I thought that all those nonsensical DRs with reason given "Because it is" were work of a stubborn vandal. It turned out that Android app has a great share in creation of them. Face-smile.svg --jdx Re: 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jdx: Right, pointed out here in October. --Achim (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI: latest hits of today. Notifications are sent to the requester.

And for the record the request on GitHub 5 months ago. --Achim (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MetroLisboa-linha-verde.svg[edit]

Would an admin mind taking a look at this DR? If there are no longer any concerns about the file’s copyright status, then the DR can be closed. Related discussion can be found at User talk:P199#Commons:Deletion requests/File:MetroLisboa-linha-azul.svg. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yellow check.svg Half done I closed the DR. File:MetroLisboa-linha-verde.svg is deleted temporarily and should be restored once it's been delinked. The old copyvio revisions are revision deleted. Guanaco (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Guanaco. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, P199, Tuvalkin: I think we need to do the same with the other images of this type. Let local wikis implement the unofficial logos if they wish, once the official logos are properly removed and delinked. Thoughts? Guanaco (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you, P199, Tuvalkin think works best is fine for me. I only nominated the files for discussion because I thought they didn't comply with COM:L. Most of the DRs were opened for a month and went without any comments before P199 deleted the files. If they would've been kept via DR, then that would've been fine with me. My post at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MetroLisboa-linha-verde.svg wasn't an attempt to try and lecture anyone on copyright; the images seemed to the same to me, but that as probably due to my failure to properly purge my browser and I apologize for causing confusion over that. If the two versions aren't truly different though, it might've have been better to simply upload the free version as a separate file under a different instead of trying to overwrite a file being currently under discussion at DR. I'm assuming that the other files nominated were deleted because they were copyright violations; if that's not the case and an admin wants to restore them, then I've got no problem with that as well.
If someone wants to use free versions (even unofficial versions) instead, then that's fine with me as well. I don't know how non-free content is handled on Portuguese Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia not free logos can be used as long as it is done in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; non-free logos wouldn't be allowed to be used in templates per Wikipedia's policy and other types of non-free uses is highly restricted, but they could most likely be uploaded for use in the main stand-alone articles about each respective line as en:Template:Non-free logo. The unofficial free versions, however, could be used in templates on English Wikipedia if that's what the consensus is to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, «apologize for causing confusion» is the right way to go here. Thanks to you three (Guanaco, Marchjuly, and P199) there are now a few hundred articles in the Portuguese Wikipedia showing (again, twice in 24h) broken links and misfomatted tables, in spite of my swift replacement of the real logos with free look-alikes. (Delinker will not fix this because these uses are made via a template, btw.) So, on behalf of the Portuguese Wikipedia community that edits Lisbon public transport articles, thanks but no thanks. Commons failed here, big time. I will just upload the fake logos as new files and edit the template to call those new filenames — you guys feel free to continue to play Laurel and Hardy with DRs, F5s, clueless lecturing, and appalling lack of good faith. -- Tuválkin 22:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    • If you feel the files shouldn't have been deleted in the first place for some reason, then you can state as much at COM:DRV, can't you? It seems as if the only one who's showing a lack of good-faith is you; you are the only one who is commenting on others as if they intentionally set out to cause problems on Portuguese Wikipedia or any other WMF project. Perhaps your frustration would be better off directed at the editors who originally mistakenly uploaded the files in the first place as their "own work" when it really wasn't, those who might've accidentally assumed freely available online meant free from copyright protection, or those who tried to overwrite files when they probably shouldn't have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • So, if "that's how copyright works" and "the files technically should've been deleted and you were even expecting that they be deleted" (used Google translation for that post so it may not be 100% accurate), then you think "Commons failed, here big time" because the files did end up deleted, right? How do you think things should've been done better to avoid something similar happening in the future? I mean that sincerely and not with any snark, and actually interested in knowing what could've been done better. Should the files have not been deleted in the first place even though it seems that technically it was appropriate to do? The uploaders of the files were notified of the DRs and the DRs were open for a month. Should others have been personally been notified of the DRs? When Commons files used on English Wikipedia are nominated for deletion, a notification of the DR is usually automatically placed on the talk pages of the articles where the files are being used (like this, and this). Does something similar happen with respect to Portuguese Wikipedia? If not, then maybe it could be set up so that it does. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (No DR warnings were received at wp.pt, as far as I know.) Things would be peachy by now if one of the four “approximate logos” hadn’t been «deleted temporarily» one week ago and yet never restored. That’s how Commons failed: Hundreds of redlinks and misformatted articles across several projects, forever awaiting Commons delinker to act (it wont, as these are called by a template that assembles the needed filenames on the fly). Once we at wp.pt finally have these four “approximate logos” available (and not just three of them with one missing!), we then can decide what to do: Either local storage of accurate images, no use of images, these or better “approximates”, or even convincing the Lisbon Subway to license these logos for some kind of accetable free use. For now, with hundreds of redlinks and misformatted articles, understandably everybody’s furious at what was done here, at what was done while stating that Commons «don't delete images for editorial reasons»: Well, it did. -- Tuválkin 03:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not active on Commons this weekend. But it looks like that User:Marchjuly has answered the issue already. I can understand the frustration on wp.pt, but why wait until the DR was closed before acting? --P 1 9 9   02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Because I didn’t notice the DRs in time. -- Tuválkin 03:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(I had to remove this from the archive.) -- Tuválkin 03:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)