Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons' core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Village pump in India. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive  • M:D

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Adding PD-ineligible as a license option in UploadWizard[edit]

Hi, recently someone suggested that we add {{PD-ineligible}} as a license option in UploadWizard. I would have found that convenient myself a few times. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Matma Rex (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback/Archive/2014/10#Not_helpful for an example instance of a common case where the Upload Wizard is a [wild goose chase|signless maze|maze of twisty little passages, none alike|pick your-dystopian-analogy] for the uploader. A w:use case analysis description for a smart but naive first time user wanting to upload the example image would show the user of the current system likely traveling through a ridiculously large maze of a dozen false starts and dead ends. Anyone else? --Elvey (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Jebulon est d'accord; French-speaking user asking for something similar: CC-0 support.--Elvey (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the Upload Wizard was recently changed? Now it offers a flexible option (new since when?):
      Another reason not mentioned above
           The license is described by the following wikitext (must contain a valid copyright tag):  [box to put a tag in ] [preview button]
One can insert {{CC-0}} or {{PD-ineligible}} there. This is good! And...
Unfortunately, "valid copyright tag" links to a page that lacks a ToC and leads to one of the long dead-end paths of the aforementioned maze - with the following mess of a statement:
Depending on what license you choose using the license selector, a so-called copyright tag is inserted into the resulting description page, such as {{cc-by-3.0}}.
It's a mess because it's unclear what a license selector is and the link provides no clarification whatsoever as to what a license selector is. --Elvey (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The custom license option was there all along. It appears to have been implemented in 2011. I thought you're aware of it. Matma Rex (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, this is not recent. As for Commons:Copyright tags, it does have a table of contents, and it provides a visual illustration of what is meant by "license selector" immediately to the right of where it is mentioned. The introduction is based on Commons:Upload rather than the Upload Wizard and could do with an update, though. LX (talk, contribs) 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm skeptical. The overlap between users who have a sufficient understanding of threshold of originality issues to be using this rationale and users who don't know how to use wiki markup to invoke a template is likely small. The current text of MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-ineligible is "Too simple to be copyrighted". This type of option is a magnet for uploaders who don't understand copyright and cannot imagine that they aren't allowed to upload whatever they like to Commons. It's bad enough as it is – you can hardly get through a page of Category:PD ineligible without stumbling over multiple blatant copyright violations. Here's a very quickly gathered sample:
LX (talk, contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Magog the Ogre/PD ineligible is reasonable tool to detect such problems introduced recently. Sure, tools are nothing without people who use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneZelenko (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)
Thanks for that, Eugene! I wasn't aware of those galleries. As you say, they still need someone to patrol them, and for that to scale to more than one person, there would need to be a documented workflow and mechanisms for marking items/pages as reviewed. I don't see much in the way of inbound links documenting anything like that, so having those galleries is a good start, but not much more. And no matter how good our tools for cleaning up copyright violations are, I still think we should avoid giving undue exposure to options that significantly increase the likelihood of copyright violations being uploaded in the first place. LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
(The gallery above is shrinking due to deletions and delinking. For its original state, see Special:Permalink/185748350#Adding PD-ineligible as a license option in UploadWizard.) LX (talk, contribs) 19:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess we might not want it, then. It's still available as a "power-user" option by pasting the template into the custom license field, as it was pointed out above. I'll mark the task as declined, thanks for your comments. Matma Rex (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with LX. Extremely unlikely that someone other than Wikimedia editors really knows the threshold of originality. Nemo 17:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

Pre-production starts for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos[edit]

We are excited that pre-production has started for a series of motivational and educational videos that will introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors.

Over the past several years, many videos have been produced to train new contributors. This series will feature VisualEditor and the new citation tool called Citoid. Additionally, the series will include an introduction to the Wikimedia Commons repository of freely-licensed media.

The video series and associated materials will help students and instructors who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program. The series is also designed to assist the professional staff and volunteers of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) with understanding how their content gains exposure on Wikimedia sites, and how to document or upload their content for direct viewing on Wikipedia and its sister projects.

The video content will be available in segments that can be viewed, translated, or updated individually.

There are currently volunteer translators for Arabic, Armenian, Czech, German, Greek, Odia, and Spanish. Additional volunteers with high proficiency translation skills are welcome to sign up on the talk page.

We are currently seeking feedback on the outline for the scripts, as well as suggestions for an attractive name for the series. Please leave any comments on this talk page!



Series director and screenwriter


This series is funded by an individual engagement grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. A big thanks to the community, the IEG Committee, and WMF for their support.


  • User:Pine, why the <font size=3> thingy?, why the formulaic intro «We are excited that»? Do you think your message is somehow more important than anything else on VP and therefore needs a bigger text body size? And who is "we"?, since you signed individually? Are you trying to worsen even more the impression that some of us already have about the WMF and other percieved powers that loom above the common user? -- Tuválkin 23:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    I took the liberty of returning the original post to normal font size. There's no need to raise one's voice like this. LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, why so much spamming in favor of VE and Citoid? (Which, thankfully, are not mentioned nor shown in the linked movie) If these tools are so great and “intuitive” why is it necessary to promote them like this? -- Tuválkin 23:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First, I'm not a WMF employee. Second, I am disappointed in your assumptions of bad faith. When you are less angry, please ping me again and I will talk with you. --Pine 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the contentless reply, confirming the worst impressions I already had. You still have to explain (not just to me, but to us all) why did you chose to plug this here with a bigger font and why did you use snakeoil salesman language quirks. That’s unrelated to my putative anger and bad will. (Also, comment reply threading — you should try it.) -- Tuválkin 00:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin:, very little of the existing or proposed video content is targeted at existing users on Wikimedia projects. This is outreach stuff. This is a project from Cascadia Wikimedians. Yes, we got a grant from WMF. That doesn't make this particularly a WMF project, except insofar as all of the Wikimedia stuff is a WMF project. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel: (When you’re not the WMF and you manage to post something on VP sounding like the WMF, well, that’s not so good, now, is it?) Assuming that your explanation about this being an outreach initiative (and ditto about threading) why is that an explanation about the focus to VE and Citoid given in the OP? (Besides, the OP is not outreach in itself, as posted here and presumably in other such venues: VP watchers are mostly power users, not at all the target of any outreach campaign.) -- Tuválkin 00:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: Right, but plenty of people here participate in the Wikipedia Education Program, do outreach to GLAMs, and are involved in doing translation work. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I get why the video was posted here and it’s indeed the best place to attract translators and in general let others know about it. Why mention VE and Citoid in the blurn about a video that doesn’t mention VE and Citoid is what I could not fathom. (And still acnnot think of any good reason for that, although I can think of a few bad ones.) -- Tuválkin 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh, so much hate and anger. I'm glad that this is fianally on it's way. Good for you guys, I hope it will be a good and useful project you're working on. ow for the rest of you, calm down, back away and stop being such hate-spewing mouths that all you do is complain. Everything that can help new users etc. is good, and this is definetly good. Josve05a (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you don’t know what hate is (tip: questioning one’s typography options and doubting that VE is a good thing for WMF projects is not hate), but then again you also don’t know what "all you do is complain" is (tip: some of us here indeed only show up where there’s conflict and turmoil, but I’m not one of them — Special:Contributions is a handy way to see who does mostly what). -- Tuválkin 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pine: First, as said above, VE is still crap, although its getting better so pushing that to new users who can edit plain old text just as easy with the click of a button. Everyone knows how to use Microsoft Word, they can figure out this too. It's really not that hard. I think the idea of the video promotions is sound, but unless the WMF and the communities start doing something about the abusiveness and hostile workplace environment on the English Wikipedia by some of the admins and the Arbcom that's driving off editors, it won't matter. Not everyone goes to the English Wikipedia I grant you, but that wiki is central to all the others whether we like it or not. It draws more people, has more edits and gets more hits than pretty much everything else combined.
Recruiting and retention go hand in hand. If you recruit someone to a shitty environment not only will they leave, they tell all their friends and family about how horrible the experience was. So, tricking people into editing a toxic environment with flashy videos might get a few people to do a couple edits, but before long they are going to see first hand what the atmosphere is like and they'll be gone. So my advice is to fix the toxicity that no one wants to do anything about as you are recruiting, if not before you recruit new editors, otherwise your just wasting time. Reguyla (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Reguyla I share your concern about inviting new users into a potentially hostile environment. I think that PEarley (WMF) is working on that issue. I'll ask him to comment here about the ongoing efforts to understand and improve the situation regarding civility. Also, when designing the video series, I am including information about how new users can handle conflicts with other users. --Pine 23:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be great, I would love to hear what they are doing. I can help you to understand the problem somewhat simply. The tone of the project is set by its leaders; in this case, the admins and functionaries. So when those admins and functionaries treat others like trash, tell them to fuck off, lie, manipulate policy, violate policy completely, etc., that sets the tone for the entire project. I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased. My situation has left a very bitter taste in my mouth and I have seen first hand just how badly the culture and editing environment has degraded and that has, accordingly, jaded my view somewhat.
Currently there is zero oversight over the admins and functionaries of ENWP. The entire system is designed to favor the admins (one example is the so called Super Mario Effect) and at the core of the problem on ENWP is the Arbcom. Everyone knows that its impossible to desysop an admin outside the Arbcom process (although the rules say the community could ban one, effectively requiring them to be desysopped, but its never happened) and they are basically incompetent at the task so "tell it to Arbcom" has turned into a joke.
If you want to effect change, create an oversight mechanism that holds admins accountable when they screw up, it won't take but a couple times and the the rest will fall in line. I admit some will leave and so will some editors. That's inevitable with change, but the majority of the ones we want to keep, the ones that believe in the project, will stay. Then you will see less admins headhunting and creating problems to make names for themselves, there will be less lying, less manipulating of policy and less assholery in general.
It will take some time, but eventually editors will come back, new ones will join and stay and the projects as a whole will be far better off than they are today. As it is, the community doesn't trust the WMF or the admins, the admins don't trust the community or the WMF, the WMF doesn't trust or seem to care about either the community nor the admins. So at some point, this dynamic needs to be changed, the WMF needs to step up and take charge, the problematic admins need to be dealt with and the rest need to start acting like the leaders of the project they are. A top down approach is the only way its going to be fixed and frankly that may include eliminating or replacing the Arbcom with an effective and unbiased group made up of both editors and WMF employees (probably). Reguyla (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There has been some talk historically of a global "arbcom" type body. There's a lot of difficulties there, not least having enough members with diverse language skills to deal with situations coming from our smaller communities. We'll be running a more focused consult on Meta in a few weeks, moving from the "brainstorming" phase to the "actual improvements" phase. It would be good to see some discussion on governance, and what can be improved. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that will be very interesting to see and it probably doesn't come as much of a suprise that I would love to have some input into that process if I am not blocked on meta before hand to prevent it. My biggest concern and something I think would be a major improvement, would be for a well defined chain of command so to speak that goes all the way from the reader/editor all the way up to god (for the purpose of this, god would be the board via the ombudsman). I doubt that this new body would replace the English Wikipedia Arbcom or several others, but it would be beneficial to have an unbiased review/appellate process. For example, IMO, the ENWP Arbcom if it still exists would be the highest authority on ENWP, then it would fall to the Global committee and finally the ombudsman should be allowed to present the case to the Board itself. That, IMO, should be the final step and if it made it that high, which most probably wouldn't, then WMF legal should review the case as well. This should be especially true of things like global bans. I also think that whenever a decision is made by an individual wiki Arbcom based on secret evidence, that the WMF legal folks should at least be given a courtesy copy of the evidence and the result. They wouldn't have to act on it, but they should be aware of people being railroaded on projects. Its becoming commonplace for the ENWP arbcom to function in secret offline and I think it would be very enlightening to the WMF folks to see just how underhanded and manipulated things are in the projects if they aren't already aware, (I have it on good authority that there are regular discussions about silly things that happen on wiki). IMO a complete overhaul of the current judicial system for lack of a better term needs to be done, starting from the highest level (some of those changes are already occurring) and I would also suggest that this new global Arbcom body not be an optional entity. Reguyla (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • All that said this is a good video, and “pitches the sale” (and sorry for my own instance of snakeoil salesman speech) in what I think is more or less the right way. Not perfect, but still like a thousand times better than anything I could come up with. -- Tuválkin 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Are there tools to help people find places on other Wikimedia projects for content in a category on Wikimedia Commons[edit]


I'm looking for a tool to help people find places on other Wikimedia projects for content in a category on Wikimedia Commons. My specific example is that UNESCO have uploaded 750 images of World Heritage Sites to Commons and I would like to provide an easy way for contributors to see where the images could be used e.g which World Heritage Site Wikipedia articles in a specific language don't have an image but have a category on Commons related to it.


John Cummings (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much that I know about. We have millions of uncategorized, poorly categorized, and undescribed pictures. Many very good pictures are uploaded by automation and come only with a somewhat descriptive filename or a source category, if that much. Seekers of good pictures on a topic seldom find them. As it happens, the pictures in question are in Category:Media files produced by UNESCO needing additional categorisation, and also have a somewhat descriptive filename. This is better than most.
One of my routines is to step through a source cat that is rich in images on a subject on which I have some knowledge but which lack a subject cat. I examine each picture to determine the subjects, categorize it, and do a search in en for articles on those subjects. I insert the picture if I find such a home for it, and add the commonscat template where appropriate. It's a slow process and I don't expect the automated uploaders to attempt it. I do expect them to make a properly categorized source cat, as in the case of these UNESCO photos. Without that, the picture will remain among the millions of lost pictures, or at least remain lost to me and other curators using similar methods. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Search might help in some cases to get a tighter, country specific subset. e.g. [1] (cirrus search has a lot of fancy options in the meantime). But be careful, not everything is true even from competent external organizations. E.g. File:Historic Centre of Vienna-114402.jpg was put to non-existing Category:Historic Centre of Vienna (also opposed to the existing Category:Historic centre of Vienna), although the real thing is far away from the historic center (1 error on a sample of 3 images). IMHO proper categorization of such images is the best you can do to improve usage over multiple Wikimedia sites. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Herzi Pinki: and @Jim.henderson:, I've created a tool idea on IdeaLab, hopefully someone will be interested in making it. Please do add to it if you think it could use any additions or changes John Cummings (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

“Watch changes in category membership” deployed[edit]

The CatWatch feature was just deployed to Commons. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE), see my "complaint" in the above discussion. Jee 07:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The feature was deactivated on Commons by WMF later again because of phabricator:T125147. We're on it and trying to fix the problem and get the feature enabled again as soon as possible. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Thanks. I wondered why there were no more spam top of my watch list. Jee 10:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the ticket for the issue (the reason it was reverted) is ·addshore· talk to me! 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all! The feature has now been deployed again! ·addshore· talk to me! 00:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

January 29[edit]

Coat of Arms of Pakistan[edit]

As I think, State Emblem of Pakistan is not in official color and it also needs some changing in its current version. Community is highly encouraged to take part in discussion so that coat of arms can be turned into its original form. All are requested to check the color of coat of arms. Here are some references about official color and official form:

  1. Official Interior Ministry Website
  2. Official Defense Ministry Website
  3. Coat of Arms at Latest Passport

Firstly, official color is not #014102 (Dark Green). Rather it is #00611c (Light Green or Parrot-like). Secondly, version of the file that was uploaded on 09:34, 12 August 2014 by Baba66 is superior but it also needs changing in it's color.
Vector graphing experts are requested to review it again and make correction in file. Thanks! Wárrãich šÁhiß talk


@บริษัท การบินไทย จำกัด: I realize Russavia was banned by the WMF, but it still seems odd to see [2] removal of categories indicating that he uploaded certain files. Is this something that has been agreed upon or something unilateral? - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Jmabel "* Uploaded by russavia" is being removed because it is leading to incorrect attribution by external users. My user categories are being removed, largely because the various categories are leading to multiple double up maintenance. But the uploader will always be found in the comments section of the file description page. Files placed into Category:Aviation files (check needed) are being gone through by myself (as well as others) and that can be deleted. I would prefer that my categories are non-existent in order for me to leave Commons when that time comes. Cheers, บริษัท การบินไทย จำกัด (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It is the norm (now but not always) to avoid having uploader attribution on the image page separate from the upload history, though it remains controversial to retrospectively mass change these without uploader agreement. With regard to user categories, these should be left as the uploader set them unless they cause a specific issue, and if the uploader wishes to change user categories and has not the wherewithal or access to do so, then it is normal to see their requests being taken up by other editors. If you were concerned that this might be a case of damnatio memoriae, it is not. -- (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Might not be damnatio memoriae (either by intent or result), but sure looks like Streisand effect… -- Tuválkin 11:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To make things worse, some of the latest round of edits may actually be incorrect. For instance File:Slapton Sands (6238844090).jpg‎ is neither an aviation file, nor is a category check really needed.
I think we as Commons should take over this task Russavia is attempting to do. He wants it gone, he provides sensible reasons above (which are to our benefit), and it also saves us (and WMF) work chasing our own tails with the latest batch of sockpuppets.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Nilfanion, et al. Sure, there are some files like that which are "incorrect". This is due to them being uploaded from Flickr via Jeffrey Pardoen's account -- he's mainly an aviation photographer so they were uploaded into my "aviation" category. Never fear, I'm going through the category to get rid of those as a priority, leaving only aviation files in that check needed category. Golaner (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Russavia, you are not welcome here. Leave, go away, depart this place, never come back. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What’s your reasons to say so, User:Mattbuck? -- Tuválkin 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Who decided the block of Russavia, the Community or the WMF? I still disagree his block until I know the reasons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Who is secret, why is secret, what the evidence is remains secret. There is no appeal possible, there is no scrutiny of the evidence. Not even Russavia has been told the answers to these questions, probably for fear of the WMF being exposed in some way, so you certainly will not be told. You just have to "trust" the WMF, with no credible system of governance, because they demand to be trusted. -- (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Tuvalkin, Russavia was once an admin in good standing, and was an upstanding member of the community. Since he was globally banned by the WMF he has become a troll. Amitie 10g, the initial ban was by the WMF, for undisclosed reasons, but, we assume, because he pissed off Jimbo over the Pricasso incident. I disagree with the initial global block, but given Russavia's extensive socking and other troll-like behaviour in the meantime, I have no compunction against enforcing the ban. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I would be delighted to see a community ban to replace the secret WMF office lock, with the confidence that it meets policies agreed by consensus. This gives the possibility of periodic appeal and review. Banned for life, without the opportunity to examine the evidence or challenge it, well it's no surprise that Russavia has since misbehaved. -- (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
While Russavia used to be a good admin at Wikimedia Commons until he got globally banned, he has started trolling long before he was blocked, especially at the English Wikipedia. I have seen sufficient of his behaviour from before the global ban to fully support that ban. Jcb (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: Russavia may not be welcome by you, but the majority of the community is fine with him. So blanket statements saying they are unwanted are not helpful nor beneficial to this project. If Russavia had not been globally banned for dubious reasons by the WMF, he would still be a positive contributor. Just like if I hadn't been banned on ENWP by people who violated and manipulated policy I would be editing there. This is the negative side to banning positive contributors indefinitely for abusive, meaningless, self serving or policy violating reasons. You end up in situations where a person who would be a constructive member of the community turns into a vandal, troll, sockpuppet, etc. Because frankly, at that point and especially with a global ban, they really don't have anything to lose. Some people wanted him banned, well now they got what they wanted and now they have to live with the consequences including a loss of edits to the project and drama from an editor who would otherwise be a positive contributor. Russavia had his flaws but he literally did more for this project than all of the people who wanted him banned combined. Literally everyone knows that the reason Russavia was banned by the community was because of pressure from Jimbo over the Pricasso painting. Of course the WMF won't admit that because its stupid, but that's what it boils down too. So frankly, as long as he is editing positively and making improvements, I don't care how many edits he does or how many accounts he creates to do it. Because the purpose of these projects is the accrue knowledge, not to ban everyone we don't like. Reguyla (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The WMF said that Russavia was not blocked because of the Pricasso issue (although that would be a valid reason IMHO). I am fine with removing categories as shown above by Jmabel. But I am not fine with him trolling on the VP or various DRs. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Reguyla, I'm not going to undo legitimate DRs just because they were created by a banned user, but if I see a Russavia sock (this thread has had about five in the 15 hours it's been open) I will block it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
First, I do not believe the WMF for a second when they say that. Partly because they refuse to say why it is, that being the case, they almost certainly would also say what it isn't for the same reasons. The pricasso thing was almost certainly a major part of their decision even if there were others as well. If you want to block them mattbuck then that's your call. But at this point we should all admit that its not going to stop him, he will just create another. I would suggest its better to have him edit with an account we know, than to guess or assume he is another one and cause a bunch of collateral damage with blocked IP's and waste a bunch of time. But that's just me. I also agree that the trolling aspect can be a little irritating, but that's fruit of the poison tree IMO. It's only due to the no other recourse factor. No matter how friendly a person is, if you back them into a corner and give them no alternative, then they are going to push back. BTW it's also funny that you say he has socked 5 or 6 times in this discussion but you say you keeping blocking them. So really, the reason they have socked 5 or 6 times is because they keep getting blocked and have to create a new account, not that they want to or are doing it maliciously. Reguyla (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing about this whole Russavia circus I really don't get. It's been over a year now that he has a global ban and still he spends hours a day trolling around here. Who knows how sad and lonely his real life must be now this trolling apparently is the only thing he lives for? Jcb (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to soud really naive right now, but where has he actually trolled? We need to stop blurring words meanings Editing files description pages and removing his name from "source"-fiels and categorizing isn't trolling. Filing DR's isn't trolling. Protesting deletion of files isn't trolling. We need to stop calling everything he does for "trolling" merly because he is gbanned. Josve05a (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've probably dealt with more of these sock than most, and the trolling is in creating accounts with names of the ilk of "Can't catch me", "Easy enough to create another account", "I will keep going" and Continual blocks are interfering with my Commons activity (talk · contribs). An incomplete list is at Category:Sockpuppets of Russavia, bit it's clear he' sticking two fingers up at us- that's trolling and a good enough reason to enforce the ban, however unjust it may be felt to be. To do otherwise is to play his game. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) But, is it really our ban to enforce? He hasn't been banned from the Commons comunity, but the WMF, and therefore it should be they, and only they that should be the ones blocking him. But that might just me my oown naive opinion. Josve05a (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
He has been blocked locally on Commons for intimidation/harassment. I'm sure that was discussed extensively at the time on the AN. And in any case, his recent activity is in itself disruptive - its far too fast for a non-bot to be doing.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Just to make sure that people are not wrong on the Internet, no, this hasn't been discussed at the AN at all; @Yann just blocked russavia's account, and everyone else is still too scared to unblock it. odder (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It is the current policy: "Controversial blocks may also be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard after they have been applied. To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block." Why not initiate a discussion as suggested by the policy than questioning it here? Jee 13:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
His block on commons is a personal vendetta by Yann, nothing more but alas you can't point fingers on admins on this wiki or you get blocked next....not much different than enwiki i say..--Stemoc 00:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(BWC)Please be aware that in case of Russavia there is a lot more than what you can see on Wiki. But I will give you an example: Russavia presents himself as a representative of our projects, then gets some general releases from photographers for all their work and then telling those photographers that they should revoke their release and that they have to do so via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: Has that happend to OTRS by Russavia. Isn't that revealing information, not in accordance with the Confidentiality Agreement? Josve05a (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed last year at the AN and the ombudsmen commission was asked to take a look about it, but I never got any feedback from them, so apparently they didn't see it as a violation of the confidentiality agreement. Jcb (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, you all are giving examples of stuff that Russavia did after the WMF forced a global ban on him. Has he created a lot of accounts? Yes, but they wouldn't be needed if he wasn't banned by the WMF. Do some accounts like the ones mentioned above amount to trolling? Sure, it could be argued they do but even then it wouldn't be done if he could edit. Did he ask photographers to revoke their release after worked with them to get their approval and after his ban? Maybe so, I doubt he did this before his ban but I don't really know about that for sure if he even did this at all. Again, as far as I know it was after his ban and if we/the WMF do not want him editing, then that is the price we pay. When someone is banned, then that means that their work is not wanted. So, if they choose to go back and revoke that after we ban them then IMO they are free to do that. I did some of that with ENWP as well. They lost a lot in donations and other stuff because I asked people whom I had asked to donate not too and suggested there were better tax write-offs than Wikipedia that is no longer interested in creating an encyclopedia. Again, a few on ENWP do not want my edits and feel that they speak for the entire community and the projects and just as Russavia does here, I continue to edit on ENWP and no one, not even the WMF is going to stop me from doing that until I choose to stop. I am not going to be bullied out of the project by people who haven't done half of what I have to build it and neither is Russavia. So these bans comes at a cost and again, unless someone can prove he did this before he was banned, then I don't see it as a problem because the WMF told them they do not want them to help. And he still edits, so all of this is irrelevant because none of us are going to stop him from editing, clearly. Reguyla (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive my interruption - I have a question concerning the "Uploaded by Russavia" cat: I often see it when going through the "bad named aviation files", shall I remove it when a renaming is done? The category related statement above is not fully clear to me... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me it looks like we love to solve not important matters ... honestly seeing us fight on all the Russavia case is just sad. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi P-S, it's a mistake to think this is just about Russavia, or getting him unblocked. No doubt that by now Russavia has burnt so many bridges and upset so many good faith contributors that his account should be blocked, and you know that the Commons community has adequate policies and processes for sensibly managing that. The underpinning ethical issue that causes drama here, is whether the WMF should control Wikimedia Commons accounts and content, and by implication our consensus supported policies, by using the threat of unaccountable office actions. This case shines light on the fact that the process is so bizarrely secret that the banned person does not even get to see any evidence, or any chance to discuss it, so is a failure of natural justice. Fairness and natural justice must be seen to apply especially when the majority of contributors believe a person is guilty of breaking community created policies or may have been stupid enough to repeatedly challenge Jimmy Wales.
This case went a significant step further than past office actions, as up until this point either the banned person had both a known criminal background and was acting in a way that should be reported for police investigation, or they had the opportunity to discuss the evidence with the WMF and then quietly went away, agreeing that it was in their best interests to do so.
It is well established that all bureaucracies will grow forever in scope and authority unless firmly governed. What is missing here is any credible governance process that can reassure the community that the outcome is ethical and fair. For these reasons the WMF office action should be replaced with a community managed block and subject to the same rules and processes as the rest of us are happy to be held against. -- (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bans are less secret now[edit]

Harassment Survey 2015

In the past I have also wondered about bans from the Wikipedia community. I have no comment on what ought to be done except that I like the idea of a transparent process for managing bans.

Recently (January 15 2016) meta:Support and Safety was established. This group manages meta:WMF Global Ban Policy and the list of Wikimedia banned users. They just published meta:Research:Harassment survey 2015, and it seems like they wish to address some serious interpersonal conflicts which happen related to Wikimedia participation.

Amitie 10g - you wanted to know who manages the block. This is the group. - as you say, there are secrets, but the "who bans" is no longer secret. This team is taking responsibility whereas before no one in particular did except "the WMF". I do not know what will come of this, but I appreciate having a group to contact for these issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I think is going to happen based on what I am seeing on multiple projects. The term harassment is going to be used by some admins and others to get rid of some adversaries. They are going to use the term "harassment in the same way they do "disruption" in block summaries because its the new catchphrase of the hour and it reduces the amount of scrutiny by making it appear like they are dealing with harassment. The Harassment survey shows in several slides exactly what some of us have been saying for a while, that there is a problematic group of admins on multiple projects that act like bullies and intimidate editors into getting their way. Its more of a problem on some projects than others, but that survey shows that its clearly a problem.
I would also disagree that bans are les secret. The English Wikipedia Arbitration committee for example is using secret offline evidence more and more on cases and the recent The Devils Advocate case is a perfect example. Not only are they not telling the community based on secret evidence, they didn't even tell TDA what they were being accused of prior to the indefinite ban they implemented out of thin air and without a proper case. Just we decide they are banned. Reguyla (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The above text spends more time talking about blocks than the actual original discussion. It is clear that Russavia wishes for his category to be removed from the images he uploaded, his sockpuppets have been flooding RC at a speed of 50 epm or higher doing so. Is there consensus for this to be done? If so, I'll file a BRFA under RileyBot. I'd rather a flagged bot be doing this than RC be flooded.. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • And with "speed up" and "check", you probably mean "blatantly remove". A bot can't check this. It isn't just about categories that category is ment to track for maintenance. Josve05a (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • So tens of thousands of pages can be blatantly added, but not blatantly removed? Interesting logic. Even though, as said on the BRFA, categories would be added in addition to removing the tracking category. Riley Huntley (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If they came form one "check"-category, to another, yes. And as I said before, it' more than just categories that needs to be checked. It's title-speelling, description-editing, crop-requests etc. We can't just assume it is to add a category and more on. Josve05a (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment Survey showing our sad reality (sysops misusing their tools)[edit]

Harassment Survey 2015 - Results Report.pdf

Recently I pass through this reality, sysops misusing their tools, and the most sad, again. The feeling that I'm having here at Wikimedia Commons is like to be under a left dictatorship, were I can't questioned comrades/former comrades/comrade partners, every time that I criticize one posture that sounds fishy or it's a clear conflict of interest, I'm summary blocked, and with no reasonable justification. Like the last time, that the sysop reverted 2 times one edition trying to remove my opinion about another sysop [3], and than he blocked me, not asking to another sysop to see the issue, not talking about it. Same sysop removed a {{copyvio}} flag of one photo, and opened one deletion request saying that should be kept, and immediately closed [4], imposing his opinion using his administrative tools, not opening any discussion, even WP having a different view, and using the logo by fair use, at the time, so the reasonable posture should be a discussion, not the imposition of his opinion.

And most horrible thing it is not one sysop doing that, it's the others empowering his actions, as [5], [6]. Our when I was blocked by another sysop, just because I wrote that one volunteer was the boyfriend of a sysop, but the reality was that they are actually engaged, and as a punishment, not only I was blocked, but also a third sysop removed my reviewer flag during my block saying that I'm not trustful, not opening any discussion, and as I was blocked, not capable to talk about it.

The administrative tools was created to protect the community, and now the use is to stablish a power of a caste over others, used as a punishment to questioned Your Highness. We need to change in some how the way that are free to use block and protections, at least a opened discussion. Or after one abuse, at least a channel where we can talk without the fear of been blocked again, and some one take some action to inhibit this actions.

The second case exposed here happened in 2014, I'm without the Reviewer flag since then, nothing was made, even being a former OTRS volunteer, and one of the few active Brazilian volunteer that have a wide knowledge about copyright in the country, and always used the tools responsibly. How this is beneficial to the community?

I'm almost sure that I will be censored and have a high possibility of block; but I need to try to start a discussion, this events are absurd, I know that not happen only with me, and can be away more violent with another volunteers, we should take action. Administrative tools should be to protect, not punishment, not to personal uses.

-- RTA 10:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the survey: One should note that Unjustified use of admin tools (34%) is of category other harassment (57%), which in turn gives 19%. 19% of experienced harassment is Unjustified use of admin tools. Since Wikipedia and sisters are often conferred to as undemocratic, I had expected a higher percentage in this section. -- Rillke(q?) 12:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Frankly, I wouldn't count Unjustified use of admin tools as "Harassment". I know some people like to have a free wheel, and be able troll anyone they don't like, and that IS a much bigger concern to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The quality of the survey is horrible and honestly, admins "harras" me is often a misused argument when someone disagrees with a block or is unable to deal with fair critisisme. This little essay would have been a lot more usefull if it includes examepls of actual harrasment and not blocks you just disagree wit. (The person being blocked almost always disagrees). Natuur12 (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been saying this for a couple years now. Its no surprise that it finally got verified now that someone bothered to ask the question. I would b interested to know of the ones that felt this way how many were admins saying it. I will say that its far better here than on the English Wikipedia where admins are basically given the ability of doing whatever they want to whomever they want as long as its not another admin. So at least commons is a little better from that aspect of things.Reguyla (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Unjustified use of admin tools is indeed a threat and stopping block for good people to continue in a community without fear. The atmosphere was terrible when I joined here. Admins and maintenance volunteers ruled everywhere, considering media contributors as grade II citizens. "Fuck the content creators, who cares" was their attitude. I had thought several times, why should I waste my time here. I decided to stay, and protest as bold as I can. I found similar minded people here. Slowly we found some grips; we were able to stop the bulliest people, somehow. They withdrawn to their caves, at least. I have to say the current situation is much promising than what I experienced a few years ago. We need to remember, "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." Unfortunately many of our best content creators are very silent on our day to day affairs which give the junks to rule this project. IRC gives them an "underground world" to group together to plan and execute their secret agendas too.
RTA, I don't think your examples are the best; but we have a long road ahead. I wish if our volunteers (including me) are willing to accept these types of self-criticism and review our actions than concentrating only on some anti-wmf agendas. (Off-course, they also need to be more democratic and transparent; but it is a different topic.) Jee 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Jee when we start to think "it's not good, but okay, it was worst in the past", and "Wikipedia is worst" (as others raised), things don't improve.
I was here also (and before), and okay, had some improves, but we are far from our goal, and far from being a heath environment. This examples are not different from the postures of Wikipedia, or from the past, they are here, and as you can see, some people see this as normal, and sysop see himself as a hero who will save the community from trolls, trolls, in his vision, are people with free wheel, and incorrect use of admin tools to impose a fear, is not harassment, and is not worst then write opinions.
This is not normal, one community that have free in their principles don't see this as bad. This monstrously bad, people approved to have the power of block editions attacking free wheel is not acceptable, and no one looking at this and manifesting against it is worst.
-- RTA 14:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
"...we are far from our goal, and far from being a healthy environment." I agree. Jee 15:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, User:Jkadavoor, that must have been before my time. These days I feel it’s distinctively the other way around, with content curators considered as grade II citizens. Which is a bad thing not only on ethical grounds (as any such caste system is) but also on strategical grounds: Commons could survive without its own home-bread content creators (dealing only with free media posted elsewhere and PD material), but without curation Commons would be just a clone of Flickr or Imgur. -- Tuválkin 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It still is that way Tuvalkin. Non admin editors and content builders are considered second class citizens on the WMF wiki's and anyone who doesn't think that is probably an admin. Reguyla (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Tuválkin, there are indeed some good content curators like categorisors (eg: Roland zh), coders, etc. They usually work behind the screen, unnoticed. They rarely show their nose in (drama) boards. The only moments I find them are when they "touched" my file pages. I enjoy their works and never forget to show my gratitude using the "thank" feature. They too vital part of this community. My (rather humorous) comment was not about them. :) Jee 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
All you really have to read is page 2, which tells you it's a self-selected sample applying their own definitions of everything, including what is and isn't justified use of admin tools. "Other methods would need to be explored in order to validate the information" is putting it mildly. I'm sorry, but this was an utter waste of resources and 4.82 MB of storage. LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Per Carrite on en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Defective_harassment_survey, it seems the software tool used in this survey was a defective pre-alpha version, which delivered unreliable numbers. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I too agree that the tool and methodologies in creating the survey were flawed. We must also take into account that happy people are less likely to waste time on surveys whereas people who are upset or feel they have been wronged in some way like myself are substantially more likely to make the voice heard and take the survey. So I would support a new survey, using clearer and more focused questions based on the results of this one to clarify the results. For example, clear and specific questions about the feelings of harassment and if people feel admins are misusing their tools. This survey had a lot of fill in the blank comments, which are good and should be retained, but its much harder to define and quantify those. So it needs to be made clear what came from the check box and what was mined out of comments. I think this survey touched on a lot of good weak points though, now we just need to address the problems and do it again. Perhaps annually or semi annually adjusting the result each time. I would not support this type of survey being done more than once every 6 months until we get the results refined a little and then annually. People who are interested in the topic will take a few minutes a couple times a year to do the survey. Especially if its at scheduled recurring times. Reguyla (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
you can measure it all you want: if admins won't change their behavior; the community won't change the "cultural buzzsaw" it does not matter. rather than jimbo whining about "wikistudy ethics", maybe an implementation plan by admins might restore some confidence in them. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

NSFW Main page images[edit]

I appreciate the female form as much as anyone but we need to be mindful that not NSFW applies to the main page. When I just logged into commons I was startled and had to quickly change my screen. A lot of kids look at our site as well and although I am very far from being a prude, I also think there should be some discussion before these types of images are displayed. Do I need to set my default as my watchlist instead of the main page from now on? Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It took nearly 16 hours until someone complained. That is much longer than I expected. (The image is a perfectly fine example of low-key and nude photography. No children will be harmed by it.) --Sebari (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No issue for this image IMO. Yann (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well then in that case I will just remove the main page from my default and default instead to my watchlist so when I log in at work I am not confronted by a naked women, vagina or some other NSFW image. Reguyla (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
good call, commons has been NSFW for a decade. see also m:Image filter referendum/en. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Would seeing that image in a movie "bumb" up the age rating for that movie? I guess it would. To me that is a sign that perhaps it should not be on the landing page here. /Hangsna (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been on and off here since 2007, and for many years I had the opinion that NSFW, as well as shocking images were perfectly OK for POTD, because they were in scope and because otherwise it could be considered as censorship. I have also previously defended a NSFW POTD, which received complaints. In recent years I have changed my mind as I think it is a misunderstanding that it has anything to do with censorship to not select a particular FP as POTD. Rather it is a principle of 'editorial judgement' to consider if NSFW images shall be on the front page, and other kinds of images as well, that might be problematic for certain kind of users. Like, I recall a lovely macro of a spider being POTD at some point, and it triggered a strong reaction from a person who had arachnophobia. Maybe it was not good editorial judgement to have that as POTD as quite many people get strong emotional reactions from seeing a photo of a spider? I also opened the main page of commons at work today and I also skipped quickly away from the page, because the nude photo would be in a gray zone at my work place for permitted content, but also because in an open office environment it would just be very awkward to casually browse over a nude photo. Of course, I know there is a risk of that at work, and I could just wait until I was at home. Problem solved. But that would also mean that I would have a barrier at work for re-using just other kinds of media files for work. And nomatter what POTD you have, you can often find someone, who with some cultural background, values, prior experience, trauma, handicap, whatevercould dislike any POTD. And 'slippery slope' arguments will also follow og where the boundaries of 'editorial judgement' or 'low astonishment' should be. On the other hand I find it is very important that it is easy to find such an FP of a low-key nude photo if you actively search for it, because then you will not be astonished as a user, as this is what you were looking for. For this particular image, I would be inclined to say it would have been slightly better editorial judgement not to have it as POTD. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Would seeing that image in a movie "bumb" up the age rating for that movie? - That very much depends on where you live. In Germany surely not. Jerry Maguire for example has the rating FSK 6, meaning children from 6 upwards are allow to see some nudity. --Magnus (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • FWIW, this thread (silly as it is), got me to go take a look at Main_Page for the first time in 2 or 3 years. -- Tuválkin 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If I have no opinion regarding the content displayed or not to kid's eyes. However at work advice is you should work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Christian Ferrer: Sometimes you have a lunch break at work...or at your work it could actually be relevant to use media files from Commons for a work-related presentation. And here the natural entry point is for many the Main Page. Just saying... -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • In fairness I am usually working at the same time. I frequently have to run scans on servers and whatnot that stop when they hit an error or compiling code. Its hard to be actively doing other things that require deep thought or take me away from the monitor while its running. I can glance here, then do what I need to do with the error on the other screen and continue on. Sometimes also at lunch.Reguyla (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, with my job I've not this kind of issue, that maybe explain my lack of imagination regarding this topic. The fact that I already saw some of my colleague surfing on the Web instead of working while me I must work don't help too. No problem. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I hardly ever pay attention to POTD. I'm aware that nude women have featured before. Just to assess how heteronormative the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD is likely to be, can anyone work out exactly how many photos of nude sexually attractive women have made it to POTD, or at least, women showing their breasts or backsides, compared to how many photos of nude sexually attractive men have featured? I can guess the answer but numbers would be great. -- (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Fae you've raised bias at FPC before and all it demonstrated was your profound ignorance of statistics and the laws of cause and effect. This sort of nonsense demonstrates the kind of 2+2=5 thinking one might associate with the Dail Mail. Tell me, when you set your upload bots off, do you scan every image to ensure an equal distribution of male and female, white and black, young and old, or do you just accept you are completely at the mercy of the distribution to be found out there in the real world. You should apologise to those who select our POTD now for accusing them of bias. -- Colin (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      I have made no accusations. Please supply the numbers if you want to assess or discuss the facts rather than just appearing intent on making me look evil at every possible opportunity. Thanks -- (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Making you look evil, ? Gosh, I thought all along Colin’s goal was to make himself look evil — and lo, it’s working, too! -- Tuválkin 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
, of course you make accusations. From your position of admitted ignorance "I hardly ever pay attention to POTD" and vague assertion "I'm aware that nude women have featured before" you charge "the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD" with being "heteronormative", which Wikipedia tells me "is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia". So lets just put 2+2 together and say this is yet another homophobia accusation against the FPC team. Facts then. Of the 8,245 featured pictures on Commons, there are merely 349 pictures classified as "People", about 100 "Historical" pictures of people and about 100 "Sports" pictures of people. So about 550 featured images of people making up about 6.6% of the possible Featured pictures that could appear on the main page. Or put another way, there are 15 times as many featured images of non-people as there are of people. Which itself is an interesting fact, given that one might assume the vast majority of images taken in the world (professionally or otherwise) are of people. Of these 550 people images, we have four nudes. One is a photo of a Himba woman from Namibia and isn't a sexual image. It appeared on the main page on 27 Jan 2008. Another is Michele Merkin and is a glamour photo with partial nudity. It appeared on the main page 5th October 2009. Another is a recumbent female nude which hasn't appeared on the main page yet. The fourth is the image that appeared the other day. So unless I missed any, we've had precisely one previous photo of a partially nude sexually attractive woman. And given that Commons does not commission photographs, but seems to hoover up whatever it finds on the internet or accept whatever amateur photographers choose to photograph as a hobby, pray tell how this data could possibly be used to "assess how heteronormative the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD is". It can't. But that doesn't stop you waving homophobia accusations around and challenging people to defend themselves against them. Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for. -- Colin (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made no accusations or allegations, I asked for statistics. Anyone can read from the above that the only person making allegations of homophobia and ad-hominim attacks here is Colin.

From the numbers in Colin's summary, the answer to my original question appears to be that there are 3 attractive nude photographs of women that can be taken for POTD, and no equivalent photographs of men. I propose a moratorium on any further nude photographs of women as POTD until there is at least a history of POTDs achieving at least one nude photograph of a man for every 2 nude photographs on the main page of nude women. Thanks -- (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on whether the Himba woman is "attractive", the criterion that is relevant is "sexually attractive" and that is not a sexualised photo. So we have just one partial nude and one upper-body nude and zero genitalia that have ever appeared on the main page. Your suggestion that POTD should start enforcing a quota system to ensure equality of sexualised main-page imagery is really very funny while also very sad. There are all sorts of injustices and inequalities one could spend one's time worrying about, doing something about, and accusing people of, but this is not one of them. The community should have topic banned you as a favour -- to stop writing such foolish nonsense. The folk that do the POTD do not deserve to be accused of "heteronormative" actions or any similar and you should appologise. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Your personal attacks are cyber bullying, I made no accusations here. Your campaign against me is long term harassment. -- (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Fae you are so transparent. Whenever you up to something nefarious, you accuse others of exactly that. It's kind of a Freudian slip with you. Look at what this topic section is about: Reguyla taking issue with unexpected NSFW content on the main page. But you turn up, admitting the POTD content isn't of interest to you ("I hardly ever pay attention to POTD") while at the same time accusing those organising POTD of "heteronormative" bias. So you go spinning off-topic with yet another ill-thought-out charge of homophobia on Commons. The harassment is by you against those at FPC. You didn't need to make your comments. You didn't need to attack the POTD organisers. Stick to File: space, Fae, it's the only area where you make a positive contribution to the project. -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, Its ugly, please remove that.. no one wants to come to a site and see some Old guy playing a Sitar ...its disgusting, please remove it ASAP....--Stemoc 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No comments; as I too never visit the home page unless my login expired or my watchlist highlighted the talk page. Not an important page for me. Jee 02:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Colin's tangent[edit]

I would like to clarify that I have made no accusations against any contributor. Colin repeatedly introduced the topic of LGBT and homophobia; then turned a question about statistical balance into long rants about homophobia, anyone can read the text above to verify this fact. Colin has gone on to deride and humiliate me just for being interested in the "LGBT community".

This is not a safe space with Colin free to turn any discussion on to a hostile debate about Wikimedia LGBT. This level of hostility and personal attack is planned and deliberate, it cannot be excused as some sort of weird misunderstanding. -- (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

From the title of this section to the -- at the end, there is not a single word that is accurate. You can "clarify" all you like when everyone else can see you creating a tangent on a NSFW topic to accuse the POTD organisers of "heteronormative" bias. Don't try and pretend it was some innocent question on statistical balance. Nobody's fooled. -- Colin (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have made no accusations against any contributor. -- (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Consent to nude modeling and model release document[edit]

For this image of a nude woman, the uploader provided model consent documents to OTRS. This may or may not be the right thing to do. Another common practice on Wikimedia Commons is to apply the template {{consent}} with the metadata without sharing any model release document. I wrote more about this model release on a proposal for developing a model release.

I want for there to be some minimal standards for defining consent provided in Wikimedia Commons. It already is a regular practice that Commons uploaders make claims about getting consent from models. In fashion and marketing, doing nude modeling generally requires stricter consent agreements than doing more routine clothed modeling, but in Wikimedia projects, I am not sure there are standards or community agreement for what it means for anyone to consent to have photos uploaded to Commons.

To clarify - I am not suggesting that people should use consent documents on Commons more often. I am proposing that when people feel the need to claim to use a consent process at all, then there should be a defined process in Commons and people should say, "My process is equal to or better than that one." We do the same thing with CC copyright releases; anyone can use those or better releases, but we say that if someone promises to use a release, then they have to at least be compatible with CC-By-SA which is our community standard.

I am working with a legal organization in New York called the Fashion Law Institute. They have proposed to write a model release for use in Wikimedia projects and beyond. To go further, they need some Wikimedia Foundation money for them to draft a release, templates, documentation, and to use their name as legal authorities in the field to say, "this kind of release is a reasonable thing to use, if a model release is used". If anyone has comments (criticism and endorsements) or opinions on model releases then please share at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Model releases mostly have to do with assuring that personality rights have been signed away, so an image is open to full commercial use in advertisements etc. "Consent" is about reassuring that an image does not violate ordinary expectations of privacy. Wikimedia Commons is only obliquely concerned about whether images can be used for purposes of commercial advertising (images that can't be used that way can still be uploaded here). AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
commons is directly involved in commercial reuse running afoul of privacy rights law. we need a better system of subject permissions, than a personality rights tag. re-users frequently ignore restrictions. OTRS is a work around, need some personality rights enforcement as well. this grant for permissions is needed badly. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but if someone uploads an image to Commons not covered by a model release (i.e with unimpaired personality rights), and an outside reuser makes use of it for commercial purposes, then Commons is not directly involved -- the legal dispute is between the person photographed and the reuser. It's pretty much the same as if an external reuser disregards the copyright terms of an image uploaded to Commons -- the dispute there is between the photographer or image-maker and the reuser... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the year competition[edit]

What has happened to the 2015 POTY competition? It doesn't appear to have started yet. -- SGBailey (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rillke: @Beria: @Mono: @Miya: Poking the usual suspects. Revent (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/01#When will POTY 2015 start? -- Rillke(q?) 10:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

February 03[edit]

User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts[edit]

This was posted in AN/U before. Since several people saw it as an attack or offense against against the user in question, it was moved to VP.

In these three seven (so far) CfDs:

Proper nouns, such as established individual names, most of these even subject to local protection and thus officially named, should not be translated to English, unlike plural descritive categories. -- Tuválkin 01:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) and 10:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Not sure what about this is an ANU issue, to be honest. There seems to have been a civil discussion about the CfDs on Tm's talk page. Revent (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is about an admin pushing against one of the most basic rules of category naming. It certainly needs to be addressed centrally, not scatered in disparate, specific CfDs nor in a user’s talk page (especially not one infamous for being left unarchived for years causing broswer crashes and failed transclusions). -- Tuválkin 10:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Why do you complain about Cookie's talk page which currently has just correspondence from 2016 with a total size of 11,475 bytes? --AFBorchert (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I don’t complain about Cookie’s talk page: User:Revent mentioned Tm’s talk page and I replied about that. -- Tuválkin 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Revent. And I don't think this was about an admin pushing against one of the most basic rules of category naming. It depends on your interpretation. --DPC (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Commons categries language policy states quite clearly "Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form". A quick look at these categories suggests to me that they do not have abn established English variant and in one case (Category:Aqueduto de Pontes) the English translation is poor to say the least.
NB: I have tidied up the grammar. The diff file is here. I regard this as a "minor" change, so no debate was needed). Martinvl (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Revent. To me it does not appear appropriate to open this as a case at COM:AN/U when no attempt was made before to contact Cookie directly. Cookie was not even informed about this thread. Please keep in mind that not all users, even admins, are familiar with all aspects of our guidelines. To me this looks as a good-faith attempt to suggest category renamings. There is no threat when multiple discussions are opened. Whenever a missing understanding of our guidelines becomes apparent, the next natural step is to post a friendly message onto the user's talk page, not to open a thread at COM:AN/U. Hence, I suggest to close this as there is no administrative action necessary in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (I am informed now. Conflict of edition with @AFBorchert:. Thanks AFBorchert. I hope my explanation can calm things down and have a civic, peaceful debate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookie (talk • contribs)
  • User:AFBorchert, this thread includes [[User:Cookie]] in its header. That triggers a notification in Cookie’s queue stating that «User Tuvalkin mentioned you on So-and-so», or so I understand. Is this incorrect? Need I to use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} instead? -- Tuválkin 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is no need to take this as an offense, I'm not going against Portuguese categories, neither French, German, Italian nor Spanish ones. I just got involved on these because of a ping received from @Hedwig in Washington: asking for help. And I'm not pushing anything as an admin. As an administrator I could have deleted them, or moved them but I didn't do any of those drastic actions. I just did what anyone can do (admins, common users or IPs), i.e. to put categories in discussion.
The reason is explained in [Tm user talk. According to the policy, a particular individual object, such a specific building, monument, etc. is an exception and can be named in the vernacular language of the speaker, right? But, aqueduct, church, bridge, necropolis... are common names. If the translation "Aqueduct (in or of) Pontes" is poor then Aqueduct of Segovia, Aqueduct of Saintes‎ or Bekir Pasha Aqueduct are poor translations as well. The word aqueduct is just the common name of the structure/monument along with the proper name of the location where this "object" is located. If you have a look at Category:Aqueducts by country there are categories named in English along with others named in vernacular languages. Which ones should be renamed?
The same with "church", just an example of different naming in the same country, there are more: Church of São Jorge (Santana)‎ vs. Igreja de São Jorge (Guimarães)‎ Which one is the correct?
And the same with Category:Necropolises by country where you can find a mix of vernacular and English named categories. So, is there/could we find a solution to this pandemonium of categories? or as The Beatles said, just let it be. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Cookie: sorry I got you involved. Since I have been involved, I can't close this AN/U. I sincerely hope some other admin will speedy close this. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I had no idea that merely being subject to a mention in AN/U was such a taint for an admin. There, there, it’s now on VP. Let’s hope it doesn’t have to come go back to AN/U. -- Tuválkin 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It is very common that names are based on ordinary nouns. All the same Tower Bridge is the name of a specific bridge, not a description of the bridge or any bridge with towers. Notre Dame is also the (abbreviated) name of a specific church (there are many churches by that name, like there are many Peters, which doesn't change the fact). If the category is named after the name, not just as one description out of many possible ones, then it shall be treated as a name. If there are ad hoc translations, they should be changed to the proper name. Mixture may of course also result from some cemeteries, churches and aqueducts being more well-known than others and a few in fact having English names. --LPfi (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I was involved in a similar discussion about non-English category names last year. For some countries and topics, most category names are in their native language, while for many others, category names are translated to English. If there was a conclusion to that discussion, it would be that there is no consensus to change all category names to English. But yes, it can be a bit confusing, especially when there are both categories in English and in their local language for a topic in a particular country. (For instance churches in Portugal.) Blue Elf (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 04[edit]

Next deployment of "Watch changes in category membership"[edit]

We've fixed some issues and our plan is to activate CatWatch for Commons and all Wikipedias again on Friday, Feb 5th between 00:00 and 01:00 UTC. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's hope that it works on the third try ... --Sebari (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Will every category that I watch automatically have me watch all additions and removal of pages from that category? Is it possible to watch a category (and its talk page) without watching all that is added and deleted from it? I ask this because I watch some categories which have 100s of pages being added to them daily. However for this category I'm not at all interested in which pages get added, I am however very interested in following any changes to the category itself and its talk page. Basvb (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
No. You can toggle the visibility of category membership changes on your watchlist and recent changes page. By default it is hidden. You can find a detailed explanation of the feature here. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


This photo is of James Wickersham, not George Barnes Grigsby. A while back, I showed the image and file description page to the lady minding the store that day at the local Wickersham House. She was very shocked to discover that such an obvious mistake would originate with the Library of Congress, of all things. I originally brought this up somewhere else in the wiki world, don't remember where exactly, but I can't help but notice that it's evidently fallen on deaf ears. I was reminded of it through a recent Wikipedia thread where the fact-checking standards of a private memorabilia collection were scrutinized, particularly WRT an image of Virgil Earp. This caused me to wonder if we're applying double standards in this case because it's the Library of Congress. The uploader appears to have uploaded a substantial number of images in the same vein, and may not be aware or concerned about inherent factual accuracy baggage, a common problem with coverage of the U.S. Congress due to cherry-picking largely primary sources).RadioKAOS (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Can one of you maybe delete Wole.png? It's basically a BLP violation created by someone I just blocked on en-wiki. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Request filed. Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 05[edit]

Arnnon Geshuri picture[edit]

Hello. Can someone answer me here?--MisterSanderson (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Answered there. Yann (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Huge problem with copyright on Mynewsdesk[edit]

There is a HUGE problem with pictures from the swedish press-service Mynewsdesk, because the site has CC-license per default, something many press people doesn't realise and thus licensing the pictures unbeknownst and without being the copyright-holders - that means that a huge amount of pictures from Mynewsdesk is wrongly licensed and therefore the license is invalid(!). The staff at Mynewsdesk is also not responding well to questions about the license from users (they don't mention that you, as an uploader, have to have the right to change the license to CC). I propose that we have a zero tolerance for picture from Mynewsdesk until these things have been solved. Otherwise we actually risk destroying the Creative Commons license (if we pump out many pictures that are invalidly licensed, it really hurts peoples trust in Creative Commons). People using pictures from Wikimedia Commons should be assured that the pictures are free to use and that the license has been correctly added. //Vätte (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Some links that might be helpful in this context:
--El Grafo (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I seriously doub't that we as a community will be able to forma any form of consensus/policy to ban specific user generated websites from upload, since not everybody uploading images here, are part of the Commons community, hence will not know that this website may be "off limits", and we can't reallty start a DR without some small proof that is isn't their own work...Josve05a (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with this source. We need to ensure that all files uploaded from there are tagged with license review so if a Commons re-user gets in trouble he may refer to this review tag. Someone with athority, maybe from WMF - should contact at least some of the big music companies and ask for clarification.--Denniss (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
We have pretty hight standards for written articles when it comes to what sources we deem are serious - so why not when it's about image-sources? Should we not use source-criticism when searching for media to upload? Doesn't any body else think it's problematic for the Creative Commons-license itself (even if we protect ourselves with review tags) if we stand behind sharing pictures that haven't been properly licensed? And I don't think we can hide behind "we cannot be sure if the license is proper or not, so therefore we allow it" when there is for certain pictures being wrongly licensed on that page. //Vätte (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
We don't have any standard on article creation here on Commons, since articles are not what Commons does. Apart from that, we already follow a pretty high standard for licensing, called the Precautionary Principle. --Sebari (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, and for the pictures from Mynewsdesk there is significant doubt that the license is given by the copyright-holders. (And with articles I meant WMF at large.) //Vätte (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I registered as a fresh user at --> see (from below to above): the default setting for publishing images is "Creative Commons Attribution". The pull-down menu gives more options and a click at the "?" explains the licenses. There is no indication that — choosing "Creative Commons Attribution" — the work may be used/explored by others commercially. And I don't understand why they ( have chosen a CC-BY-SA license as default setting: that could well be overlooked by the image posters --> normally, posting on similar public relations portals like, you do not expect this. I have my doubts that the image poster were really aware that they are providing CC-BY-SA content — and, when they do so, failed in clarifying about the whole spectrum of the CC-licenses. Or's intents from the beginning were to offer only a CC-BY-SA-NC (+ eventually ND) license. Gunnex (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Updated... Gunnex (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it any different to other sites that accept uploads, such as Flickr? Some users may upload copyright violations, just like on Flickr. However the license is displayed clearly on the image pages, so there's no reason to think uploaders aren't aware of it. --ghouston (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There are differences, yes. Flickr focus on photographers themselves, people who (mostly) actually have the right to the material they are sharing - whereas Mynewsdesk focus on clients who want to market events, making press-statements and so on (not photographers themselves). Flickr says "Only upload content that you have created." Mynewsdesk doesn't mention that you have to have the copyright to something before changing it to CC. And, Flickr has "All rights reserved" as default and the user has to make an actual choice to change it to CC. I have been en contact with people on Mynewsdesk three times and they always answer the same way "Oh, thank you for pointing this out, we will take this under consideration." but then nothing happens, not five years ago, not last year - and the comment I posted on a thread on their forum a couple of days ago (where the question was about what license to choose and I pointed out that the one uploading can't change license without permission from the copyright-holder), first they answered that my point was very important and they would take it further - but now that entire thread has been deleted. So, I am sorry to say I don't think they will change. //Vätte (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually checking via catscan, out of the ~3200 images in Category:Files from, approximately two-thirds (2101, to be exact) have not been through a license review on Commons... given the known issues with this source, that's rather bad. At a minimum, the remainder should be marked for review, with the LR's made aware of this discussion. Revent (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Created (and populated) Category:Files from with unreviewed licenses.. didn't actually flag them for review (or put it under 'License review needed'), at least for now. Revent (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment... some of the images I added to that 'with unreviewed licenses' category have since been reviewed... not that it's a big deal (they come up in my watchlist, and I remove it) but if you're watching this conversation, and do such a review, it would be nice to remove them from it as well. It's not something handled by the script, since it's just something ad-hoc I made for convenience. Thanks. Revent (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I really don't think the reviewers will notice if the license is wrong. I guess they see that it says "Creative Commons" on The Wikimedia Commons file page, and "Creative Commons" on the Mynewsdesk file page. The problem is that the files shouldn't have the CC-license on Mynewsdesk to begin with.
I have uploaded some photos from Mynewsdesk because I saw they were under a CC license, but some of the photos were removed from Commons, when the photographers found them on Wikipedia. The photos were copyrighted, but some press people published them with the "standard setting" on Mynewsdesk. -abbedabbtalk 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Abbedabb: The issue I created that category to address (images where the license was never independently checked against the source) is a bit different than the issue of if we can 'trust' the license claims from that source, which applies to all of their images whether reviewed or not. Technically, I could have just requested a normal license review on all of them (and, FWIW, I speedied at least a couple of dozen that would have explicitly failed a normal license review - NC or ND at the source - while populating that category). It just seemed rather pointless to dump 2000-odd images on top of the LR backlog before there was a consensus about how to deal with the wider issue (since a significant number might go away regardless). I would assume that anyone reviewing images out of the category I created (since I did not actually 'request' a license review by adding the template) became aware of it from this conversation, and removing them from the tracking category I made (or, even, doing a 'normal' license review) doesn't really prevent us from applying the PRP to all or part of them later. Revent (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Victims of Putinism[edit]

The Category:Victims of Putinism doesn't exist because it was deleted without a valid explanation. It looks like political censorship. Besides, please look here. It seems to me, that Great Britain considers Alexander Litvinenko to be a victim of Putin's regime. Please, who can restore the category for victims of Putinism? Thank you. — Николай (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you were told multiple times that Commons is not the place to promote your political agenda. If you still have not understood this well, a long term block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I see. You prefer to discuss my person. And what about the political agenda of Great Britain? — Николай (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a clearly politically polemical category. We don't allow those. I don't like Putin one whit, but it's not a valid category in our system. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The most polemical is Category:Victims of communism. Endless disputes in many countries. — Николай (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't like that one either. Doesn't seem any more appropriate than Category:Victims of capitalism, which you will notice we don't have. "Victims" of an abstraction? Not so objective. Very different from a category covering who was officially executed in a particular era, or died in a concentration camp under a particular regime. But things involving (for example) who was responsible for an extrajudicial murder by a particular government (let alone an extrajudicial murder motivated by a particular philosophy or political tendency) really don't meet the criteria for Commons categories. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Also "victims" itself is problematic. Is this only people who died, or people who suffered in some other manner? - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Putinism exists. And victims of putinism? Time will tell. — Николай (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
seems to me that Category:Victims of political ideologies and all its subcategories should be deleted as subjective, there is no reason to remove one such named category whilst ignoring the others, either they are allowed or they all should go Oxyman (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Political vandalism by an administrator[edit]


Николай (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you asked the other editor for an explanation before throwing around terms such as "political vandalism"? I think you should. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I should ask what? I see that somebody killed Boris Nemtsov, and somebody wants to kill memory about him. — Николай (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
An independent or nonpartisan politician is an individual politician not affiliated to any political party. This obviously did not apply for Parnas and SPS (+ some more) member Nemtsov, nor does it for his colleagues Kasyanov, Navalny, Kasparov etc.. So, I am certainly not the one who is doing vandalism here. --A.Savin 21:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This user has not been blocked for almost a year now, but now its time again if this is what will be. /Hangsna (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, some people only seeing either black or white. This may be good for their ego, but is bad for Commons. --A.Savin 22:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Is Khodorkovsky a member of a political party? No. And Kasparov? No. And Navalny? No. The party of Navalny is not registered officially. Probably you could also know that independent politicians in Russia are those who oppose to Putin's regime. They do not depend of Putin's regime. — Николай (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Let me disagree sir: politicians against Putin are oppositioners, not necessarily independent ones. And Navalny's political party does exist. This is the only relevant thing. --A.Savin 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So, you agree that at least some of your edits were incorrect. — Николай (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No. --A.Savin 23:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
And what about Khodorkovsky and Kasparov? — Николай (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Kasparov is here. And Khodorkovsky is actually neither a politician nor one from Russia. --A.Savin 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and please do not distract from the actual issue. The problem is your behaviour, not mine. I'm feeling offended by your accusations of vandaliusm. Any apology? --A.Savin 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
My behaviour is not a problem. Your problem is my opinion. "Khodorkovsky is actually neither a politician..." - this is an obvious example of promotion of your political agenda. We see that putinism is penetrating to Commons. — Николай (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@ПОКА ТУТ: At COM:VAND is described what vandalism is, a simple revert isn't vandalism. Please remember to assume good faith and stay mellow. I looked into the issue, and i can't confirm your accusations against A.Savin. Looking at your comments here i have rather the feeling you try to push your POV here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking for reports of users being logged in as someone else[edit]

Hi all,

we had reports of a serious authentication error that resulted in people being logged into the wrong account. We are trying to collect information about what happened, and how many users it might have happened to. If you have any knowledge of such a thing happening in the last few weeks, please tell us at one of these places:

You can find more details at It looks like only a few users have been affected, but to be on the safe side, we are in the process of logging everyone out (which takes a while, so it might have happened to you this week, or it might happen in the next few days). Apologies for the inconvenience.

-- Tgr_(WMF) (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

we are in the process of logging everyone out (which takes a while... >> this was deemed unacceptably slow, so we are going to log out everyone at the same time. This is probably going to happen within a few hours, so that we can do it while most editors are asleep. I apologize for the disruption. Please report any unexpected problems (apart from having to log in again) at . --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tgr (WMF): This has caused at least two cases (that I know of, and one was me) of people accidentally editing from their IP in an 'identifiable' manner. We might have a rush of people asking for their IPs to be suppressed, not that it's hard to accomplish. Revent (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: That's an unfortunate but expected problem. T125334 has some related improvements, ideas of what else can be done would be appreciated. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 06[edit]

Privately owned historical photo[edit]

I own a photo that was taken in 1954 of my fathers Ironworker team that built the Original Tampa Bay Sunshine Skyway Bridge. It was handed down to me and he has since passed away. Since it is a photo of the entire group I would like to add it for it's historical significance especially because the completed bridge is in view behind the crew. However, there is no indication of who originally took this photo or who if anyone may own copyrights. Can this be posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa.mogard (talk • contribs)

  • Unless the picture was published before the U.S. changed its laws to conform to the Berne Convention, and it was published without a copyright claim or it was published and its copyright had lapsed, it wouldn't be OK for Commons. I take it from your description that it is probably unpublished, so the rights would still remain with the photographer or the photographer's heirs, and you don't know who that is, so you can't obtain the required permission.
  • In my view, nothing in this should stop you from making the picture publicly available (with an appropriate disclaimer about rights) on a more permissive site such as Flickr, but it's our intent on Commons that people should be able to reuse all images here in conformance with the stated license without any significant likelihood of a legitimate copyright claimant then coming forward and objecting. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You may want also ask Tampa Bay History Center and Tampa City archives and see if they are interested in having a copy.--KTo288 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February 07[edit]

Link to other languages VPs[edit]

Hi, I think a link to Template:Lang-VP is needed at the top, as in the French VP. Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • There is already a link to this template (top right) Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: ✓ Done it should be more visible now Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Good. Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

author, source, categories for combinations of images[edit]

Earlier today I uploaded some images of picea rubens cones that were originally published by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Nice, but lots of whitespace. So for the purpose of displaying in an article, I thought it would be nice to arrange some of them in a single image. So I picked nine of them, arranged them, and uploaded the result. My question is: what goes in the source, author, and date fields?

Right now I have source set to "own work" mostly because it was the default, but also because the image isn't actually found anywhere else -- just its component parts. So under author I linked to the USFWS Flickr stream, and in the description I credited the photographer and linked to the individual files.

My sense is there's probably a straightforward answer, but I'm not sure what the best way to search for the answer would be.

Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say add to all the fields both the original author and you as an author of the derivative from these originals, links to the other files could be in the source field (as those are your sources) combined with the own work for the derivative. Date can have multiple dates, author can have multiple authors. Basvb (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Commons:Collages should answer at least some of your points. --El Grafo (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb, El Grafo: That's helpful. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 08[edit]

PD-old-100 --> PD-old-100-1923[edit]

Before 2024 comes, files at Category:PD-old-100 should be moved to Category:PD-old-100-1923, by changing PD-old-100 to PD-old-100-1923 and PD-old-auto to PD-old-auto-1923. This is to reduce the warnings made by {{PD-old-100}}. Commons requires that old files must be in the public domain in the U.S. and their source country. So adding a U.S. copyright tag to PD-old-100 files is needed. When I gain consensus, I will run my first AWB bot, BulbaBot. Thanks, Poké95 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Linking relevant discussions is recommended; Commons:Bots/Requests/BulbaBot. Riley Huntley (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. {{PD-old-100}} produces those warnings for a reason. Sweeping the problem under the rug for the sake of suppressing warnings is a terrible idea. The fact that the author died more than 100 years ago says nothing about when their works were published. LX (talk, contribs) 09:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
May have been posthumously, that the author died more than 100 years is saying nothing. Josve05a (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong camera date/time[edit]

Thameslink West Hampstead stopping train.jpg

Quite often the camera time is not set correctly: Travel between timezones / summer/wintertime etc. The camera time and date are used by the upload script. When I notice it I deliberately remove the time if I cannot reconstruct the correct time and I adjust the date if needed. With above picture as reference I can correct the time of other pictures taken with the same camera. I am thinking of creating a technical category of these `timeset` pictures (only if there is a difference with the cameratime). Maybe we could write a script to correct the errors. The specific files from the camera/uploader and date sequence can be sorted out. Unfortunately there now also many time and specific categories wich contain the wrong files. This is not urgent but advice/aid would be appreciated.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There's another way to deal with timezones (and standard vs. summer time, for that matter): set yout camera to UTC or GMT, and you're done, as the actual local time is retrospectively deduceable. I'd not use a category for a matter that is in the pure responsibility of the photographer, all the more as there are only few time critical picture imaginable (and when you go out to shoot eg. a sports finish or a special nature event, then you would make sure that your devices are set up accordingly...). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if we had an unambiguous format for machine-readable date/times. At present it's not specified how timezones should be declared, which leaves a lot of uncertainty. On my own photos I write the date/time in UTC and add "UTC" at the end, if I remember, but software isn't likely to know about that. --ghouston (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
For files you haven't uploaded yet, there are plenty of tools to batch process files and adjust times in the metadata based on a given offset. I use command-line utility exiftool under Linux. For adjusting the file descriptions of already uploaded files, you can use VisualFileChange with some regular expressions to replace specific strings, but because regular expressions don't really do arithmetic, adjusting the minutes part or dealing with spans of several hours may be cumbersome. Trimming the field down to include just the date will be trivial (but if the clock is off, that might be wrong too). LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
My camera is also usually set to UTC. (I live in the UK). I recently checked a contribution of mine taken in Australia with a beautiful blue sky - the time was 00:24! When I spotted that, I added "UTC" to the timestamp.
If you look at ISO 8601, the preferred way to express time is to write 20:57+00:00 for UTC, and to write 21:57+01:00 for Paris. Martinvl (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Luckily most timezone shifts are hourly but there are exceptions: half hour and 45 minutes zonesSmiley.toerist (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UT
The ISO 8601 format seems like the way to go. Using Z for UTC seems a little cryptic, but templates could display it as something more readable. --ghouston (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Standardized buildings[edit]

Hi there. (I'm not sure that I translated definitions from russian the right way). So, there are a lot of standardized buildings in Russia, which were built all over the country (and I think the same in the whole Eastern Europe). For example, well-known appartment buildings - Khrushchyovkas, series of standardized school buildings, cinemas buildings, metro stations, barber's shops buildings and so many others. The identical buildings of one type were built in different cities. Is there a category tree for such standardized types of buildings? And if there is no such category tree, let's create it? Because I think it would be useful if there was a category, where you could see the buildings of the same series. In russian wikipedia we even have articles for some series of buildings. //Stolbovsky (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't think we have such a category, and we should. Probably plenty of examples in U.S. government buildings, too. I think Category:Standardized buildings would be a good name, but we might leave it a moment for someone else to think of something even better. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Just a quick remark: Category:Prefabricated buildings are usually standardized to some degree. Not the same thing, but related → might want to keep that in mind when building the new category tree … --El Grafo (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, most of them at least in Russia are prefabricated, but it's not the same and not all of them (as I understand, those ones which were built before 1950s). So it is very related, and maybe there should be subcategory like Category:Prefabricated standardized buildings for it. //Stolbovsky (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      • And if we create it, the names of subcategories should be discussed too. How should be called? Series of cinemas buildings? Or type? Or what? My english in this area is too poor. //Stolbovsky (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
        • We've got Category:Panel apartment buildings and subcategory Category:Plattenbau. --ghouston (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
          • But first of all, there are a lot of other standardized buildings, not only apartment. And not all of them are panel buildings. So it is related, but not the same. For example cinema building in Moscow on a picture. There are several of them of this kind in Russia.
            Кинотеатр "Победа". Москва.jpg
            //Stolbovsky (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, the apartment categories are an example of what can be done. For the cinemas, they are in Category:Buildings by Ivan Zholtovsky in Moscow, so grouped by architect already. If you want to go further, they could be Category:Cinemas by Ivan Zholtovsky, but there only seem to be 3 in Commons at present. --ghouston (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
              • This way we categorize by architect. My idea is about type of building. It is different. //Stolbovsky (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
                • If they are by different architects then presumably they have a different design. You'd need to describe what distinguishes them from other types of cinemas, to make a meaningful category and find a name for it. Are there other examples in Commons by different architects? --ghouston (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Category:WHH_GT_18 is a category for a specific building design. --ghouston (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the things that have been mentioned above would become subcategories (directly or indirectly) of Category:Standardized buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-06[edit]

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Introducing the Wiki Playlist[edit]

The Wiki Education Foundation is launching a new tool today, the Wiki Playlist (see With the Playlist, Wikipedia fans, editors, and institutional partners (like universities, academic associations, or GLAMs) will be able to create lists of 3 to 5 English Wikipedia articles, then share it on social media. I’m posting here because it’s a very image-heavy tool, featuring some great photos from Commons.

Wiki Ed sees the Playlist as a way of paying tribute to the longtime effort of Wikipedia contributors who continuously increase content quality. We hope this social media campaign will also remind people that the world of Wikimedia is not all about drama, but about how we all enjoy improving articles, uploading images, and curating content. We're launching this tool in the context of the Wikipedia:Year of Science, a targeted campaign to improve the quality of science-related content on the English Wikipedia.

If you’re interested, I encourage you to visit to create and share a Wiki Playlist of articles with photos you’ve taken, articles you’ve written, or just articles you enjoy. Share your Wiki Playlist on or before Valentine’s Day: after all, it’s about sharing love for Wikipedia! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February 09[edit]


This weeks entry is up , What lurks in the depths of Commons? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Which is to say it is "up" here. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Photos distributed by White House[edit]

I looked at the archives, and am still confused whether there are restrictions on loading certain White House photos to Commons. Consider a photo like File:Barack_Obama_with_artistic_gymnastic_McKayla_Maroney_2.jpg, which states in metadata: This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. Does this imply only the subjects of the photo may use the photo, and it is not suitable for Commons? Does the "may not be manipulated ..." verbiage restrict it from being on Commons? I was under the perception that Commons only wants photos that can be freely altered and redistributed.Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Really good question. Pete Souza took the photo; he's Chief Official White House photographer for President Barack Obama and the director of the White House Photography Office. That presumably makes him a federal government employee, so I have serious doubts about some of those restrictions. Non-copyright laws to restrict the use of images of the president for many narrowly commercial purposes (e.g. advertisements) or in a way that implies a political endorsement, but I doubt that they can legally restrict manipulating or disseminating the photo. Anyone have actual expertise on this? - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There was a 'known issue' a several years ago back (mentioned in the press, even) with the copyright claims being made on White House photos... it was actually behind Flickr's creation of "United States Government Work" as a license option (see for an example of it being in the media). The simple reality is, if it's a work made by a US Government employee in the course of their official duties, then outside of very rare exceptions (like NIST) it's in the PD regardless of what they actually say, and the only restrictions that we really care about are those related to personality rights. The White House got a fair amount of criticism at the time for making invalid claims, but images with those claims in the metadata are still around. Revent (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Other, later, discussion of this, by people who know what they are talking about... Revent (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it permissible to display this template without authorization?[edit]

The template in question is: {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning}} and was posted on category's and will be posted on images. Wikiversity:Second Journal of Science/Past issues/Editorials/About the guilds explains why I put it on some logos.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is permissible to display this template without authorization from WMF, per "The template is intended to be used by the following user groups: all users" in the template documentation. Riley Huntley (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this copyvio or not?[edit]

I wanted to clean the code of the recently uploaded File:Logoirtf.png when I noticed that quite similar IETF's logo is licensed under {{PD-textlogo}}. On the other hand IRTF's logo at en-wiki is marked as "non-free media". IETF and IRTF are sister organizations, IETF sponsors IRTF, their logos are very similar so I think that these logos should be licensed under the same license. But which one? Should they be licensed under {{PD-textlogo}} (personally I think they are too complex for this) or File:Logoirtf.png and File:IETF Logo.svg should be deleted from Commons because they are {{copyvio}}? --jdx Re: 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the additions to the IRTF logo (the extra squares) are getting 'closer' to the point of being a copyrightable arrangement of shapes, but they are not 'clearly' above the line. The PD-USGov license currently on the file is almost certainly wrong, though. Revent (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

TemplateData for Template:Information[edit]

Can someone correct the TemplateData for {{information}}? There are zero "required" parameters, because "required" means "the template will break if you don't include this parameter". The main ones should be marked as "suggested" instead. The handling of TemplateData on this template is fascinating (and when you get this translation system refined, I may want to swipe it for the Haitian Wikipedia, which regularly uses four languages in the project pages), but I can't actually figure out how to edit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 10[edit]