Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:VP/P · COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.


Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Proposal to run a bot to archive every external link using the Internet Archive on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

(Prior discussion Commons:Bots/Work requests#Internet Archive preservation of external links.)

The Wayback machine already works on most major Wikimedia websites.

Dear fellow contributors,

I am proposing to let a bot run on every file on Wikimedia Commons and other relevant pages which utilise external links and archive these links using the Internet Archive for future reference in the same way it is currently done on many other Wikimedia websites. This will allow for license reviewers and re-users to have a point of reference files from external sources as linkrot may obfuscate their original licenses and make it harder to verify them.

For a good (current) example where a changed source page is affecting the license of formerly free files please see "User:Alexis Jazz/DWDD archief". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Votes (archiving external links)[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, obviously as the proposing agent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support This seems useful. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I hope they can handle the traffic.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sounds like a great idea!, Although somewhat unrelated I run this tool all the time at EN (which can replace all dead and alive links with WebArchive) - As noted above given licences can and do change I would support this little gem. –Davey2010Talk 20:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Archive should be done within minutes. This is also useful for Iranian websites which publish content, but occasionally remove them within hours (sometimes at the behest of "censorship office"). For example see File:Pir Shalyar 20190202 06.jpg which no longer can be license-reviewed. Neither Google cache [1] nor Bing cache [2] nor Internet Archive [3] could save the work in time. File:Mahnaz Afshar 20190201 01.jpg is another example which was fortunately saved using Google cache. In this case the problem was apparently violation of dress code. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Common sense idea. This also will help prevent DRs and "no source" tagging. Abzeronow (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support This consensus helps to ensure that later housekeeping or bot maintainers can more easily handle complaints, related to what is likely to affect millions of files. Where there are specialized issues, such as "hot" websites where the quoted source is at risk of being taken down, these may need bot tasks negotiated that periodically rerun. For very large stable collections, like Geograph or the British Library, these can run relatively slowly as background maintenance, and it hardly matters whether a new upload waits to have its links added to WBM for a few months. -- (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support yes please. --Jarekt (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support and for robots sites [4] go to -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support This would be a good prevention of linkrot. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support Platonides (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Blue Elf (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support Bj.schoenmakers I'm already using this to preserve copyright information on sites where people can adjust their own copyright on images. My upload-bot will post the url to waybackmachine/ first and use the returned date in my template in the commons upload: for example {{Archive.orgTimeStamp|20190303145847|}} —Preceding comment was added at 00:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  15. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Very good idea Vulphere 15:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO very good Proposal -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 18:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  17. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --oSeveno (User talk) 15:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support but see my comment below. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Molgreen (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (archiving external links)[edit]

How should this best be implemented? Is the page "User:Fæ/Wayback" developed by a good model? Personally I propose "[EXTERNAL LINK] (ARCHIVE, retrieved: DD-MM-YYYY)". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: "{{Wayback|url=http%3A//|date=20150316101047}}" (implemented as "archive copy at the Wayback Machine (archived on 16 March 2015)" on File:143, Sverige, Stockholm, Roslagsbanans depå (Trainpix 122696).jpg) is standardized and looks nicer, you can discuss on Template talk:Wayback if you disagree.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: indeed, that looks way better, and having a standard template for Internet Archive Wayback Machine links would also make it easier to be consistent. Face-smile.svg I honestly wasn't aware of the existence of "{{Wayback}}", this would make implementing the above proposal easier as well. Face-grin.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) ill have (Articles 📚) 12:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Though some earlier wayback additions were the links only, and others like Fortepan have the WBM link added as part of a specialized collection template, the largest collection so far, the Portable Antiquities Scheme uploads are using the preexisting wayback template. See File:BUCKLE_(FindID_187883).jpg or File:Cavalry Soldiers rehearse live-fire exercises with Lithuanian partners 141118-A-QS211-838.jpg for examples of how this looks. -- (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand the proposal. Are we voting on something that will be done on the Wayback-homepage? --Schlurcher (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Schlurcher:, this proposal is so that all external links could be backed up using the Wayback Machine using a bot, this would create a snapshot of the external website which future people could use to confirm the licenses of files. For example I import a photograph from (example website) but then this website disappears a year later, a license reviewer then tries to confirm the license but can't, now this image will have to be deleted because its free license can’t be confirmed (see “COM:PCP”), now if this external website was backed up using the Internet Archive this file would not have to be deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: or you could use some examples that actually happened: Commons:Village pump#License reviewers and admins help is needed ASAP (we got lucky with that one and everything could be reviewed in time), Category:Images from and Category:Photographs by Agencia Brasil. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is still being discussed, but Internet Archive is already doing this and we have stats that nearly all the links we have in file descriptions are already archived. Nemo 08:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the stats, or a link to where someone has confirmed that the tool is crawling Wikimedia Commons, not just Wikipedia? Seconds before I write this, this WBM link is being added to a DoD photograph uploaded in 2016, it was not on the IA until I added it today. The majority of the Commons images I am adding WBM links for are not already on the IA. You may be confusing the undocumented exercise to add all Featured Pictures to the WBM with doing it for everything else. As a quick test using a sample of 1,000 files, the ratio of 'already on IA' to 'not on IA' for the DoD project is 42%, and most have been hosted on Commons for several years; in that time quite a large number have suffered with linkrot (for non-DVIDs sources), so are already too late for the WBM. -- (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I just saw your comments, is this already true for Wikimedia Commons? Because I imported a couple of hundred files from a University which just completely changed how its URL's work and now all of the old URL's don't function anymore, would the InternetArchiveBot immediately recognise them in the Internet Archive? Or aren't these links archived yet? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While I generally support the idea, I am a bit afraid that IA ban us when we try to archive large bunch of external webpages. Especially if a user intentionally adds a bunch of links (not necessarily related to the uploaded file) in the file description page. IMO, the better solution would be to archive the links somewhere in Wikimedia (and not necessarily make them available to the whole public). Ankry (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I created over 400,000 links on IA over a couple of weeks as part of housekeeping my Commons upload projects, if their interface is being used correctly, I doubt anyone would get access blocked. As for using Wikimedia, it was confirmed on the Wikimedia-l email list that there are no plans or strategy in place by the WMF to maintain any public archives, ever. If Wikimedia Commons went offline next month, there is zero guarantee that the WMF would give public access to an archive, while the Internet Archive explicitly guarantees it, with a strategy behind it for 100 years. -- (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture which is work of a user should automatically get the QI Tag[edit]

  • Why do we need to nominate a FI which is work of a user for QI, when the quality of FI is better than QI ? Why not mark then them QI automatically ? -- EATCHA (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support marking own work FPs as QIs automatically.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, this makes a lot of sense. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FP and QI guidelines are not identical. --Smial (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are cases where featured pictured are not QI. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - support as proposer, please look at obvious QIs like these 1, 2, 3, 4 and many more. Why we need to nominate these at QIC ? -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 14:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just found out many Picture of the Year winners are not QI. A small list out of these non QI POTY is here. -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 14:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I quickly poked at that list, and the first images I looked at weren't the product of Commons users. Quality images must be the product of Commons users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I struck those 2 non common user works. That means 11 non QI FIs are still left that too only from POTYs. If some of user are against this automatic marking proposal , how about If no user is against marking an Image as QI at the FI nomination Page, then Mark it with the QI stamp ? -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 03:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't need a new rule for that. Just nominate them for QI. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Yann, what about others work ? can I nominate their works without consulting them and is it considered civil ? -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 14:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I mean what if I nominated their work and it does get rejected ? -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 14:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't need the permission from the authors, but sending them a message would be nice. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I am nominating 5 out of these 11 POTYs -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 16:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI is not a subset of FP. As noted, QI is only applicable to image taken by Commons users. Also an FP is allowed to have weaknesses in technical quality if the image has sufficient wow. A QI is not concerned with wow. A good example is POTY File:Jubilee_and_Munin,_Ravens,_Tower_of_London_2016-04-30.jpg which failed as an QI nom by Eatcha. Personally, I think the focus on technical qualities that are easily learned and measured (noise, blown highlights, CA, distortions), rather than artistic qualities (composition, light, moment captured) and subject qualities makes QI a forum of dubious merit. The raven's photo captured a great moment, where the birds seemed to be performing a little comedy routine, while capturing enough of the background to be recognised as the Tower of London. The image is highly used and well liked (per POTY) yet has technical flaws that QI cannot see beyond. I'm not sure what QI's purpose really is, beyond teaching people to pixel-peep. -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are times when the "wow" overcomes the quality at FPC. I have some such FPs myself and I would never consider nominating them for QI and I hope no-one else does either. That would just be embarrassing. --Cart (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann.--Vulphere 10:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to allow only Featured Media as Media of the day[edit]

Dear users,

Should we allow only media featured through Featured sound candidates and Featured video candidates as Media of the day ? I guess this will significantly improve the quality of Media of the day and encourage users/creators to focus on Quality and standards ? You please take a look at POTDs and MOTDs, did you noticed any difference ? I believe that this difference is due to the lack of platform like Commons:Featured picture candidates, a Picture of the day has to face our reviewers at the Featured picture candidates, but the same is not happening with the Media of the day. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 18:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Votes (allow only Featured Media as Media of the day)[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 18:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. The featured video candidates project was only just started, so there are literally no featured videos at this moment. Once there is a decent collection to choose from, perhaps this will be sensible, but not now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1. it's too early as Alexis Jazz says 2. I don't like the extra layer of bureaucracy/gatekeeping in principle. Abzeronow (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose May be later, when we have a stock of featured content. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Time2wait.svg later I like the idea, but let's first make sure that these two projects actually take off. --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alexis Jazz. Vulphere 10:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg not now. Millennium bug (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments (allow only Featured Media as Media of the day)[edit]

I think the educational value is also part of the criteria for featured media. But we definitely need to wait some month until we have enough Featured Videos and at least one new per day. --GPSLeo (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not see any lack of diversity in POTDs of the past month, I guess same will happen with MOTDs + their overall quality and educational values will increase if the above proposal is implemented. And please note that if this gets implemented then, there will be no problem with number of Featured Videos and sounds that are nominated as the user who are directly adding their files in MOTDs would instead nominate them first at the FSC and FVC and most importantly these near dead projects (FVC and FSC) will revive -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 12:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: there is far less audio and video than there are pictures. I think one issue is that afaik not many people are involved with MOTD. The Featured video candidates project was only just started, so there isn't any featured media to pick from at this moment. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIF, the FS was nominated for deletion in 2010 but was kept ( SEE Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Featured sounds ). At that time it was suggested to be merged with Featured pictures, but it was never done and I guess it can't be done ever. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 14:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Option to extract date from file name in Upload Wizard[edit]

the video I uploaded doesn't contain EXIF metadata to indicate the time of capturing. Instead it is presented in file name, i.e. XXX_20yymmdd_hhmmss.webm. It's a tedious thing to copy-paste them one by one when uploading. And as far as I can say, imaging equipment also uses similar naming scheme by default. So it might be useful to add such an option. Tomskyhaha (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC) p.s. For splitted video files, the last 3 or 2 characters need to be ignored. eg. yymmdd_hhmmss_01. I suddenly realized that, there are so many variations out there, one might just have to write a JavaScript to achieve such function. Tomskyhaha (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Update the username policy[edit]

Replace the section Usernames requiring identification with these paragraphs. It doesn't so much change the existing policy as that it clarifies it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Update the username policy: votes[edit]

Update the username policy: discussion[edit]

Discuss details for this proposal here.

  • I've actually wanting to bring up some issues with the current policy (or rather the enforcement of it), there are several organisations such as the Swiss National Library, several other national libraries, GLAM's, and German companies that have operated Wikimedia SUL-accounts on Wikimedia Commons for years and have uploaded tens of thousands of images (a piece in some cases). These company accounts are very productive users and have donated a great deal of free knowledge to Wikimedia Commons, however I have also seen several username blocks on the ground that the user name represents a museum, company, Etc. If these companies confirm that they are official accounts through the Wikimedia Commons OTRS and can confirm that they own the copyright of the files that they're uploading then this would be very beneficial and could attract more GLAM institutions. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh, there's a bit too much paranoia about account names, when a bit more good faith where it makes little difference would save on bureaucracy. If User:KrispyKreme is uploading good quality photographs of donuts every month, and there are no obvious copyvio or spamming issues, nobody should care very much. We should only be slapping people with policies where the are problems, not hypothetical problems. -- (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@: if the person behind User:KrispyKreme is actually a wholesaler and they may or may not have extracted those photographs from PDFs that Krispy Kreme may send out to wholesalers (which we'd never detect as copyvio), that would be an issue. Even if it's simply a Krispy Kreme fan who happens to have a high-end camera, at some point it will probably be discovered that this fan is not actually the Krispy Kreme company. When that happens, all those delicious donuts will quite possibly be deleted per PRP. If you are going to say you're a well known company/person, I think asking for verification is reasonable. The donut fan that didn't quite think their username through would also be able to request a rename at that point and avoid future misery. Regardless, this proposal isn't even about any of this! The current wording is "Use of the names of "organizations" is prohibited unless you provide evidence" and my proposed text changes this to "Use of the names of organizations is only allowed on Commons if you provide evidence". If you want to propose an actual change to the policy, you can create a new proposal for that. I was even doubting if I would simply make an edit request or even just make the edit, because my proposed text doesn't actually change the policy. But quite some people seem to think (until recently, so did I) that using the name of an organization was forbidden. The proposed text clarifies this is not true and explains why some people may think that. (enwiki) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tiny suggested tweak because I like 'only' to be unambiguous: replace only allowed on Commons if you provide evidence with allowed on Commons only if you provide evidence. --bjh21 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Having read the proposal more thoroughly, the main policy change here seems to be to permit organizations, but not notable individuals, to validate an account by providing a link from an official Web page. Is there a reason behind this distinction? I'd be in favour of allowing that kind of validation in both cases. --bjh21 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bjh21: The text was restructured a few times, I think that was at least partly responsible for the difference. The current policy text doesn't really offer a method of validating an account by linking from an official web page. If Donald Trung and Vulphere are okay with this version I'll change it to that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, I find no reason to object. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is reasonable.--Vulphere 21:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made some minor changes to the last bullet point, as I found the wording a bit confusing. Please revert if it's not better than before … --El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Enable convert-to-DR button for everyone[edit]

According to our deletion policy, when anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, they should "convert to a regular deletion request".

I never quite understood how I was supposed to do that. There were signs that it was possible. Now that I became a filemover, the buttons suddenly appeared! It's part of AjaxQuickDelete, which is enabled by default, but ordinary users don't get DR conversion buttons.

As the policy says anyone who disagrees should convert, I propose we make the "Convert to DR" button available to anyone. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Enable convert-to-DR button for everyone: votes[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Makes sense. --Yann (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sounds sensible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's in MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js in the section commented with "// Install AjaxMoveButton for filemovers and administrators". It'd be nice to know why this restriction was thought necessary. Can it be abused in some way? Perhaps Rillke would know, having done much work on the gadget. --ghouston (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support The rules may be applied, but "anyone" seems very large and I guess many non-productive discussions will overwhelm us so police may be reviwed. Millennium bug (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, seriously, why are such basic (handy) features always hidden away from "untrusted" users? This would be really useful for everyone. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GPSLeo (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Enable convert-to-DR button for everyone: discussion[edit]

Discuss details for this proposal here.

I was perplexed why many people were obviously using some kind of script that converted the thing but I could not see the button. Why was it reserved for filemovers? It should be enabled for all autopatrollers.--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question, should I (or someone else) open a Phabricator ticket for this? It's been open for almost a month with no opposition. We should have a standard procedure for when we can open Phabcrixator tickets related to Wikimedia Commons proposals that have gained "community support" or "the mandate of the community". Though we could also wait until it's been a full month or 30 (thirty) days after it's launch. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks[edit]

Dof blocks f22.jpg

Types of blocks[edit]

No functionality will change for sitewide blocks. All existing blocks will remain in place and the ability to block troublesome users from the entire wiki will remain as-is. In addition to sitewide blocks, we would like to introduce the ability to block a user from:

  1. Editing one or more specific page(s)
  2. Editing all pages within one or more namespace(s)
  3. Emailing other users

Use cases[edit]

These types of partial blocks could be useful when:

  • An otherwise productive user has an agenda on a particular topic (e.g. politics, religion, etc.)
  • There is sustained vandalism to one page from an identifiable IP range (e.g. students from one sports team vandalizing pages about a rival team.)
  • Two or more users have been sanctioned with an interaction ban
  • A user abuses the Email User feature but is otherwise productive on-wiki
  • A user makes ill-advised edits to templates


These partial blocks would work similar to sitewide blocks:

  • Can be set by administrators.
  • Can be set for usernames, IP addresses, or IP ranges
  • Will include standard block parameters: reason, expiration, talk and subpage inclusion, and the option to autoblock IPs.!--T:14-->
  • Will appear on the block log, Special:BlockList, and everywhere else sitewide blocks appear.
  • When a user has been blocked, they will see a block message displayed that explains what they are prevented from editing in addition to the rest of the block information (the admin who blocked them, when the block expires, the block reason, and how to request an unblock.) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Integration of „“ into all license templates[edit]

better: into all "suitable" license templates --Molgreen (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I am often asked how to correctly specify the license information for Wikimedia Commons files when using the files. And often of the time I am insecure myself.

A very good help for me is the tool: (en)

I would like to suggest the following:

In all license templates (for example: {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}) the link to "" should be included.

This is how I imagine it:

--Molgreen (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

in German: Einbindung von „“ in alle Lizenzvorlagen

Häufig werde ich gefragt, wie man für Wikimedia Commons Dateien die Lizenzangaben bei Verwendung der Dateien korrekt angibt. Und meist bin ich selbst unsicher . . .

Eine sehr gute Hilfe ist für mich das Werkzeug: (de)

Ich möchte folgendes vorschlagen: In alle Lizenzvorlagen (zum Beispiel: {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}) sollte der Link zu „“ eingebunden werden.

So oder ähnlich stelle ich es mir vor:

--Molgreen (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

!voting (attribution tool)[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. Needs more polishing at any rate before this can be voted on. doesn't even seem to be capable of accepting the Commons filename in the URL. It may be overcomplicating things anyway: a variation/subset of {{Not public domain}} is also possible. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now per Alexis.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: While the tool is very useful, I don't think it's reliable enough to include in every licence template. At a minimum, it would be pointless to use it in templates that it can't understand, like {{OGL3}} or {{Attribution}}. It even gets some Creative Commons licences wrong. For instance, when applied to File:21 Market Place, Uttoxeter.jpg (requesting off-line, isolated, unmodified use), it yields Mike Faherty (,_Uttoxeter.jpg), „21 Market Place, Uttoxeter“, But that's not correct. CC BY-SA 2.0 requires including the title of the picture as specified by the author, and that's “Uttoxeter, Horse & Dove” (as shown in the picture's {{Credit line}}), not “21 Market Place, Uttoxeter”. I wouldn't object to its use on templates for which it generates correct results (perhaps just the CC 4.0 series?), but it should be limited to those. --bjh21 (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    If there is written: "Attribution: Mike Faherty", direct under the license statement then this, I think this attribution is correct. Habitator terrae 🌍 12:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alexis and Habitator terrae.--Vulphere 07:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments (attribution tool)[edit]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please also note, that the generator only works for CC-licenses. Habitator terrae 🌍 09:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Molgreen: In English, you could add "(attribution tool)" at the end of the "attribution" line in the CC licenses that require attribution. Can the file name or URL be passed to the tool in the URL? If so, what is the syntax for that?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:, @Jeff G.:, @Bjh21: Thank you for your feedback. You are of course right: the integration is only useful for the templates for which the license notice is correct.

And yes, the automatic transfer of the name of the file would be very useful.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Molgreen (talk • contribs)

@Jeff G., Molgreen: turns out the site actually does allow a url to be passed. For those wanting to use/link this, {{}} and {{}} are available. Result of the latter: Use the Attribution Generator to generate a license notice for easy and legally secure reuse. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

example: thanks to Alexis Jazz --Molgreen (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Did you create the template {{}}? That's great! I think in German "Verwenden Sie den Lizenzhinweisgenerator zur einfachen und rechtssicheren Nachnutzung." would fit better. Thank You! --Molgreen (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Molgreen: Yes. You can edit - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: very nice! I adapted the text. --Molgreen (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This overlaps with the StockPhoto gadget, which is currently enabled for everyone (logged-in and logged-out) on all files. The question for me would be, is the lizenzhinweisgenerator a better choice for the functionality, and if so, what’s the plan to deprecate the existing UI. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Upgrade Commons:Civility from essay to policy[edit]

It integrates with {{Be civil}} and {{Be civil final}}, and has versions on 57 different language Wikipedias.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

!voting (Civility)[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry, but I don’t like a kind of “civility” where routine conflicts from Commons and Wikipedia are exported to Meta-wiki, being converted to an obvious harassment. I don’t like “civility” whose proponents refer to my postings as to “usual nonsense” meanwhile demanding from me to be “civil”. Long live civility without enforcers of civility. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a rather unnecessarily rambling single user essay, cut & paste last month with very few changes from Wikipedia, that fails to build on any solid foundations, such as our Scope, PRP, BP, IDENT, L policies, all of which are relevant in different ways to an understanding of how being mellow (or "civil") works on Commons, or how challenging an upload based on copyright, or putting a file up for deletion review, may be contentious but rarely uncivil. Key evidence that the essay is nowhere near ready to be a Commons policy is that it is literally stuffed with cross-references to English Wikipedia and Meta policies and guidelines rather than Commons, even the handful of footnotes. Completely absent is the concept that Commons is multilingual (which the English Wikipedia is not) and so what might appear not mellow or insulting in one language and national culture might feel fine if being translated from another; this absence is a massive hole in this essay as on many occasions misunderstandings do arise from basic cultural and lingual differences and to stay mellow any Commons regular contributor must keep in mind that this project is not an English project even though at the current time most contributions are in that language. -- (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First I thank you for taking this step but really the creation of a new policy is likely to take months. So a copy/paste from English Wikipedia and trim is insufficient for us to open voting. Please please can you close this poll as it will snowball fail. Instead you should publish to the VPs to alert people to the new proposed policy/guideline and encourage editing by the community. I would then expect talk page discussions on the policy to allow editors to discuss changes, etc, and then this to reach a level of maturity and consensus that it is ready for a vote. Only vote after you think you have consensus, please stop opening polls on a novel topic where you are unaware of community consensus. In addition to the multilingual/cultural aspects noted by Fae, the policy is hindered by the absence of related policy/guideline on:
Without these, the definition of civility is incomplete. Many editors and admins are quite clueless about what actually constitutes a personal attack (it is not merely expressing a negative opinion about another person). Further the term "harassment" is used on Commons far too casually. We saw the other day, one admin claiming "harassment" when a user had merely opened a DR (which has merit). Our policy on that term (unless we can find a better alternative word) needs to consider that "online harassment" is actually a criminal offence in the UK. Online harassment, combined with a personal attack (such as on the person's gender, sexuality, religion, etc) is also defined as a hate crime in the UK. These are really serious offences, which also makes gratuitous baseless claims of harassment/personal-attack a serious offence.
While Wikipedia has disputes about articles, which have similarities to disputes about file description pages, categories, forums and galleries, etc, we also have disputes about media and with external users (photographers, agents, companies, subjects, etc). Any policy needs to consider how those are different. For example, we need to deal with complaints made by external users (who may merely have registered an account in order to communicate) with professionalism and respect, rather than the hostility for breaching polices or not understanding how deletion works. We don't handle the "angry customer" situation well at all. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless you are planning to provide everyone with free unlimited Xanax. (and that would be a policy violation right there I guess) I'll explain my view further below. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty much per above; this sort of mission creep eventually leads to Wikilawyering in my experience, and I don't think we need it set in stone. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin and Fae. Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support It's necessary but there may be adjustments. Millennium bug (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Generally speaking CIVILTY isn't really enforced on EN and given this is a multilingual project non-English people could see things differently. –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin and Fae.--Vulphere 07:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Civility)[edit]

First of all, thanks for the effort! But I really wish we would have an obligatory round of feedback before we vote on this kind of thing. After all, changing a policy after it has been formally established can be difficult. After the first read I have two points:

  1. The way this whole thing is written feels more like a Guideline to me. It would nicely fit into behavioral guidelines section at Commons:Policies and guidelines, right next to things like COM:AGF.
  2. Since this is pretty much a copy of the policy at en.wikipedia I'm wondering which points that are unique to Commons are missing. One would certainly be acknowledging that Commons being a multi-lingual project that is nevertheless predominantly run in English is a major source of misunderstanding and avoidable conflict …

--El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Changing language of filenames and categories is already covered at COM:FR and COM:C, but I am open to adding specific text about such changes to the subject page. If you wanted to make a subsection for !voting about it being a guideline instead, I would support that.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I'm not talking about file names and categories, I'm talking about communication issues – Basically what wrote in the vote above. And I'm not going to bother setting up another vote because the whole thing is not fit for a vote yet. The Wikipedia policy is a possible starting point, but there is still a lot of work to be done, as indicated above by Fæ and Colin. You've got the attention now, propose to use the momentum, abort the vote here and start a project of interested users shaping a guideline that is specifically tailored for Commons. --El Grafo (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Commons' code of conduct" is compared to en.wp's Five Pillars? Could someone provide a link to the code of conduct please? -- (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I think this is a terrible idea. First of all: harassment is already grounds for blocking users. So are edit-warring and other forms of disruption. Debates get heated, and that's fine. Saying "this is a dumb idea" is fine. In fact, saying "this is a fucking stupid idea" is fine. Ad hominem attacks ("you are dumb", "you are fucking stupid") are not fine. This proposed "civility" policy is basically just saying any heated debate is off the table, more or less killing all meaningful debate. I'll pass. Anger is a human emotion and shouldn't be banned from Commons. That doesn't mean you are free to attack anyone, but you are free to attack anyone's arguments. I oppose any "civility" policy, I'll consider a "decency" policy. (but such a policy may end up being redundant as we already have harassment and disruption policies) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw this proposal, let's talk at Commons talk:Civility.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote User:4nn1l2/Civility and I appreciate your feedback. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2, Jeff G.:
"Such criticism naturally can be direct and hard on the facts, but in a community it should also remain strictly respectful in tone towards others."
(WMF's statement after banning Fram basically for saying fuck, wheel warring with Floquenbeam and desysopping Floquenbeam for a month)
This is why we should never fucking ever implement any sort of policy even goddamn remotely like this. It'd just be inviting that WMF shitstorm over here. Also, we need to swear more. They can't ban us all. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Not convinced. I am not fully aware of this enwiki incident and do not know this enwiki user "Fram", but they have been uncivil towards ArbCom, i.e. a group of users, and that personal attack makes their block/ban justified if enforced/imposed by the community (No idea about the WMF action though). My understanding is that one is free to use the F-word as they wish, even directing it towards real people in the real world, but not towards Wikimedia users who are our red line. See also Special:Diff/330796896. I support civility. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: WMF blocked Fram out of the blue, no community discussion. The community is overwhelmingly against this and admin Floquenbeam unblocks Fram. In response, WMF reblocks Fram and desysops Floquenbeam for a month because iron fist. Now admin Bishonen unblocks Fram. Floquenbeam, trying to see if this is indeed a case of iron fist, requests a resysop. Which is granted!! by bureaucrat WJBscribe. WMF states that even though Fram is now unblocked, if Fram makes as much as one edit on enwiki they will be globally banned/locked. To be continued? Shitstorm I tell ya. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: As far as I understand, the WMF is trying to enforce Terms of Use, not civility policy on the English Wikipedia, and the banned user does not seem that innocent to me, although I understand the user's and the community's frustration.
That being said, I guess the timing is not good for proposing a new civility policy on Commons now in the light of the English Wikipedia incident; many users will probably be on the defensive. Maybe one year later... 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard[edit]

Administrators and license reviewers can upload as many files as they want with UploadWizard, but all others are limited to a paltry 50 files. This can force users to upload a shoot in batches, use third party upload tools or even upload to Flickr first and import with Flickr2Commons afterwards, which has no such limit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard for autopatrolled users: votes[edit]

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard for autopatrolled users. (this includes all users with the autopatrol flag, like patrollers) If your support depends on it being raised no higher than some number, include that number in your vote.

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard for autoconfirmed users: votes[edit]

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard for autoconfirmed users. If your support depends on it being raised no higher than some number, include that number in your vote.

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard for all other users: votes[edit]

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard for all other users. If your support depends on it being raised no higher than some number, include that number in your vote.

Increase the maximum number of files in UploadWizard: discussion[edit]

Discuss details for this proposal here.

  • After voting we will see up to what number there is majority support for any given option. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Correction, Flickr2Commons can only upload based on a ratelimit, I believe 700 (seven-hundred) images for non-admins, or maybe less, I remember trying to upload large batches from a single museum and having to run the entire batch again after 30 (thirty) minutes because of a ratelimit. Thess rate limits will probably also have to be adjusted if this/these proposal(s) are adopted by the community. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Depends on how UploadWizard deals with ratelimits. I think UL does it better than F2C. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this is a stupid question but inregards to the second !vote - when we say "other users" do we mean just like passers by/non-tool editors ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: you mean the third? If you are logged in with an account that was registered less than 4 days ago, you are not autoconfirmed yet. This group doesn't really have a name, afaik. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oops my bad yep meant third, Ah okay many thanks for replying/answering :), –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There should be a finite limit to prevent the wizard/webpage from crashing or other technical problems. The limit shall be left to the developers to decide.--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: that's also my vote: no artificial limit needed. Technical limits, for example to guarantee stability, are fine. I'm not sure what the limit (if any) for admins and license reviewers is. (what's your limit?) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Template:PD-GovEdict[edit]

Template:PD-GovEdict currently redirects to {{PD-US-GovEdict}}. Shouldn't it link to {{PD-US-GovEdict}}? –MJLTalk 19:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Redirect created in 2009. {{PD-US-GovEdict}} also from 2009, {{PD-US-GovEdict}} was created in 2010. Only 142 files affected, most seem similar, so just figure out which template they should use, quick replace, done. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Create user group 'template editor'[edit]

I propose to create a new user group called "template editor' with the following rights:

  • Edit protected templates (templateeditor)
  • Enable two-factor authentication (oathauth-enable)
  • Override the title or username blacklist (tboverride)

I know several trusted technical users who regularly make edit requests. They should be able to edit the protected templates themselves, and maybe help with fulfilling edit request made by their fellow users.

Requests to become a template editor should be made at Commons:Requests for rights and granting this right to candidates is at the discretion of admins. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Create user group 'template editor': votes[edit]

Create user group 'template editor': discussion[edit]

  • Wouldn't it be wise to create noticeboards for every user group (except for "Autopatrolled") such as "Commons:Template editors' noticeboard" to request edits to be made to certain templates? Well, maybe not a separate noticeboard for every group, but maybe a page named "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard" with a special section like "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard#Template editors"? This way new people or users without advanced rights can bring light issues to their attention and help fight backlog. And copyright issues related to certain templates or perhaps proposals for mass-implementing templates could also be discussed here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this, but wonder if this could be combined with my idea for general maintainers? (one does not exclude the other though) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Will a list of eligible pages to be downgraded for the role be created similiar to this? -- 1989 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Rudimentary counting of Special:ProtectedPages shows that there are 3,499 fully protected pages in the template namespace. That includes all pages including translations, documentations, etc. that happen to also be fully protected. Some of these would probably need to remain fully protected for one reason or another, being tied to the main page being one of the reasons that pops into my mind, but the vast majority could probably be downgraded to a "template editor" protection level. --Majora (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Create user group 'template editor': Padlock[edit]

Support padlock option 1[edit]

  1. Option 1 for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Option 1 for me too. Template-protection-shackle-brace.svg is not clear. BTW, why the vertical bar inside curly brackets? 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Option 1 is easier to read and more accurate in its intention, though the brackets could use a rework to look like the ones in Option 2. I note, however, that the Chinese Wikipedia ended up adopting Template-protection-shackle-picture-1.svg instead. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support padlock inbetween[edit]

  1. Even better, see how it looks at 20px: Template-protection-shackle icon.svg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Looks best to me at icon size Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support padlock alternate[edit]

  1. This alternate for option 1 also matches other padlocks featuring characters: Template-protection-shackle-brackets 2.svg ({{). Compare Extended-protection-shackle.svgFull-protection-shackle.svgTemplate-protection-shackle.svgOffice-protection-shackle.svgCreate-protection-shackle.svg used on enwiki. A variant with bigger symbol was aesthetically unappealing. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. This would be my second choice.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support padlock option 2[edit]

  1. Option 2 (two) looks the best, in my opinion. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Option 2 - the brackets are better to distinguish, at option 1 the are too difficult to identify as brackets --sarang사랑 03:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Sarang: actually, that's not universally true. At icon size, Template-protection-shackle-brackets.svg is more clear than Template-protection-shackle-brace.svg. Option 2 couldn't be used anywhere at icon size. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    The different protection messages shows it larger; there are at least 3 larger displays. Because always the same icon should flag the same case, I am thinking about creating an icon which combines both advantages. --sarang사랑 07:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) - - - It looks like that: Template-protection-shackle icon.svg - the rough drawn large curlies are better visible?
  3. Option 2 - Best design.--Vulphere 04:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Create user group 'general maintainer'[edit]

Some Commons users do a lot of maintenance and other work here, but they may not be interested in becoming an administrator or not deemed suitable by the community.

When it comes to administrators, there are two reasons we can't promote everyone to be an administrator: the community doesn't trust everyone with the mop and for the WMF administrators (to be precise: anyone who can view deleted content) are a legal liability. Being an administrator on a Wikimedia project also carries some legal risk for the administrators themselves because of that.

A general maintainer wouldn't quite be an administrator, but would be given access to various tools. They need to be users who can be trusted not to abuse their tools (similar to, for example, rollbackers), but don't need overly extensive copyright knowledge (like a license reviewer) and the community doesn't need to trust them with sanctioning other users. General maintainer can be a step towards adminship, but doesn't have to be. You also won't have to be a GM to apply for adminship.

A general maintainer could:

  • Move files
  • Delete their own files and revisions (very handy for mass-uploaders who spot a bad file after uploading and map makers who need to delete inaccurate old revisions of maps)
  • Speedy delete abusive uploads (these deletions would always be accompanied by a report on COM:ANB)
  • Hide abusive page revisions (vandalism)
  • Handle G7 requests that fully meet the G7 criteria. (original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content)
  • More easily close-keep DRs as they have DelReqHandler, but by default they should only close DRs that any user would be allowed to close: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." (but read more below)
  • Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol)
  • Not be affected by rate limits for edits, moves, uploads, rollbacks, purges and thumbnail rendering (depending on developer preferences, they may get noratelimit instead, but deletions will be limited to 10 per minute)
  • Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect)
  • Enable 2FA
  • Edit protected templates (templateeditor)
  • Override the title or username blacklist (tboverride)
  • Batch-upload more files at once with Upload Wizard (mass-upload)

Unlike an administrator, a general maintainer can't:

  • Delete more than 10 files per minute
  • Do license reviews (unless they also apply to be a license reviewer)
  • Block users
  • Restore files (undelete)
  • Deal with DRs and copyvios (but read more below)
  • Perform history merging and splitting (this requires undelete)
  • Edit pages protected as "Allow only administrators" (editprotected) and fulfill edit requests
  • Change protection levels and edit cascade-protected pages (protect)
  • Configure Upload Wizard campaigns (upwizcampaigns)
  • Work on abuse filters

Requests to become a general maintainer should be made at Commons:Requests for rights and granting this right to candidates is at the discretion of admins. Obviously, only properly experienced users should be made general maintainers.

To prevent an endless accumulation of GM accounts as people often naturally move on as years pass by, to retain GM status the user should make at least 1 edit per year.

Community approved general maintainer

If a general maintainer also wants to engage in dealing with DRs (including close-deleting them), copyvios, etc (which technically they can), they need a community mandate very much like an RFA. For the community, the bar to support such a request will be lower than the bar to support adminship. One does not have to already be a GM in order to apply for community approved general maintainer.

A general maintainer with community approval could, in addition to everything a GM is capable of:

  • Delete more than 10 files per minute
  • Deal with DRs and copyvios
  • Edit pages protected as "Allow only administrators" (editprotected) and fulfill edit requests
  • Change protection levels and edit cascade-protected pages (protect)

Both the GM and the community approved GM can be voted on. They don't exclude or require each other. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Create user group 'general maintainer': votes[edit]

General maintainers, this right can be requested at Commons:Requests for rights and granting this right to candidates is at the discretion of admins.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose See discussion section for my reasoning. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nonsense proposal. If an editor wants to "Delete their own files and revisions," "Speedy delete abusive uploads," "Hide abusive page revisions," etc. they are, by default, "interested in becoming an administrator" (no admin is forced to block, do license reviews, etc.) and if they are "not deemed suitable by the community" to be a "full" admin, they are not trusted enough for this thinly veiled "admin lite." COM:RFA is that way. Эlcobbola talk 19:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 18:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Primarily for the inclusion of revision deletion abilities. Revision deletion should remain in the hands of individuals who have gone through RfA. It is a powerful tool in a movement that should be as open as possible and shouldn't be taken lightly. Also there is nothing in the current system that allows for the selective deletion of "own" files. What if the file was overwritten with a new one? Could you only delete your version or all versions? The delete system also doesn't care what tag is on it. Limiting it to G7 would be pointless from a technical standpoint. If such technical limitations can be surmounted and iff the revision deletion abilities are stricken from this proposal I would be more apt to be neutral on the whole thing. --Majora (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Create user group 'CA general maintainer': votes[edit]

Community approved general maintainers, they are promoted after a successful RfA-like vote.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, see my comments here (Mobile 📱). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See discussion section for my reasoning. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nonsense proposal. If an editor wants to "Delete their own files and revisions," "Speedy delete abusive uploads," "Hide abusive page revisions," etc. they are, by default, "interested in becoming an administrator" (no admin is forced to block, do license reviews, etc.) and if they are "not deemed suitable by the community" to be a "full" admin, they are not trusted enough for this thinly veiled "admin lite." COM:RFA is that way. Эlcobbola talk 19:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Honestly I don't see how "admin lite" would help otherwise qualified people who are controversial pass this although I could see it helping increase the show of support of candidates that people feel uneasy about giving the ability to block but feel fine about giving them other admin-like abilities. I also don't see current admins supporting this proposal if above votes are any indication. And I'd vote for Patrick Rogel to get the mop. (since Alexis mentioned them in the discussion). Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 18:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral leaning BA candidate.svg Weak oppose This section I'm much more meh on than the above one mostly because it includes a requirement that you would have to go through an RfA like process but like Abzeronow stated I don't really see the point of segregating such things out. If I trust you to delete and protect I trust you to have a full mop. Quite simple in my mind. I'm a little concerned about protection abilities and the sometimes vagueness that is associated with DRs and copyvios (where exactly should the GM draw the line) but obviously if it can be revoked easily in instances of problems whatever. As a side note, I'm guessing this would be grantable, and therefore removable, by admins not just 'crats even though it would have to go through a "RfA-like" process. If people really think that segregating this out would get us more help so be it, I just don't necessarily think it is needed to do so. --Majora (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

General maintainers: discussion[edit]

Discuss details for this proposal here.

  • We might think of a better user group name for CA general maintainers, but don't let your vote hinge on that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly a well-intentioned proposal, but I'm not convinced by this attempt at defining an "admin light" permission. I see it as problematic to be able to delete, but not to view deleted content. Especially the proposed "general maintainer with community approval" who would be allowed to "deal with DRs and copyvios" - for such cases, viewing deleted content is often helpful or even necessary. Just one recent example: In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Terence Winter.jpg, a file got nominated for deletion as "already deleted". In fact, the deleted one only has the same file name as the newly uploaded image. - I think the WMF would have no problem with giving a few dozen people more full admin permissions (that would still be comparable to admin numbers on other projects), so I would rather encourage more people to be bold and request adminship. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: Fair point, but this is more about Patrick Rogel than anything else. Patrick does plenty of good work here, but may occasionally cut corners. In this case, Patrick may be right though. Obviously no GM (and no admin, for that matter!) should take a user's word for it when they claim a file was "previously deleted". This is, however, a minority of deletion requests. Asking for people to be bold and request adminship is fairly pointless. Some people have, but the community is picky. And general maintainer may well be a step towards adminship for some. Someone who has already taken on the role of GM can also more easily prove they are admin-worthy before starting their RFA. If you want more admins, allow general maintainers. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Elcobbola: I am living proof you're wrong. I'd be interested in being able to (revision) delete my own mistakes. I'd be interested in getting rid of the ratelimit. I'd be interested in getting DelReqHandler to close-keep DRs. (I leave resolved DRs open now because closing DRs by hand is a pain) But I'm not interested in (full) adminship. Oh, and there's a map maker with a bit who only became admin to be able to (revision) delete their own outdated maps. That person is on the list of admins, but in practice not really an admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
And the nonsense argument if they are "not deemed suitable by the community" to be a "full" admin, they are not trusted enough for this thinly veiled "admin lite." You could say the same about license reviewers, rollbackers and file movers. You could also eliminate those groups. Away with license reviewers: grow some balls and become a real admin. Just ignore all the other privileges you get. If the community doesn't trust you with blocks, you can't be trusted with LR either. Except, no. License reviewers, file movers, etc do their thing, and so could general maintainers. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Elcobbola is right in that no admin is forced to do everything an admin can do. For example, my own use of the admin tools was for quite a long period rather low, mainly consisting of deleting duplicates from time to time. Now I have become more active, processing more deletion requests, but I'm still not active in the area of user problems and blocks. Alexis Jazz, I think that you would be a good admin in the area of deletion discussions and don't see why you shouldn't try an RfA. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: There are several reasons for that. I once made a request to become a license reviewer, which was declined because of a lack of trust. As I am no more or less trustworthy than I was back then, I feel I shouldn't be a license reviewer. By extension, I can't be an admin because the ability to do license reviews is inherently connected to that. The community also likely wouldn't accept it. And Jcb just might lose it if I became an admin, and many fear Commons will fall apart without Jcb. Potentially having more run-ins with Jcb is yet another reason I don't want it. And finally, I don't want to be "one of them", part of what is commonly seen as a kind of elite, only reinforced by Elcobbola. Community doesn't trust you with adminship? Then stick to rollbacking and file moving. No middle ground, no compromise. You're an admin or you're not. And as a result, we have backlogs. Because anyone who isn't trusted with blocks can't help with the DR backlog either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I beg your pardon, but then your proposal seems to be very much focussed on your personal experience and feelings. Not necessarily a good base for a general proposal. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: I'm sorry if that would appear to be the case. I probably wouldn't be the first to apply for GM. Jeff G. seems interested, and I wouldn't be surprised if Fæ applied. 4nn1l2 told me a similar concept on fawiki helped greatly to reduce backlogs, but also said not to be very fond of them "because I believe they could be admins themselves". But the matter of fact is, the community doesn't trust a lot of people with adminship. The jump from user to admin may simply be too big, or too intimidating. That's why I came up with GMs. If anyone has a better idea that'll actually work, I'm all ears. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is some merit in this proposal, but I am not sure how it would technically be implemented. Is it possible to have the delete button, and then only be able to delete one's own files? I would support an intermediate level between license reviewer and adminship, but with different tools (protect, editprotected page, ratelimit, closing uncontroversial DRs as kept, etc., basically, everything except blocking users and deleting files). Regards, Yann (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criterion G11: Blatant text copyright violations[edit]

I think there should be an additional speedy deletion criterion for blatant textual copyright violations, separate from those regarding file copyrights. I first raised this proposal at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, but after 29 days it has gotten relatively little attention. As such, I am seeking broader consensus. The collapsible below contains a copy of the original discussion. If passed, it would be designated G11. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

From Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Proposal: Blatant copyright violations outside of filespace[edit]

  1. I think there should be a speedy deletion criterion for blatant copyright violations outside of filespace (i.e. text copyvios), for although they do not happen often, they can be just as serious as file copyvios, and deletion is likely to be uncontroversial in such cases.
  2. Perhaps clarify that speedy deletion criterion F1 (for copyright violations in filespace) should be used only for "unambiguous" cases, i.e. where a file is an obvious copyright violation. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it would be more sensible to separate text copyvio (say, G11) from more ubiquitous F1–F6 (file copyvio). Imagine: someone uploaded a new free file, but stuffed {{Information}} with copy-and-paste from a copyrighted document. Then the copyrighted stuff on the namespace-6 page can be blanked and revision deleted under G11, but the file may remain intact. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – none of the current criteria covers the text copyvio scenario. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 02:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, a good precaution to have in place. BD2412 T 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support policy glitch. Good catch. Natuur12 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea. -- Tuválkin 02:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about text copyright violations included in filepage descriptions, usually as descriptions, esp. when the file itself has no copyright issues? -- Tuválkin 02:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Not a reason to speedy delete the file -- just edit away any problem text. I think that was the reason this proposal is explicitly outside of filespace; there would be a different way to fix those issues which does not involve deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Maybe we should add a note or something (in the template?) that when G11 is used on a file page, the file shouldn't be deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal typing aid[edit]

When somebody uses e.g. the de:WP it should be well known that there are many 'search' abbreviations; as an example, H:T will make some suggested expansions, like Hilfe:Tabellen, or H:V like Hilfe:Vorlagen. That simplifies the access to many pages - not only to Help pages.
Spoiled by such comfort, I am missing a comparable service in the commons, where I am doing a lot. On busy days I type hundreds times the long namespaces Template: or Category:, wishing it would as well be possible with only T: or C:. To install such a possibility could not be a problem to the relevant people!
In the English language, many terms are pleasantly short (Help, File, User); really longs things are abbreviated (i18n); I just miss the mentioned cases - therefore I ask the community about that idea. -- sarang사랑 15:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sarang: C: is not desirable because this is the recommended interwiki code for Commons. We have COM:, templates can be linked with {{Tl}} and when using templates you don't usually need to enter Template:. See also COM:Shortcuts. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Ok, C: is not desirable, I understand that it is the wrong example. But when I want to enter a special template, or category, I always have to type the full namspace: first. I know that we have short-named templates, like {{C}}, {{F}}, {{T}}, {{U}}. But that's only for using/linking them - not for searching. -- sarang사랑 16:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support aliases T for template, CAT for category, and MOD for module. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2: I think T could be risky with possible future interwiki shortcuts. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: I guess that is the problem of future, not now. In my opinion, WMF already hosts too many projects, and new projects should not be added too easily, and I guess we have not had a new project for many years (excluding Wikidata). 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the aliases mentioned by @4nn1l2, plus U for User, F for File, and T suffixes for associated talk namespaces (UT for User Talk, GT for Gallery Talk due to conflict with Template).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)