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)
  20. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong supportGone Postal ( ) 10:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  21. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --Hmxhmx 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  22. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:15, 14 July 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)

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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hmxhmx 14:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support the original proposal. BA candidate.svg Weak oppose the 'I challenge, let's discuss this' tag, since that discussion is really indistinguishable with what would be happening at a Deletion Request anyhow. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:38, 13 July 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)
{{LangSwitch|en='''Challenge speedy deletion'''<br>start a regular deletion request/discussion instead|nl='''Maak bezwaar tegen directe verwijdering<br>start een regulier verwijderingsverzoek/discussie|zh|zh-hant|yue=反對快速刪除<br>改提刪除討論}}
Rillke also suggested not to make the "remove this tag" available for everyone, and I agree. Wasn't part of the proposal either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
All of those changes seem reasonable to me. Kaldari (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I added Chinese translations to Alexis Jazz's code. It means oppose speedy deletion, change to deletion discussion.--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Template:PD-GovEdict[edit]

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

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Redirect created in 2009. {{PD-US-GovEdict}} also from 2009, {{PD-EdictGov}} 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)
I suspect that the above was edited in a manner that turns it into nonsense: the argument seems to be between A and A. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: What the crap, was I drunk? Corrected it. I think. This was some bad copypasta.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Create user group 'general maintainer'[edit]


No consensus at this time to add an additional user group. 1989 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Majora ––Eatcha (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per elcobbola. -- Begoon 11:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnecessarily complicated, and it appears that from a technical standpoint there is no limit to what they can delete other than a rate limit of 10 per minute. I cannot imagine any candidate I would support to have the delete button but not to be a normal admin. -- King of ♠ 03:18, 27 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Might help users how don't wish to become admin, but want some admin rights. Serving as an Admin is not an easy task for some users, they should be provided some rights. And their accounts must at-least be 1 year old. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per elcobbola. -- Begoon 11:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Actually I am quite surprised that there isn't something like this already. At this moment I would not want to even try to become admin, but something like this would be an area where I could help out a project. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my rationale above. -- King of ♠ 03:18, 27 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)
@Yann: while reupload-own exists (overwrite existing files uploaded by oneself), delete-own does not. But given the existence of overwrite-own, a feature request for delete-own may be feasible. If this proposal doesn't make it (I keep hope it will), I'll draft another proposal in which I'll possible incorporate delete-own. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I am not trying to re-open this discussion or anything, but I noticed that regarding the second proposal that there are 5 (five) oppose "votes" (4 sysops) and 6 (six) support "votes" (no sysops), while I can see that the majority would be too slim to allow for the creation of this user group (at least I am certain that this page has an unwritten rule of maybe 80% (eighty percent) support or something), I also see that some opposes are conditional (such as the ability to delete files/pages) and there are some neutral "votes" so I wonder why this proposal seems to be de facto rejected after there was a slim majority support for one iteration of the user group. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:44, 9 July 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Why not ? I'm too lazy to write the full word. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I only support t for template and cat for category. Inclined to oppose the others. Use shorthands only for the most frequent words.--Roy17 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 10:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but with reservations, mostly because of the multilingual nature of Wikimedia Commons, we should try to support as much language as possible while trying to avoid confusion while implementing this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CAT for categories would be very useful --Ruthven (msg) 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Add Speed controls in native Wikimedia video player and change the interface to look like YouTube/Vimeo ?[edit]


Did you ever noticed any difference while playing videos on Commons and on YouTube/Vimeo ? If not try playing File:LE PAYS BASQUE ( Biarritz, Bayonne, St Jean de Luz...) - FRANCE.webm on commons and here on YouTube. There is not speed control option on commons and the interface looks decades old. Take a look at (SOURCE) it's open-source, can be used by Commons and its interface is way better than ours. I doubt this ancient video player is one of the reason we don't have many videos. Check the difference in number of CC and PD of videos on commons and YouTube, you will be surprised. Please discuss this issue and support the option that you like.-- Eatcha (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss below this line[edit]

If you have a better Idea please don't hesitate to create a poll for that below. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: We already have a new video player coming per this edit, check it out.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thanks, but will this include playbackRates ? -- Eatcha (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
per phab:T174393, Speed controls are not ready yet, but is not hard to enable in new player -- Eatcha (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Tips for now: when playing videos, right click on the player and you should be able to choose between 0.25x and 2x. Or use an extension/add-on. I do support revamp of the media player though.--Roy17 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I am curious what you use playback speed controls for though.. Personally I've never used these for anything other than podcasts and watching content over 30minutes long.. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Update the entire interface, similar to YouTube using open-source players E.g.[edit]

Geograph 2?[edit]

Commons has plenty of images of the British Isles thanks to imports from Geograph. As most of these uploads were done long ago, it might be worth doing another bulk upload. Jura1 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not, unless they are significantly better than their previous standards. People standing in front of buildings does not constitute a picture of a building. Churches are not generally angled at about 5 degrees off the vertical. The British Isles has, occasionally, some daylight, so it should be possible to see the subject, and in focus. Unless we can get resolution somewhere above at least 5MP, and uploads are filtered for quality, it just makes work for us to do later. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree: better than a bulk upload, we prefer to target good quality pictures. --Ruthven (msg) 09:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be worth looking at a sample category: Category:Twr Mawr Llanddwyn Lighthouse
    • The category has currently 12 images: 1 from Panoramio, 1 from the NLW, 2 direct uploads and 8 from
    • Except maybe for 2 or 3 similar pictures, from a mere user perspective, the group together gives a good impression of the topic. If we didn't have the geograph ones, this wouldn't be so.
    • Obviously, a series of featured pictures to showcase and possibly print poster-size would enhance it further, but at least we have a good basis to illustrate the topic.
    • It's somewhat regrettable that there are no people in any of the pictures as otherwise one could get a better sense of the size of the building.
    • A non-minor problem of Category:Twr Mawr Llanddwyn Lighthouse is that the most recent picture is from 2010. One could get the impression that the lighthouse remains stuck in the last decade.
As digital photograph evolved since the last decade, I think the resolution of recent geograph images is higher. Jura1 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I would dearly love to get more recent Geograph pictures into Commons, but I think a bulk import of the 4 million missing pictures would probably be unwise. In addition to the quality issues mentioned by Rodhullandemu (which I think will be less for newer pictures), there's the simple matter that a fair proportion even of technically good pictures will be out of scope: there are only so many pictures of oilseed rape fields in East Anglia that Commons needs. Another problem is categorisation: it's only within the last year that the last of the 2010/11 batch was categorised, and plenty still need review. On the other hand, relying on individual uploads means we miss an awful lot of worthwhile pictures: Commons users are uploading images from Geograph at a little over 1% the rate that Geograph is gaining them (60-odd over the past week vs 6000-odd). The other 99% can't all be bad. --bjh21 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe structured data could simplify if not avoid manual categorization entirely. Jura1 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a bulk upload. These are useful photos to have here, even if it would be better to have higher resolution versions. Targeting pictures to upload would miss out quite a few photos that turn out to be useful a while after they have been uploaded, and wouldn't have otherwise been spotted/used. The particularly good thing with this set of photos is that they all come with coordinates, so they can be put into the category tree by location right from the start, and then be migrated into the more specific categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh My! "They all come with coordinates!" better, "some come with correct coordinates". You wouldn't believe some of the howlers I've seen in and around Liverpool Geograph images of late. They'd have been better sticking a pin in a map. It's not helped that {{Geogroup}} has been changed to only show the top-level, and its developer isn't talking to anyone. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
But you could tell that they were images from Liverpool? That's already a good start. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Geograph import has been a clear net positive for our coverage and quality, as I keep bumping into topics which would be very poorly illustrated without it. It would be nice if someone could achieve a new import, maybe with some heuristics to avoid uploading photos of areas which might already be "crowded". Nemo 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, bulk uploads will always be added to a maintenance category and while most images will be high quality educational images a few images will be nominated for deletion by those doing the maintenance, the benefits of hosting those images largely outweigh any negatives from them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Gallery pages policy update[edit]

On Commons:Galleries, replace:

"Galleries without media are not galleries at all. They are considered out of the project scope and meet the criteria for speedy deletion."


"A "gallery" with less than two files is not a gallery at all. Contributions consisting solely of text can be made in descriptions, captions, Wikipedia, Wiktionary and other projects. Pages that are created as galleries but have less than two media files are considered out of the project scope and meet the criteria for speedy deletion."

On Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#GA1, replace:

"Mainspace pages (galleries) that are empty or contain no useful content, such as pages that contain text but no images or other media."


"Mainspace pages that contain no conceivably useful content, such as empty pages or a gallery for a subject that contains text but never had more than one image or other media. If the gallery contains less than two files because the media was deleted, the gallery should be repopulated or a DR should be started."

In case you're wondering "what's the difference?", well, the difference is not that huge. But some admins (plural) are interpreting the current text to mean any page in gallery (main) namespace that isn't a gallery should be speedily deleted. This despite the policy already saying "or contain no useful content". Content that is useful but not a gallery shouldn't be deleted, at the very least not speedily. If needed, we can propose additional policy to define what is and isn't desirable in the main namespace. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the effects would be of such a change. Enshrining a threshold of "two" might give legitimacy to such micro-galleries. Stressing that text should be elsewhere seems to be a way to say that it's fine to remove or even delete any textual content from galleries if it could theoretically go elsewhere (although your stated goal is the opposite, as far as I understand). I don't see a big problem with having some flexibility in textual content of galleries and categories, while I have no idea why we should allow main namespace pages on Commons which are not galleries. Nemo 19:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: The limit of two is already enshrined in the canned edit summaries for speedy deletions: "Gallery without at least two images or other media files". Wasn't my idea. Used 157 times past month. The current policy wording says "without media", implying a gallery with one image is acceptable. I made a minor change to the text to clarify text contributions means "galleries" with only text contributions.
As for "why", well first I think it's good to have the flexibility to use the main namespace in useful ways, and only ban things that are abused or that the community doesn't want. There has been a war over disambiguation pages the last couple of years. The admins won, obviously. I don't care if the community, in a vote, decides to ban disambiguation pages in main namespace. You might argue I could instead create a proposal to allow disambiguation pages, but the current policy seems to already allow them so that makes no sense, yet they are routinely deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Close inactive non-English village pumps[edit]

Inactive VP are like ghost towns. Posts on those don't get answered in time. We may consequently miss out issues or lose the minority users. Therefore, I would like to make three proposals:

  1. Close inactive non-English village pumps. (As part of the process, resolve any unanswered requests or move them to major VP.)
  2. Merge all non-English help desks into their respective VP.
  3. If a certain language version were to be revived or created anew, it must receive community concensus first.

And some technical suggestions:

  1. Remaining ones should be opted out of message delivery, unless the community agrees to opt in. The messages are more like spam that make real discussions harder to find.
  2. Archives to be done on request only (by inserting {{Section resolved}}) or automatically after no response for min. 2-3 months. Archives should be set up per year (preferably) or per 250K+ bytes. (Prompted by the Commons:Köy çeşmesi, archived automatically for 7-day-old posts and set up per month... ridiculous settings for a minor forum.)

--Roy17 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Mea culpa — I just added to my watchlist all those VPs whose languages I can contribute in adn might need a helping hand (so, not fr and es). -- Tuválkin 23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding to the top, IMHO, the main VP and help desk are not reserved for English but they serve as centralised noticeboards. Only if threads in a certain language overwhelm the primarily Engish VP, should the language have its separate place. It's not the other way around, that each language automatically deserves a place, and now I am being Anglocentric and killing them. VP and HD are meant for reporting issues and solving problems but not general Internet forums.
Another reason to open a minority VP could be using it like classified ads, but I doubt how effective this is. Rather than posting here, users should take the matter to the more popular local wikis.--Roy17 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the matter in general, but existence of two separate Serbian boards Commons:Трг and Commons:Trg is a patent absurd; let alone both are inactive. Merge all such stuff into one Serbo-Croatian (or Croato-Serbian, if one likes it more) village pump. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The ones to keep[edit]

I think the following languages can be kept: the six working languages of UN, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, Persian.

Borderline (some activity, but not all posts get answered, and some of their population is relatively small): Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Finnish, Ukrainian, Bengali, Hebrew.--Roy17 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) +Korean, Turkish.--10:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, whether a forum is active or useful, does not depend only on the number of new posts, but also on whether experienced users are present to help. If not enough native speakers monitor the forums, it's better for newbies to ask on the main help desk/VP. A solution is, interested users can sign up to monitor a forum and be listed at the top of the page. If issues are not answered in time, newbies could go directly to those users' talk pages. The Commons community also knows whether a forum is actively maintained by experienced users. (This list is redundant for languages that obviously have large active userbases, e.g. Dutch.)
Btw, there are no signs of native speakers' activity on the Greek Commons:Αγορά and the Thai Commons:สภากาแฟ, even though these languages have hugh population. Everything is bots' spam or non-Native speakers' appeal for help. I'd say Close.--Roy17 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The Serbian forum in two scripts, if kept, should be considered for unification like how the Chinese Commons:Village pump/zh is implemented.--Roy17 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them, there is a chance that these village pumps will become active in the future and for speakers of these languages these village pumps might be their only gateway to help, even if interaction is sparse (to put it at best). We should fight the Anglocentrism of Wikimedia Commons, not enforce it. A common problem many people have is that if they don't speak English then they won't be able to contribute here. It is better to editprotect largely inactive village pumps until a speaker requests access than to outright delete it, I just don't see the benefits of deleting any village pump. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Addendum, and as usual, the conversation regarding the fate of many non-English speaking communities is wholly conducted in English excluding the people whom this proposal concerns, this only shows the extend of the current Anglocentrism of Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      At least Commons:Čaršija satisfies COM:CSD#G1 (nothing meaningful). 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      When there is no native speaker (especially experienced ones) around, it makes no difference if you reply to them on their version or on the main VP in English or anything but their mother tongue, but it does make a difference for them not to be guided to a ghost town, and have their messages discovered months or years later by wandering scavengers like me. The main VP and help desk are not reserved for English either.--Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The proposal by 4nn1l2 seems reasonable. I support it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them per Donald, and encourage knowledgeable native speakers of languages other than English to contribute to, or at least watchlist, the village pumps of their native languages.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. If you're concerned about people posting to these pages not getting answers, put them on your watchlist and answer them. Forcing non-English speakers to negotiate the English Village Pump to get a response is backwards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them I agree with Donald.--Vulphere 14:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep them all, per Donald and Jeff and Prosfilaes. -- Tuválkin 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep ALL of them per Donald. Move the VP to the major ones? So, you think people can just move to Spanish or English VP? Most part of the world do not speak English. Better keep those VP than force people move to a VP in a language they do not understand. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? Coat of arms of Germany.svg 22:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Questions @Donald Trung, Jeff G., Prosfilaes, Vulphere, Tuvalkin: may I ask for a confirmation that your Keep All means you support keeping Commons:Čaršija? How many of you visited this page before you said Keep All?
And how many of the 50+ VP have you visited, and checked their histories to see their activity?--Roy17 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw it, while I cannot endorse it's creation in its current form I do think that such village pumps have potential, it should best be improved to match this page and some basic copy-pasting might suffice. I think that these village pumps largely suffer from a lack of communication between Wikimedia Commons and their respective Wikipedia's, there isn't that much cross-wiki communication. For example "Commons:De Kroeg" links to this page (current version) but not vice versa. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Please don't ping me on general boards like this. When you propose 50+ pages for deletion, you can't expect people to look at every one; expect responses to the general principle. I watch one of the pages you propose for deletion, and see no reason at all to deprive Esperanto speakers of a page to communicate on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I proposed Closing, not deletion. The general principle would be marking pages with {{Historical}}. And out of 50+ VP, my stand is 21 of them can be kept, so I did not propose 50+ pages for deletion. Not 50+, not deletion! I always expect thoughtful discussions.
Esperanto VP had seven threads in 10 years. Only two of them are not massive news delivery. I dont seem to see your effort at maintaining the VP either.
Could you please clarify then, whether you backtrack on Commons:Čaršija? If thst's the case, what about Commons:İniy dew?--Roy17 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The distinction between "closing" and "deleting" here is uninteresting; either way you make an interactive page unusable. The distinction between 50+ and 29+ is rarely interesting.
People who argue against the death penalty don't get into the details of what w:Bobby Joe Long did, so no, I refuse to be drawn in on a discussion of specific Village Pumps. I believe there's value in having a page where people who don't speak English can feel comfortable posting on instead of demanding they go to the Village Pump. If by thoughtful discussion you mean discussion that starts with the same assumptions as you, you're going to be oft disappointed and oft unfair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Roy17, you may ask for a confirmation, and that is now given. Your gotcha question is noted and dismissed, as this is a matter of principle. What all these pages need is a few active Commoners who are fluent speakers of their languages to watchlist them, making sure that any enquiry is replied to. Considerations about the number of such enquiries are irrelevant (and, frankly, feels somewhat meanspirited); this is not costing anyone anything, so lets just make it work. -- Tuválkin 05:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Those were honest questions, but you answered only the first one. I am sorry that you chose to interpret them in a negative way. Commons:Čaršija is subject to speedy deletion per G1, but since some users confirm they support keeping it, a DR will be necessary. I am looking forward to your opinions in DR.--Roy17 (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am getting flashbacks to the whole Portal discussion over at en-wp. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Now two weeks after the keep all votes, what has the users enthusiastic about linguistic diversity done to help resolve the cold cases on each board? Btw, which is worse, replying on their local boards in foreign languages, or asking them to post on COM:VP in their native languages?--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Help desks[edit]

I'm splitting off the suggestion about help desks. {{Lang-HD}} is a bit misleading: most languages just redirect to their respective VP, while only English, French, Japanese, and Mirandese(nope, Mirandese redirects to the Portuguese VP) have separate Help Desk pages. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Mirandese should either have its own VP, or redirect to Asturian VP. (Just like a link to, say, a non-existent Flemish VP should redirect to Dutch VP, not to French VP.) -- Tuválkin 14:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Use the WebRTC (DNS leak) to expose the true IP address of a sock-puppet.[edit]

Hello everyone,

I was browsing through the CU codes when I noticed that we do not collect true IP address of Users using the WebRTC that often compromise the security of VPN/Proxy tunnels. I think by collecting the WebRTC data we can increase the detection rate. Check after starting your VPNs or open proxy , deviceId is also generally useful to track users. We are presently collecting only IP, User agent string and of course comparing edits.
WebRTC is enabled in all browsers by default, this need to be manually turned off. We should also collect screen sizes, Available screen, Color depth and Pixel depth (check -- Eatcha (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit) This data will be accessible to Check Users and Wikimedia Foundation only. This proposal is not about releasing your data publicly. It only adds some powerful detection elements to the Check-User Extension. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Votes supporting/Opposing collecting true IP addresses using WebRTC (DNS leak)[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As proposer, this should also benefit Wikipedia where sock-puppets are more common compared to commons. Eatcha (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Until Wikilegal has looked into this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unless I misunderstand something, this is basically a proposal to publicly log checkuser data. We already collect similar sets of data, and there is a good reason why we restrict access to this information only to checkusers, and even for checkusers, mandate mutual oversight and only keep logs of this information for a limited period of time. See also m:Access to nonpublic personal data policy and m:Privacy policy. GMGtalk 14:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo:, No this is not a proposal to publicly log check-user data (checkout the bold text I added for more clarification).Eatcha (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Umm...well then this really needs to be evaluated by some technically competent checkusers before we even try reaching out to legal. I know User:Magog the Ogre is at the very least both a CU and a bot operator. Maybe they can weigh in. GMGtalk 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are reasons for users to stay anonymous. For example users form China or Turkey. At some political topics some people also want to stay anonymous in democratic states. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now, I will wait for Wikilegal decision.--Vulphere 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I consider exploiting these leaks as extremely unethical and don't think Wikimedia should engage in this. I don't think the end justifies the means here. No one should collect data people don't want to be collected and in the majority probably don't even know they expose to websites. I'd be very sad about Wikimedia to set a bad example. --Marsupium (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but this is not something Commons community can decide on unilaterally. You need to start a site-wide RfC on Meta where users from different projects (such as Wikipedia, Wikisource, etc.) and various language communities (en, fa, ar, etc.) can participate in, assuming WMF agrees with your proposal. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, I know that the CheckUser tools are currently limited due to privacy concerns, but if this information wouldn't be able to reveal too much more it would probably be acceptable, but I agree with Alexis Jazz that WikiLegal should first look at this because this could open up lawsuits in countries where collecting such data without consent could be considered "a privacy violation". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Another issue is that users who use a VPN due to safety concerns could be outed this way. There's also a technical issue I think: this data would have to be collected from all users and stored on WMF servers. You can't collect this information from just vandals. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I meant "collect these things from every-editor", there is no profit in collecting data from blocked vandals only. BTW what is Wiki-Legal ? -- Eatcha (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
And How can I contact this organization/agency ? Is it meta:Wikilegal ? Should I email them at -- Eatcha (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This should definitely be sent to the WMF Legal Team for consideration as it most likely goes beyond the current PP and DRG. Legal exceptions can be made in certain cases, but collecting various browser fingerprinting data can get murky very quickly. SBassett (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Tony Sebro, is this proposal possible to implement ? -- Eatcha (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question, Come on!, don't say you never used Google/Facebook/YouTube/Amazon, they fingerprint your device to show relevant ads, WMF don't show ads or share any kind of data to any external government (Excluding NSA, with or without WMF's approval) . We are facing increasing number of trolls, we don't have many active admins to deal with them. Only 5 CU, use a VPN, spoof your User-Agent and boom CU fails!. Fingerprinting is quite new in tracking industry, it doesn't depends on whether you use a VPN/proxy or change you UA or even change your browser! We just need info about the CPUs, GPUs, sound device and mics and a hash generated using these details is really hard for a sock. I don't need you change you vote, but please note that If we don't upgrade our tools we will loose. Thanks for sharing your opinions -- Eatcha (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: "We just need info about the CPUs, GPUs, sound device and mics "
I can fake all that shit in multiple ways. It's an arms race. But still, collecting system info (which may not help much in the long run) is different from collecting true IP addresses. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I know that these can be spoofed in many ways like using VM, add-ons etc. But doing all of these together is not an easy task, What I meant by "We just need info about the CPUs, GPUs, sound device and mics " is the Machine FP, we can use java-script, timezone, flash for finger-printing browser. We are collecting visible IP, with RTC vulnerability we can also get the true IP if anyone is behind VPN/proxy. I think if we add all of this in CU-extension it will be really hard for Sock operators. Maybe if we add more data into the system (CU Database ) it can be made automated, which will detect socks automatically. Note: I Know nothing is foolproof, but something is better than nothing IMHO. Warm Regards, -- Eatcha (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: so I disable javascript and I can't remember the last time I had the Flash plugin installed and activated anyway. Collecting true IP using a vulnerability is, I think, never going to fly with legal. Now what? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think intelligence agencies do not get these data? The have the possibility to get an undercover agent a CheckUser or just need to threaten or buy someone with these rights. We are not only talking about US government, many states are much more interested in who is participating here. --GPSLeo (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I will open this on Meta, legal we will see there. Bad users are on rise, I can't think of a better option other that automation of CU by pumping more data into it so that we can set a detection rate above which it should block automatically or inform a CU to take further action. Regards, -- Eatcha (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • "We just need info about the CPUs, GPUs, sound device": well, users can go to and tell us whether they're happy with it. (Canvas fingerprinting might be the most powerful one at the moment.) If you want to make such bits of identifying information available to CheckUsers, you have the option to send a patch for the CheckUser extension. Sending private data outside MediaWiki is not an option and any sysop trying to do it is routinely deflagged on sight. Nemo 10:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Give translation administrators the templateeditor right[edit]


Proposal withdrawn per Majora. MorganKevinJ(talk) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Templates that are commonly used and template protected may need translation and translation administrators should already be trusted enough to have this right. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they just apply for the right if they feel like they need it? Many people are not comfortable editing template syntax. Many more don't know what they are doing and could very easily break templates by editing carelessly. Being able to translate between languages and being able to edit templates effectively are two very very different things. --Majora (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Translation admins are not people "able to translate between languages" but people who know how to use a powerful tool (whose syntax is sometimes confusing to people) and what translators need (e.g. which parts of a template are untranslatable syntax and which are language-dependent). Nemo 10:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.