Commons talk:Reporting abuse
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
In addition to the issues currently in Template:ReportAbuse/render, I would recommend also having a "I am portrayed in this file, and do not consent to it being hosted here" workflow or something along those lines, to deal with COM:IDENT issues.--Eloquence (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
In regard to reporting "copyright issue" the report form/mechanism should mandatory require a "rationale" (not in our strict policy meaning) or a URL as evidence. Otherwise this feature might only increase noise or workload for admins.
Beyond of that, IMO the developers should consult with the new-upload-patrolers on Commons about creating an automatic copyvio recognition system for all new uploads, as in reality - despite of our self-exploitation - we are overwhelmed with copyvio-uploads and the uploads/day rate is still increasing. --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Erik, the "I am in this photo" issue is something that has been discussed on the OTRS list a year or two ago -- it was a tortured discussion, and probably not worth digging into in any great depth, but what emerged as I remember it was consensus that having a separate OTRS flow to handle sensitive "I'm in this picture" issues seemed worthwhile.
- I'm a little surprised to see the big, red, inviting "notify the WMF" button. Are you at all concerned that legal staff might be inundated with trivial notices about things that are currently handled well, to everyone's satisfaction, by the volunteer workflow? What would happen if the number of formal complaints coming into legal increased 100- or 1000-fold? I'm not saying every concern is handled well at the moment; but the obviousness of a button in the UI will surely have an impact on how many requests come in.
- I agree with Túrelio, the flood of copyvios is a big problem; but I'm wary of addressing it with more paid staff time. (I don't think a URL or proof should be required since legitimate cases will exist where there is no ready URL to share; but certainly encouraging the inclusion of evidence would be worthwhile.) -Pete F (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- This was just a trial; the "I am the copyright holder / notify the WMF" action should ask questions about all the facts, a real DMCA takedown request must have included and will make clear that only the copyright holder should go this way. -- Rillke(q?) 09:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Túrelio that new files should be somehow automatically be analyzed whether there are (possible) copyright violations. I also know that this requires huge efforts or external services. -- Rillke(q?) 09:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Riilke, I understand this is only a prototype, but isn't the point of a prototype to explore what should be done more broadly? That's what I'm trying to do. While it's true that only someone with standing should go to WMF, my concern is the idea that we should encourage everybody with standing to go straight to the WMF. We are not their lawyers; if they want advice about all their options, they can find it. We may have a legal or ethical obligation to inform them, but there is a massive difference between a big red button and a small text link (along the lines of the placement of the info.en email address within the "Contact Wikipedia" link on the front page of English Wikipedia). It seems to me that one of the big strengths of our movement is that we have developed an ability, in many cases, to deal with highly sensitive and time-sensitive issues well, perhaps better than officially required methods. -Pete F (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are invited to edit the the template. Also, I would be interested in the opinion of the legal department as they probably know what their capacities are and are possibly experienced with the impacts of a more prominent option. -- Rillke(q?) 08:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Report to community administrators" vs "Report to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal office" is a bad alternative, because almost nobody understands the difference. I suggest instead to give an alternative based on people's needs, like: "report" vs. "report privately"/file a formal takedown request. The same approach should help making the "Report inappropriate images" more useful: currently it has a button for an extremely rare infringement (and "inappropriate" means nothing), while it would be more useful to make it a generic "report [other] unlawful material [privately]". Most reports can be handled on wiki as pl.wiki does; the reports in need of privacy, identification or otherwise sensitive would be directed to one or more OTRS queues and then forwarded to the appropriate ones (if legal@ is flooded you can change any time and use another queue and forward to legal@ where it's their job). This would also cover the case mentioned by Eloquence, without making this a 100-items dropdown like our upload forms. --Nemo 06:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe Commons is different than pl.wikipedia (while I admit, I don't know a lot about pl.wikipedia):
- About 2,000 deleted files/day
- 200 deletion requests/day which are often about more than 400 files
- much more copyright violations, files missing other essential information tagged as those/day
- > 50 different languages to consider
- If a generic report page or queue would be created there have to be enough volunteers dealing with them or sorting them out and forwarding them. I think it's well-considered directing people to the correct existing structures -if necessary in more than one step. This ensures that the issues raised are processed as fast as possible and that volunteers who are at least a bit familiar with the area they work in, receive reports they can work with.
- OTRS volunteers said that they are overworked (and they'd rather like to have more in their queue; other persons said they're untrained volunteers and also opposed); Admins dealing with our deletion requests won't be able to spend time sorting issues out of a big general page. I agree that cases of identifiable persons, children occur more seldom but a rate of 1/day here at Commons could be assumed (currently they come via OTRS, deletion request and IRC which is all sub-optimal).
- I tried to avoid using the term formal takedown request because if the tool should not work correctly one day (like it sometimes happens with JavaScript tools), it could have serious consequences.
- „100 items dropdown“ is a severe exaggeration, while the numbers I provided, aren't. Finally, I don't understand what you would like to express with [...] would be directed to one or more OTRS queues [...] and then if legal@ is flooded you can change any time. Legal is not an OTRS queue, I believe, so why should it be flooded and by whom when following your suggestion directing everything needing privacy to OTRS? Thank you.
- -- Rillke(q?) 10:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe Commons is different than pl.wikipedia (while I admit, I don't know a lot about pl.wikipedia):
- "Report to community administrators" vs "Report to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal office" is a bad alternative, because almost nobody understands the difference. I suggest instead to give an alternative based on people's needs, like: "report" vs. "report privately"/file a formal takedown request. The same approach should help making the "Report inappropriate images" more useful: currently it has a button for an extremely rare infringement (and "inappropriate" means nothing), while it would be more useful to make it a generic "report [other] unlawful material [privately]". Most reports can be handled on wiki as pl.wiki does; the reports in need of privacy, identification or otherwise sensitive would be directed to one or more OTRS queues and then forwarded to the appropriate ones (if legal@ is flooded you can change any time and use another queue and forward to legal@ where it's their job). This would also cover the case mentioned by Eloquence, without making this a 100-items dropdown like our upload forms. --Nemo 06:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are invited to edit the the template. Also, I would be interested in the opinion of the legal department as they probably know what their capacities are and are possibly experienced with the impacts of a more prominent option. -- Rillke(q?) 08:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Riilke, I understand this is only a prototype, but isn't the point of a prototype to explore what should be done more broadly? That's what I'm trying to do. While it's true that only someone with standing should go to WMF, my concern is the idea that we should encourage everybody with standing to go straight to the WMF. We are not their lawyers; if they want advice about all their options, they can find it. We may have a legal or ethical obligation to inform them, but there is a massive difference between a big red button and a small text link (along the lines of the placement of the info.en email address within the "Contact Wikipedia" link on the front page of English Wikipedia). It seems to me that one of the big strengths of our movement is that we have developed an ability, in many cases, to deal with highly sensitive and time-sensitive issues well, perhaps better than officially required methods. -Pete F (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Report to the community[edit]
How about starting with only the "report to the community" button? I don't think we need to encourage people to file formal takedowns; this is just making it easier to gather this sort of feedback from image-users who wouldn't otherwise know how to flag abuse at all, or that it was possible. This would address the concerns above that this would shift responsibility for handling current requests from the community, on Commons and on OTRS, to staff (which I agree wouldn't be scalable or desirable). --SJ+ 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is it appropriate letting people report images of child porn or violation of personality rights to the community? Is this appropriate for the community and for the ones who are affected? Well, next week I am going to run a test and do analysis and then we will see. -- Rillke(q?) 09:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- A clear no to question 1a (cp), though I understood that as a rhetorical question anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Turelio, I disagree -- I think there are certainly cases where reporting personality rights violations to OTRS (a community entity) is entirely appropriate; and I also think there are cases where reporting them through public processes can work fine. Here is an example of a personality rights violation that went through a challenging discussion, but ended with the file being deleted. This is a good example for the present discussion; I believe a well-designed reporting mechanism (form) would have resulted in a nomination that more clearly identified, and linked to, the policy reason for deletion. For instance, a reporting form might have resulted in the following (new text bolded for emphasis):
- I am the person in the image and did not provide my consent for this photo to be taken for this purpose. COM:IDENT#Consent requires that "The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons." I never gave consent for broad publication to begin with.
- Such a nomination would have skipped past all the ensuing misunderstandings and lead to a straightforward "delete" decision. -Pete F (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I thought I had expressed myself clear enough, both by "question 1a" and "cp" (aka childporn), to which kind of images I was refering. Such images should be reported by non-admins to either an admin or directly to OS, which will then speedy-delete (if cp suspicion confirmed) and report it to legal. Recent-upload-patroling admins can skip the first step, as they should be sure what's cp (per US law). --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, sorry, I missed the second abbreviation! Understood and agreed. (My only concern -- and this could probably only be confirmed/clarified by a lawyer -- is that it might be illegal to provide a link to cp to an admin, as opposed to Wikimedia staff?) -Pete F (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, requesting it for speedy-deletion would be an equivalent for reporting it to COM:AN or to an individual admin. --Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, sorry, I missed the second abbreviation! Understood and agreed. (My only concern -- and this could probably only be confirmed/clarified by a lawyer -- is that it might be illegal to provide a link to cp to an admin, as opposed to Wikimedia staff?) -Pete F (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I thought I had expressed myself clear enough, both by "question 1a" and "cp" (aka childporn), to which kind of images I was refering. Such images should be reported by non-admins to either an admin or directly to OS, which will then speedy-delete (if cp suspicion confirmed) and report it to legal. Recent-upload-patroling admins can skip the first step, as they should be sure what's cp (per US law). --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Turelio, I disagree -- I think there are certainly cases where reporting personality rights violations to OTRS (a community entity) is entirely appropriate; and I also think there are cases where reporting them through public processes can work fine. Here is an example of a personality rights violation that went through a challenging discussion, but ended with the file being deleted. This is a good example for the present discussion; I believe a well-designed reporting mechanism (form) would have resulted in a nomination that more clearly identified, and linked to, the policy reason for deletion. For instance, a reporting form might have resulted in the following (new text bolded for emphasis):
- A clear no to question 1a (cp), though I understood that as a rhetorical question anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Media that promotes self-harm?[edit]
I was expecting to find some censorship ideas here, but this is an especially weird one... I can't riddle out what it is meant to refer to. Seems like it could refer to anything from punk skateboarding video to bomb diagrams, though my first guess would be those bong pictures Putin has his panties in a knot about. Any explication? Wnt (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit Template:ReportAbuse/layout with a meaningful edit summary and lookup the history to find out the person who suggested this. -- Rillke(q?) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)