Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

User:PumpkinSky and User:HalfGig[edit]

Please see the announcement at Commons:Village pump# Administrator User:PumpkinSky has engaged in sockpuppetry by User:Magog the Ogre.

Magog lists 99 96 Feature Picture Candidates that should have the second vote removed, since users are not permitted two votes. Magog has highlighted six candidates where this would result in demotion of the feature picture. Two of these are PumpkinSky's own photos. Nominators are always permitted to re-nominate a candidate which has failed and for which there is good reason (rather than simply spinning the roulette wheel a second time) and this should count as good reason -- once a candidate reaches seven supports, some "on the fence" reviewers may not bother to vote, so who knows if it would have reached seven without HalfGig's extra vote. I think it should be up to the nominators if they wish to try again. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  • My my... what users would for a few stars always amazes me... - Benh (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems like we have some cleaning up to do, correcting the voting on all those pictures and removing the stars and all FP-related things from the photos that didn't make it. Should everyone clean up some or should one user take the list and get on with the fixing? --cart-Talk 10:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not really involved anymore, but I would just delist and renom the borderline cases. Voting patterns depend much on the previous votes in my opinion (if it was for me alone, I would delist all Pumpkin's FP...) - Benh (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can do a 'batch re-nom' of the six FPs that will lose their star. It will be up to each nominator if they want to re-nom it. I for one, have an FP among those that will be demoted, and if I decide to re-nom it, I would like to fix it up a bit before doing that. If I do it. --cart-Talk 11:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I have notified three users who will have their FP's demoted. The other two users already know ;-). Colin (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks that's good and all, but my initial question was how this fixing process would actually be done. I'm familiar with closing FPCs and all so it wouldn't be any problem for me to fix it, but shouldn't this be done by some admin or something? --cart-Talk 12:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Admins are just the same as us, but with a few more tools, none of which are needed here. I'll start working through the list, but would prefer if someone familiar with the promotion process could do the six demotions. Btw, I think Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry is the best tag to use for mentioning why the vote is struck. It is the central discussion, and the permalink means it will work in future. -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the help. I'll get right on the six demotions. The tagging is exactly like I've already done on the current FPCs. Example, I'll just adjust it to permalink. --cart-Talk 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Colin In the list, I can't see how Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cotter2017.jpg is problematic since only HalfGig voted for it. There is no vote from PumpkinSky, he only closed it. I think it should be removed from the list or should we ditch all votes by HalfGig even those that aren't double votes?. --cart-Talk 13:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Cart, I have also found Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paraboloide circular 02.jpg doesn't have two votes. In both cases PumpkinSky closed the nomination, which is probably how they got wrongly linked as double-votes. I'm checking each one as I go through them, so we can amend the list at the end. I think removing all of HalfGig's votes would need a community discussion and I'm not sure there is a good reason for it. I'm treating PumpkinSky/HalfGig as one account and striking out whichever voted second (which is nearly always HalfGig). -- Colin (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Colin IMO, it's the same for 'o' or 's'. One vote is ok, regardless of the outcome, so that one will stay 'not featured'. We have to do this as much by the book as possible. --cart-Talk 14:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this, guys. Very sad that an admin behaves like this... Poco2 13:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Colin Ok, I will take care of it. Btw, I've updated the list with the two previous finds, will add this too. --cart-Talk 14:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Cart I beat you to it, and amended the total to 96. -- Colin (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I was only off to the kitchen to get a glass of juice. ;-) --cart-Talk 14:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All fixed and done now. If you find any mistakes with the counting or demoting, please let me or Colin know. --cart-Talk 15:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh! But it's not a problem. I'll nominate my photograph ... or not. (It is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Innenansicht -- 2018 -- 0580.jpg.) --XRay talk 15:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Full agree with Benh -- this is, btw, the reason why me no longer participating on QIC -- it has become a private party of some few "star collectors" who otherwise don't give a shit about real quality content, and anyone who dares to say the truth immediately will be bullied and insulted by them. Regarding the work by PumpkinSky, I often wondered that even some of our trustable colleagues voted support on many of their nominations, despite the fact that the uttermost uploads by this user are actually nothing but boring average. In any case, I'm glad to see this account (+sock) blocked. And many thanks W.carter for cleanup. (I cannot help out in any way at the moment, because on travel with limited time+internet.) --A.Savin 20:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, Colin did most of the cleanup. I just helped. --cart-Talk 20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh! Just now took notice of that. I should think about renominating (somewhat later, not instantly) one of my recently self-withdrawn FP-nominations since it was double-opposed by PumpkinSky and HalfGig. --Granada (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Granada, you can certainly do so if you wish. Just leave a note in the nomination with a link to this discussion so that people will know why you re-nominate. --cart-Talk 13:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, not again... Thanks for everyone involved in the cleanup. -- KTC (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Part 2: MOP[edit]

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is a deletion from Commons:Meet our photographers appropriate? Charles (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
No as long as he has at least 10 FP, nobody else than him can remove his profile in this list. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Surely a banned editor cannot remain "one of our photographers"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)
+1. Despite not being myself part of COM:MOP, I don't consider it appropriate to let such users stay on a page named "Meet our [Commons] photographers". They are not "our" photographer, they are a cheater and liar at the very least, and I wouldn't be any surprised if the uploads they have submitted would be all revealed as stolen. Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support removing PumpkinSky from COM:MOP. --A.Savin 06:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not, in the extend he stay at the credit of 10 FPs then he won this right. There are no such rules, I mean to delete the "good contributions" of a blocked or banned user. A lot of other user are listed there and are not active any more. It will be a lynching totally unnecessary, and I'm strongly opposed to that. Do not beat the horse when he's dead. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Christian. That page's description doesn't present any requirement other than 10 FPs taken by Commons users. It's about people releasing their photos with a free license on Commons, not about participation in community processes (i.e. based on uploading one's own pictures the community deems valuable, not about other aspects of interactions with the community/site). Regardless of the extent to which PumpkinSky betrayed the community, I've not seen any reasons to conclude that his/her uploads were illegitimate. If someone would like to propose an additional criterion which requires being "in good standing" to remain on the list, that's another thing. — Rhododendrites talk |  07:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought MOP was dead. Nobody much added to it for years. Some of our best photographers aren't on the list (cough cough :-) !). Don't see any reason to remove him. Btw, Charles, he isn't "banned", just blocked. There may be some merit in indicating on that page which photographers are no longer active, in case anyone uses it to contact a photographer to take a pic for Wikipedia or something. But I would just list PS as "no longer active" if we did that. If his photos were stolen, say, then I'd be much more inclined to downplay/discredit his "work", but I think his photos are his and part of our collection and that makes him one of Commons' photographers. -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like you've caught a nasty chough there Colin, you should get some drops or pills for it. ;-) If you want to be on that list, you have to make your spot yourself. It's not some "Hall of fame" that others put together for you. :) --cart-Talk 09:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It was just a little joke. As others point out, the page isn't well known. My user page is enough. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I did not even know that page exists until today. I like the idea to learn a bit more about the background of each photographer regularly contributing to Commons and Wikipedia. --Granada (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Btw, I really think that those photographers who have at least 10 FPs should make a presentation on MOP. MOP is presented right there on the main page along with FP and QI and we should try to at least keep it up to date with photographers who are active. I'm all for adding some "inactive" tag to those who are, but it will look strange if the list isn't updated with new photographers. --cart-Talk 10:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    That is the big problem about pages like COM:MOP, or about the "ratings" at the top of Category:Featured pictures by creator / Category:Quality images by user etc.: as long as we maintain such pages, there always will be some dishonest users for whom it's not about high quality / high EV content whatsoever, but only about positions on such pages and "stars" on own user page, regardless of what methods have been used to achieve it. Livioandronico is indef'ed, but there for sure will be an other "Livioandronico" some day, and on QIC there are several other "Livioandronicos" still active and considering QIC their private party, just they are somewhat smarter not to scream too loud so that it's close to impossible to get them blocked. That's why QIC (let alone VIC) is not to take serious any more. So, in short, just remove PS from COM:MOP, or better -- close this page entirely, do not link on it anymore on Main Page. Do not provide egoshooters a playground. --A.Savin 11:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So following your reasoning that since there are some bad apples, we should remove the whole fruit basket? And if we close down MOP, and perhaps QIC and VIC too since they are corrupt, should we also skip FPC? It's always like this when an event has recently occured: If we lose someone good, we want to build shrines for them and if we lose someone bad, everything that person has touched should be removed. Cool down and try to think of some good, constructive solotions. --cart-Talk 11:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just curious, did I anywhere suggested to close QIC+VIC+FPC? --A.Savin 11:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, you said that QIC and VIC was a "private party... not to take serious any more", so I asked if that suggested that those should also be closed and if you included FPC among the no longer functioning things here on Commons. --cart-Talk 11:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, some egoshooters are seeing QIC their private party. They use dishonest methods to gain stars, they believe that everyone should promote any of their nominations regardless of quality standards, and in case someone does not, they are bullying him. So, what's the consequence? Closing QIC completely, or maybe better throw out some cheaters and take them their playground? I wish some day QIC would again be what it should be about -- quality, skillshare for photography and postprocessing. --A.Savin 12:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The QIC-evaluation should be done exclusively by users (photographers?) that don't contribute to QIC themselves. I'm also not a friend of the current state, but I (or at least WM-AT to the Foundation) needs some kind of measurement for why they supported my costs for accommodation and travel expenses and therefore the amount of QI is a measure (no need to tell me that this is no good). --Granada (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I honestly have no idea where you would find competent voloters to just evaluate photos at QIC. It's hard enough to get/motivate users to do any more work there than absolutelty necessary for getting their own photos evaluated. --cart-Talk 12:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's the problem I know and have no solution for. But I have a hope: some AI is already very good at recognizing image content. Maybe in a not so far future we can automate QIC. --Granada (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
    I do not share your enthusiasm for AIs checking photos! Photos are taken by humans, reflecting human emotions and should be evaluated by humans. Colin, where is the link tho those awful AI photo rating programs you found some time ago? --cart-Talk 13:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • QI is mostly about technical details of an image and some minor rest regarding composition. This could quite easily be handled by a bot. :) --Granada (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the ratings or any other pages fuels people's egos any more than they do so for themselves. And if an ego boost encourages someone to take great pictures for Commons and to try to take better pictures next time, then I have no problem with that. Livo certainly played the numbers game only and wasn't at all interested in improving the quality of his images. He openly boasted of having more FPs than others, as if that is a measure to judge anyone, but he's the only person I can think who ever did that (other than in jest).
I don't understand QI. Technically it focuses on pixel peeping so requires a DSLR or expensive compact/bridge to get anywhere. It is too ready to reject images that would look fine downsized to 6MP. Yet photographically/artistically, it doesn't set any bar to aim for much further than holding the camera level while pressing the button. Our users aren't fully served since images created by others aren't accepted, so it focuses only on our own efforts. With all the rubbish that gets uploaded to Commons (bulk or otherwise) it would be useful to have some mechanism to tag images as having "good quality". It would need a rapid UI, though, and QI's UI is awful. But I agree with Cart that non-photographers don't, in my experience, make good reviewers. There's an awful lot of people on Wikipedia who think a good 220px thumbnail is all that is required. I'll try to find the AI page later. Wrt Granada's comment about bots -- yes the measures currently used at QI are wrong. -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with pretty much all of that. Specifically, I still don't understand why we can't – for example – mark an image from the Hubble space telescope that is high-quality, but not WOW-y enough for FP, as a Quality Image. That alone shows that the "make ourselves feel good" part is valued much higher than the "is useful for re-users" part at QI. --El Grafo (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree, but with non-commoner's photos it is usually very hard to communicate with the photographer and ask them to do tweaks and corrections. I wonder if that was one of the reasons that QIC was established as limited to commons users. --cart-Talk 14:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. But I don't see why not being able to improve "bad" candidates should keep us from tagging good ones. We're already doing this all the time at FPC: If a nominated NASA image is good and wow-y it gets the star. If it's not we don't complain that we can't ask whoever took it for improvements – we just reject it. --El Grafo (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Good summary. --cart-Talk 15:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that comes from the idea of the Wikimedia Foundation that Wikipedia has to grow as everything else in capitalism. QIC is a measure for the amount of good images produced by the community and we have to produce more quality images every year. --Granada (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This seems the first edit that restricted COM:QIC only to Commoners. It also says "Quality images don't have to be particulary extraordinary, impressive or outstanding among pictures Commons. All they have to do is to meet certain mostly technical quality standards, and be valuable for Wikimedia projects." Jee 04:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps QI could be improved by a) tightening up criterion on composition, b) tightening up on the requirement valuable for Wikimedia and other projects, c) requiring 2 positive votes (or a majority of 2) d) reducing the daily maximum nominations to 3. 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

[unindent] I'm just seeing this. I agree that there's no really good reason not to mark photos by non-Commoners as QIs. I also like the idea of requiring 2 Support votes for a QIC nominee to be promoted. More importantly, we need a procedure to de-list QI designations that shouldn't have been given. I'm unsure about limiting nominations to less than 5 per day per user. Maybe 4? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Link fixed. Shortcuts like all-caps abbreviations are only for the page itself, there are no similar shotcuts for the talk pages. You have to spell it out then. --cart-Talk 20:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year[edit]

The PoTY competition needs a bit of help to get off the ground this year. The committee are currently discussing the possible categories to group the images for round 1 voting.

People here are familiar with our FP categories and may know how the images collected this year might best be evenly grouped. Could you participate at the above discussion and see what help they need on this and other matters? -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Picky FPCbot[edit]

Some time ago I posted a small How To guide for closing FPCs here. I have since discovered a small errors in one of the codes I wrote there. If you close an FPC as "not featured" and move the nom to the log manually, the old code example {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|sig=--~~~~}} is ok. However, If you want FPCbot to move the closed "not featured" nom to log, you need to include all parameters in the code, even the redundant and empty "|category=", otherwise the bot will not recognize the code and simply skip moving it. Picky bot... So the correct code to use for closing is:

  • {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}}

I don't think I should go back and correct this in the archive though. Great thanks to you who help out with closing FPCs! Without you, the whole thing would clog up and stop. Nothing here happens by magic. --cart-Talk 21:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)