Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 18

User talk:Misatur

User:Misatur has uploaded loads of images that are not within the scope [1]. --08:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to break out Special:Nuke. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All gone; user pointed towards Flickr as a better outlet. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to advise "Misatur" of the fact that his files do not meet the Commons' scope. Well, problem solved effectively. --High Contrast (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnails of non-animated GIF images

Hi,

The bug 16451 GIF scaling limit should be applied to animated GIFs only is marked as "fixed" since August, but non animated GIF's on commons are still not being scaled. When I asked about it on bugzilla, I was told that "somebody needs to activate it on Wikimedia". Anybody knows how to do that? --Jarekt (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting picture

Hello,

Could someone be so kind to delete the useless versions of File:U1 Renminlu Suzhou.jpg created by me. I'd like to completely get rid of the first version, as a person is visible there and might be identified against its wish. Two of the three other versions are redundant - they are all the same (my computer showed me the wrong result because I forgot to refresh cache) Sorry for the circumstances. User:YYK

 Done, Deleted the first version. --Martin H. (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist User talk:CategorizationBot please

Hi everyone, I moved most of my categorization jobs to a new dedicated bot account. The categorization bots produced a lot of feedback on my talk page (too much for me to cope with). I hope user questions will now end up at User talk:CategorizationBot. I would really appreciate it if people watchlist this page and help answering these questions. Multichill (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphan bots

Does Commons have a policy on how to handle orphaned bots? User:FlickreviewR appears to be still active eg[2], but there is no one maintaining it apparently. User:Bryan now says

I am no longer part of the active Commons community and do not intend to become so in the foreseeable future. I won't check this page regularly, so in case you need me, send an mail. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So we have an orphan bot that will no doubt continue to trawl the seas until it hits a reef somewhere. The problem is that while it can no doubt do the job it was set up for, the environment changes and it needs updating. There is already a note on its talk page complaining that it doesn't recognise {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}, and now with User:MGA73bot2 marking everything that contains "flickr.com" for flickr review it is marking derivative images as having bad licenses as it was never designed for that (it should obviously just be checking the source image, which may well have been flickr reviewed long ago and found to have a good license then). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bryan is not completely gone thankfully, so in an emergency we can still contact him. That in turn means FlickreviewR is not technically orphaned. That said he is likely to be slow to respond. I got him to carry out a feature request and he also fixed the "no known restriction" problem (both in late July). Of course, future changes are a problem especially if he goes completely. Given the extreme importance of that bot to the project, I think the best solution here is for us to find another bot operator willing to do support - either from taking over/supporting Bryan with that bot or by setting up clone bot(s). The same goes for his other bots (DRBot, BryanBot, CommonsDelinker).

As for the broader question, I'm not aware of a policy on orphaned bots.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Bryan is well aware of this "single maintainer" problem, and has asked before for co-maintainers.[3] Lupo 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that there is some support there still from Bryan. This seems to be a general problem with bots and other tools like Mayflower. Useful additions that need maintanence but people have moved on. I mentioned the same concern at Commons:Bots/Requests/FPCBot, it would be nice if we had some sort of adopt a bot program, or some sort of buddy system for operators of bots that perform ongoing functions, it would save re-inventing the wheel at regular intervals. I see that User:MGA73bot2's owner is very responsive and has updated his bot to avoid some bugs and limitations in User:FlickreviewR so we're ok until the next bug pokes its head up :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have the multi-maintainer projects at the Toolserver. User:CommonsDelinker for example is run by multiple admins in a multi-maintainer account. Multichill (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So we should push other bots to become part of this? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should identify bots and tools important to Commons and encourage more than one maintainer. Multichill (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ps. I'm still looking for one or more co-maintainers for CategorizationBot

Revised image not reflect to article

The height of en:Tokyo Sky Tree is altered to 634m from 610m in design and in under construction. The image file File:Tokyo Sky Tree - Silhouette & Cross section.jpg is up dated to 634m [4]. This update image, however not reflected to article such as en:Tokyo Sky Tree, ja:東京スカイツリー and other articles. This topic is also posted to Commons:Village pump#Revised image not reflect to article November 3.--Namazu-tron (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see en:Wikipedia:Purge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved by purge. Thanks a lot.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern over admin actions and possibly collusion on voting

I am concerned about Lycaon's behaviour as indicated here. It seems quite likely to me that there has been collusion between him and his now acknowledged wife on some issues, particularly voting. His wife's contributions, while appreciated, are rather focussed and at times on the same subjects as her husband's. Whether this is called puppetry or not is rather academic as the effect - removing transparency from voting and colluding - is the same.

As can be seen from the CU page the indication was that Lycaon would be available for comment last Friday. Given his long standing involvement in Commons it seemed appropriate to allow a little more time. However I posted yesterday on his talk page and there is still no response. It may well be that he is away again however this cannot be merely left in abeyance and I feel the community must review this. Lar has cross linked the two user pages now so transparency is now there however I certainly feel that the community was mislead by their voting.

I feel it is now appropriate to seek comments from the community. At the very least I feel any pages/images affected by this collusion should be re-run/reviewed. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see that it matters so much, unless it would be voting on adminship. And even then, "one man one vote", but women may vote too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand there were a number of FPs that failed because of these two votes (with only one of the votes they would have passed) or because these votes turned a tide. Given that his wife did little else than support his positions (contrast the activities of my wife, for example, we are both contributors of some significant history with far different interests, and participate on different wikis to different degrees) that's not really fair. Per Herby, I think the right thing to do is run these FPs over again but without their votes. If they fail again, so be it, but they deserve another chance, in my view. The larger picture here is that an admin and long time trusted member of our community is not being sufficiently communicative... just blowing the whole thing off isn't an appropriate response. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Estrilda' gallery shows that she contributed over one hundred photos. That should count as a significant history. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying the good contributions of either user.

However because their association was unknown to the community, the community has been mislead.

I agree with Larry - I think that people who are not involved in this should consider whether the voting. If the votes affected or influenced the outcome they should be re-run without participation by Lycaon or his wife.

I think there has been effectively harassment by these two accounts which were seen as quite separate personally but that is why others in the community should look at this.

Based on all I've seen so far and the sad lack of response from Lycaon I personally regret nominating him as an admin here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"I appologize for the voting (supporting my husband). That will not happen again." (statement by Estrilda from the CU page). That's reason enough to rerun these votes, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Herby and Lar. As a minimum I think

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kalapana May 2009.jpg

should have its FPC status reconsidered as it failed just by one vote and both Estrilda and Lycaon opposed and Estrilda has acknowledged some kicking back in the form of oppose votes in that time frame. I think there is one more FPC which is affected in the same manner (mila probably knows). Personally I consider it very unlikely that Lycaon has not seen the recent posts both on the RFCU and on his talk page, and I am dissapointed by this lack of response from a user, which I have hithertoe had great respect for and has perceived as a Commons friend. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:Response: As of what Estrilda wrote[5], he might be on a field trip/excursion without online access. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like conflict of interests for me. It'll be good idea if both persons will contribute to different area of Commons without correlations. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Pieter Kuiper's comments, Lar and his wife are a good example of how two people from the same household can contribute productively and appropriately. The difficulty is how hard it is for the rest of the editing community to know whether it's really two independent people, or one person with two accounts, or two family members acting in deliberate collusion. Lycaon is an experienced administrator; it would have been easy for him to have avoided suspicions with proactive disclosure. Yet he didn't, and has hardly responded after Checkuser was run. Estrilda posted to say that Lycaon would be unavailable until Thursday or Friday of last week. We've been patient; Lycaon still hasn't followed up. I don't want to think badly of him, but it would not be good to institute a double standard. Potential vote stacking is a serious matter. Durova (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured-picture votes are hardly a serious matter. This cannot have been the only example of collaborative backbiting or reciprocal backscratching. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We all contribute for our own reasons and for our own enjoyment, and while they may not be a serious matter to you, or to me, I am not sure we should make such a blanket pronouncement, and I personally would not presume to. There is a pattern here, it's a bad practice to allow to let stand. I think it is not going to hurt us to rerun some of these and see what happens. I would hope that on a rerun people would put the past aside and comment solely on the merits (that is, neither vote "against" because they were upset about the rerun nor vote "for" out of sympathy or merely because they were upset about the fairness aspect). ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One cannot reverse the clock and the context, but it seems evident that there is a simple way of redoing specific FPs if a user request for it. I am more worrying about the silence of Lycaon, although a seaman is never completely predictable. --Foroa (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A featured picture usually represents considerable effort on the part of the editor who contributes it, and sometimes also involves nontrivial outlay for equipment, software, books, etc. from the volunteer's personal funds. Lar's suggestion looks like a good one. Durova (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that anything involving voting should be re-run.

I am happy to acknowledge that a sailor's life may well be unpredictable. However if his wife felt he would be available for comment last Friday the lack of comment concerns me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

An alternative to revoting could be to simply disregard one of the votes, e.g., Estrelda's on FPCs whose outcome is determined by both users opposing them. That is, an administrative post-promotion of the one I've mentioned and others if such ones pop up. --Slaunger (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, and possibly better because it would resolve the matter without prolonging any conflict or bad feelings. Provisionally, I'd be willing to regard this matter as resolved on that basis, if we close this with an understanding that Lycaon will follow up with a statement when he returns. Sounds fair? Durova (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that if others are. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg is another one of milas which was not featured by one vote and where the two users both opposed the nomination. This one goes back to May 2008 though and I am unsure whether the two oppose votes are due to a deliberate campaign against the nominator at that time or a more objective oppose due the mertis of the photo. However, for the benefit of the doubt and to clearly signal that the accounts should have been cross-linked and that this vote pattern is unacceptable I think this one should be reconsidered as well and administratively promoted. There are some Estrilda votes on Lycaons photos in POTY 2008, but I do not think that reverting those votes would change anything (now) and I cannot see a point in going through the trouble of reverting those. --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As a non-involved user who just happened upon this discussion, I was dismayed at what I read and, being who I am, could not move on without giving what I would hope is the neutral view of an outsider.

As I see it, there are a couple of pointes being discussed all at once:

1. The accounts of Lycaon and Estrilda, with reference to sock puppeting and the questions regarding their relationship.
2. Voting collusion on Featured Pictures
3. Harassment of another user

Of account 3 I have little knowledge and, while it seems to be the more serious claim, it is the one that bothers me the least, since it should be easy to prove or disprove with the relevant diffs. What does bother me is that it seems decided that users are obliged to reveal relationships to other users on the top of their user pages (what "privacy"?). I am not as prolific a contributor as Lycaon and my husband even less so, but I will definitely view it as a gross invasion of privacy if something similar was done on my user page or if it was, gulp!, mandatory. Frankly, it's ridiculous. Sure, when a user is prompted and questioned about suspicious similarities he/she should come clean, but that should not mean that they are obliged to have that acknowledgement be splattered over their userpages if they do not wish it to be. (I can just hear Jack McCoy's voice: "Those cases are sealed, your Honor!")

Too further suggest that married couples focus on different areas on Commons or Wikimedia is just as ridiculous, never mind discriminatory. ("Sorry, ma'am, married couples aren't allowed at the Village Pump...")

Any "collusion" on the picture voting simply cannot be proved and it will be unfair to revert; especially in cases like these. Just because she's his wife and agrees with him makes her vote no less valid than the users who also agreed with him. What about the users who voted for the pictures? How do we know that Mbz1 voted for the picture because it is really good and not because it's *his* picture? What about the other users who didn't provide reasons for the support/opposition? Btw, I'm only using Mbz1 here as an example (since he was both the photographer/nominator), I'm not implying that he did anything improper. I can hardly imagine Lycaon pointing a gun to Estrilda's head, forcing her to vote for a picture she actually doesn't like.

The only problem here - insofar as there even is a problem - is with the voting system itself, but that is a well-known one. As long as it remains a "most votes wins" affair, the motivations behind these subjective votes remain unclear and can only be guessed at. But that is another thing entirely. A bit more than 2c, but there you have it. Anrie (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Anrie on this. -- User:Docu at 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you two are in the minority here, and I advocate doing as Slaunger suggests, striking the double votes in a few cases (the ones suggested so far) and seeing what the result would then be. There is no perfectly fair solution but in view of Lycaon's complete lack of explanation or even engagement, this strikes me as sending a good message. ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am as apalled as Anrie. That makes three of us. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which only means that the three of you did not learn the the subject well enough to comment on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is a conflict of interest and a betrayal of the common sense that we expect of our administrators to act as Lycaon is alleged to have done. While it is important to be sensitive to the issues that Anrie raises, I don't think it is burdensome not to comment on issues that involve others with whom you have a relationship. My impression is that there are always plenty of pictures to review. It should not be necessary to comment on the same picture as your spouse. Even if a relationship is public, we expect administrators to use good judgement. If it is not public, it is wise to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I think FP, QI, VI, RfA, and similar pages are ones where care need be exercised. VP would not normally raise this sort of concern. But, if the FP designation has significance, it is only because the selection process appears to be fair and honest. I think any pages/images affected by collusion should be rerun or corrected administratively. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Disappointed at the lack of a follow-up thus far. Estrilda, any updates? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not an admin, but I have been bold and silently (i.e. without reopening for a new review) post-promoted File:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg and File:Kalapana May 2009.jpg to Featured Picture status. Oppose votes by both Lycaon and Estrilda were decisive for an original decline of these two FPCs. I have cancelled Estrildas vote, and updated the results based on new vote counts which flipped these FPCs to a featured state. I have to the best of my abilty completed each step in the manual FP promotion instruction at Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. I consider the concerns raised by Docu, Anrie and Pieter Kuiper as non-substantial as it is common practise at Commons to cross-link when family members share the same IP in this community. I do not think we have a clearly written suckpuppet/meatpuppet policy at Commons, but at least en:Wikipedia:FAMILY#Sharing an IP address spells it out very clearly as already mentioned by Mbz1. --Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This is not enwp. It is the FP charade that is without substance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Written policy on Commons or not: Any regular (including Lycaon) in the FPC circuitry knows that any votes just vaguely resembling meat- or sockpuppetry at FPC is a clear no-go. It has been such the last 2-3 three years I have been here. Lycaon has been active there even longer, and has been one of the most active defenders against meat- and sockpuppetry, which is why the complete absense of especially Lycaon in this discussion is so alarming and dissapointing. --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Besides you, there isn't really any support for this re-count. I suggest you undo this and re-list the images. -- User:Docu at 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Docu, even though I don't quite follow how you draw that conclusion based on counting alone, it is for me more substantial the weights of the argument and my perception of the judgement of all those other users. Lar and Herby are on my top five of users with the best judgement here on Commons. Adding to that the always wise comments by Walter and a heavy duty FPC regular and admin Durova, it strikes me as a bit odd that you insist on us not having an overall consensus on this, especially considering that your own judgement has been seriously questioned in another recent COM:AN thread, that you have had recent disputes with both Lar and Mzb1, and that you are not active in the FPC circuitry. Even if you disagree on the meatpuppet issue, Estrilda has on top of this admitted that some of her oppose votes at COM:FPC on mbz1's noms did not reflect a review of the merits of the nominations but rather an oppose with the objective to 'kick back'. Meatpuppet or not, that is totally unacceptable when dealing with the promotion of the most prestigious and exposed content on Commons. And Pieter Kuiper's past comment "Featured-picture votes are hardly a serious matter" gives for me a pretty good indication that Pieter is in a domain, where he has not much experience. Adding to that the well-known ongoing friction between mbz1 and Pieter it seems odd to me exactly how enthusiatically Pieter defends meatpuppetry. --Slaunger (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • If you re-read some of the comments, you will notice that most participants suggest to re-run the votes, not re-count them. Even Lar (in his last post) only lent conditional support to your proposal. I don't think Pieter (or any participant) defends meatpuppetry, even if I don't share his general view of the process. While I agree this was not exemplary conduct, I think we have seen worse. In any case, if the only result was that two pictures of a user that is known to make questionable use of multiple accounts on FPC, I don't think it's worth all that fuss. -- User:Docu at 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
              • It is a lie, docu. I have never used multiple accounts. I used only one account at the time, and I did it not from a good life, but to avoid being harassed. As we could see from CU case the harassment was not imaginary, but a very real one.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Hmmm, I actually interpreted Docus last post very differently and not as an accusation about you socking, but rather an understanding that some kind of reopening of affected FPCs was OK and not something to make a big fuss about. As I see it the only disagreement left with Docu was whether they should be re-opened for review or administratively promoted as I have done. I did the latter to avoid anymore fuss and to send a clear signal. One could also have reopened them, but I think it would have been hard for the reviewers to stay focused on the merits of the images and not on the circumstances of the reopening. Thus, I do not think reopening them would have been fruitfull, rather a further waste of time. --Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Docu, what happened with your arithmetic? You did rather well here, when you counted how many children, men, women, kites and so on were at the image--Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • So how do you count? -- User:Docu at 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I am not sure I follow your question. I count exactly how I was taught in kindergarten :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                

Peace, please. --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not in the habit of repeating myself, but above I said, "I think any pages/images affected by collusion should be rerun or corrected administratively." Consequently, I support Slaunger's actions on the two VP discussions that he cites. Herby, at the beginning of this discussion, says essentially the same thing. D/urova and Lar support Slaunger's proposal also, if I'm not mistaken. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Foroa too. Thank you, Walter.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I haven't commented in this discussion since I don't have anything new to add to the arguments/observations already expressed, and we certainly shouldn't turn COM:AN into a "most votes wins" affair. But for what it's worth, I endorse Slaungers actions and overall agree with the arguments presented in support of these. I also share the concern expressed by several over Lycaons continued absence. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Walter, et al, I endorse Slaunger's action, with thanks for acting wisely and decisively. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with duplicate image

A while ago, User:Dan Pelleg made a change to the Wikipedia file w:File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif but instead of updating the image he created a new one File:EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons. I am now trying to get these merged with the proper attributions to conform to COM:GFDL. As a first step to this I uploaded the original file to the Commons (File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif) and submitted a deletion request for the duplicate file with a note to merge the histories so neither the creator of the original file or Dan Pelleg lose their attributions. The deletion request was denied however so there are still duplicate files and some versions violate the GFDL. What there should be is the current version of EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons with the name EpitrochoidOn1.gif with the an upload history listing w:User:Sam Derbyshire as the original uploader and listing User:Dan Pelleg as uploading a modification. There shouldn't be any duplicates of this file other than the mirror of the updated EpitrochoidOn1.gif on Wikipedia. I have been discussing this with Dan Pelleg on his talk page and have asked him to re-upload his edit to the original file in order to get a step closer to the goal, but it would probably be much easier for an admin to merge the histories and remove the duplicates. This request is reposted from w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--RDBury (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about satisfying attribution and GFDL requirements. There is absolutely no need for the file to be uploaded by the image's author (although that helps as far as provenance is concerned and means that it is in the authors upload gallery). There is also no problem with having a derivative uploaded as a seperate file. It is not as though having them uploaded with the same filename saves any space etc. Although it is 'tidy' to have them uploaded with the same file name, it is also quite reasonable to have a new version uploaded seperately when there is some doubt that it will be acceptable as a replacement. In this case the derivative version just needs to cite the original and its author as the source. The original can then be marked as superceded, and replaced in the articles as appropriate. It would be nice (although not required) if User:Dan Pelleg also added the CC license to his version himself. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now sure how it works on the Commons, but I was going by w:WP:MOVE which states:

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)

It seems like you're saying that this doesn't apply here but apparently I'm still not understanding something. How is this situation different than what they are talking about in WP:MOVE?--RDBury (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That is good advice and particularly pertains to text articles. The same idea holds true for images and other media in the respect that we have to maintain those links, those author attributions etc. Any image either needs to be declared as original work, or have attributions back to its source. But generally that information is not just part of the page history, it is part of the image page itself - it is like every wikipedia article having the credits for each bit of text right on the article page! Of course there are generally few revisions to images, and if there are a series of derivative images each only really needs to link back to its immedite predecessor for all attributions to be readily found. If the chain is ever broken then it calls into question the validity of the license on the derivatives, therefore we keep all revisions (much to some peoples annoyance ;-). Great care must be taken when moving images from en:wikipedia to Commons as it is easy to loose source and revision information as the original on wikipedia is then deleted, but there are now automated tools to help in that process. Of course if the author re-uploads the image here themselves, then that wikipedia history isn't as important (because the author has effectively licensed it here independantly anyway). Does that help? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's PD but can't be used for commercial purposes?

I just noticed something on the boilerplate for File:Escaping from Prince of Wales.jpg after tagging it and other AWM images for watermarks:

The copyright has expired because this photo was taken prior to January 1, 1955. The AWM record for this photo states that the copyright status is 'clear'. The AWM, however, requires that the AWM watermark is not removed and that permission be sought for commercial use. Higher resolution versions of this image may be ordered through the AWM Website at www.awm.gov.au

Now correct me if i'm wrong, but if this is true, then all AWM images uploaded to the commons by default have already violated the [policy] and the purpose and spirit of Commons by offering free media for any use. Can I get a second opinion?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the copyright stated for that image (P02018.055) on their site[6] is "Copyright expired - public domain"[7].

The site copyright page[8] spells out what public domain means:

"Copyright expired - public domain

    This term describes material held in the National Collection
    that is clearly out of the period of copyright protection.
    Material that is out or beyond the period of copyright protection,
    is known as being in the “public domain”. 

    You do not require permission to reproduce or publish this image.

.

So yes, the statement on the image page "The AWM, however, requires that the AWM watermark is not removed and that permission be sought for commercial use" is in fact wrong, they do not make any such demands for public domain images, do we have any non-public domain AWM images? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether they deliberately are including PD images in their terms of use, but a link under each image goes to the same pop-up help pages[9], regardless of copyright status, that make all sorts of stipulations, that contradict their sitewide copyright statement linked to above. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there has been correspondence of a sort on this matter email from the AWM to Nick Dowling 6 January 2006. There is a "terms of use" statement [10] that users presumably agree to when using, or downloading images from the AWM (assuming they have noticed it before downloading?), but that is between them and the AWM. It is not an agreement that involves wikimedia and has no effect upon the copyright status of the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well under the Australian law they are in the Public Domain (Even if the AWM places a watermark and says it still hold right over the image). No one can hold any rights to the image of a PD image (Whether it is a poster, photograph ect) however some debate that by digitising (Same issue that is popping up World-wide) an image that they own rights to it however it is seen that is not the case as no creativity has gone into the image from the original time it was published. It is one of the issues which at GLAM-WIKI in August is trying to work out which will take time. I'll be meeting with the AWM on another matter later this month and if I get time I'll try and raise this issue with them. Bidgee (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Move File

Please move http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rework.jpg to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cafe_Seelos_Werbung_rework.JPG. Thanks! --LSG1 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

{{PolishPresidentCopyright}}

Could someone who knows well how license templates work please check {{PolishPresidentCopyright}}? In the gallery view of users this tag produces a misleading "no license tag" displayed. See e.g.: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=Kimodin --ALE! ¿…? 07:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be aproblem with the external tool on the toolserver. I don't think there is anything that Commons admins can do about that. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We can separate the license into a source information and a standard license template. An example is Template:BArch-License. That will reduce the number of custom license template (without any special license terms) and will resolve the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I added {{GFDL 1.2}} to {{PolishPresidentCopyright}} --Jarekt (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you do something like this also to {{PolishSenateCopyright}} ? Thanks in advance! --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW; I changed the template to reflect the actual statement of the copyright notice: It does not talk about GFDL 1.2 only, it talks about the GFDL in general. According to the GFDL: If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation., so we can migrate those images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But it does specify 1.2, in the original release[11] it specifically links to version 1.2. -Nard the Bard 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asking again: Could soemone do something like this also to {{PolishSenateCopyright}} ? Thanks in advance! --ALE! ¿…? 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Require template for Indian Air Force and Indian Army websites

There is a requirement for templates similar to the U.S military websites for Indian Air Force and Army websites. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is the difference that photographs created by U.S. government employees, including the U.S. armed forces, are public domain whereas works created by the Indian federal government are not public domain. So on what permission or law should a license template build on? All U.S. government tags are only subtemplates of {{PD-USGov}} - the legal basis of this license templates. --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not asking templates exactly like the U.S but the Indian Armed websites has been revised. Now the copyright statement reads like this "Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.". So instead of pointing to this information for each and every time a single template will be better.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mention derivative works and commercial usage so this permission is not sufficient for Commons. Multichill (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commercial use is implied, but the situation with derivative works in general is unclear. Also some types of derivative works are explicitly prohibited. Sv1xv (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd coincidence of Azeri uploads

User:Narimanaliv, User:Malahatnajafova, and User:Nitsvbl (and, for all I know, possibly others) are uploading entire articles from the same Azerbaijani architecture magazine, each uploading articles of which they claim to be the author. It is possible that several Azeri academics have all decided to give us their articles, which would be cool, but it seems like quite a coincidence. I would at least consider the possibility that this is one person with several socks, quite possibly unconnected to any of the actual authors. Someone should probably look into this further. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion denied

As suggested I move the debate here. The story short:

• A DR was closed as a speedy.
• I made an undeletion request here Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-11#File:Bonnie_SG.jpg objecting against closing it as a speedy + that closing admin was not objective since he has been very active in the deletion request.
• I made a note on Village pump because I felt it was a matter of principles.
• The undeletion request was speedy closed leaving only the discussion on the Village pump open.
• After a debate on the Village pump it was suggested that COM:AN was a better place.

So here we go:

• We have a rule that a DR should be open for 7 days unless they are very clear. If it is disputed then it will often stay open for a longer time. Also an involved admin should not close the request.
• On the pump the main issue turns out to be that the undeletion request was speedy closed and thereby denying discussion of a deletion.

I would like to hear other opinions about both matters since I feel it is bad if we start speedying just to "win". --MGA73 (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The pump discussion is good for talking about the general case, in my view... there are times when a speedy is appropriate. They are, and should be rare. I think we need to endorse that principle. To this particular case, MGA73 raises two concerns, first, that the debate itself shouldn't have been closed early, and shouldn't have been closed by an "involved" admin, and second that the UD/DRV shouldn't have been closed by an "involved" admin or closed early either.

• On the matter of whether Zscout370 is "involved", I think that's a spurious claim. The sum total of Zscout's involvement was to communicate with the model, establish bonafides and track the matter in OTRS. Zscout did not opine one way or the other on the deletion itself. So Zscout hardly was ineligible to do the close. Even if Zscout HAD commented it wasn't necessarily an ineligibility, if the discussion was very one sided (it wasn't in this case, but IF). But he didn't participate substantively (gathering information and working OTRS is NOT participating substantively). NOT involved.
• On the matter of whether the deletion discussion was closed early, I think perhaps it was. This matter could have waited a few more days. But it's marginal, there wasn't really a lot of harm in closing early but also the OTRS discussion mainly focuses on identity validation, and confirms that this was a request (i.e. Commons was within rights to keep the image, there was not a copyvio or other issue that required deletion (minor, lack of model release, etc... for reference here's a link to the ticket correspondence, viewable by those with OTRS access: [12]) rather than a requirement, so that argues for it running to the end. Zscout should be reminded of this.
• On the matter of the close of the UD/DRV by Mattbuck... again I don't see Mattbuck as TOO involved to have done a close (although in this case, unlike the original DR which Zscout did NOT participate in substantively, Mattbuck did comment...) given how one sided that discussion was. He was involved though, so if it had been marginal, no.
• On the matter of whether the close was early... Again, maybe. But in this case with how one sided the discussion was, probably not. For the sake of proper procedure probably should have run anyway, even if not needed. Mattbuck should be reminded of this.

That's my analysis. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support MGA73's concerns of general character. With this particular photo, I don't think we lost anything (I guess it is replaceable and I don't think it was used at time of deletion). In general, I think it is wrong to close DRs fast, however - especially when an established user like Pieter has voted keep. Why the rush? It could have been closed after 7 days just fine. I'm especially concerned with the fast closure of the undeletion request. Again, what is the rush? Ordinary users (including "foreign" admins) don't have a chance to comment because we can't see the deleted photos. When using speedy closure too much, the transparency is lost. That's bad and it does indeed shed a bad light on Commons - seen from the viewpoint of other Wikimedia projects. Nillerdk (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Once the identity of the person had been confirmed by Zscout370, I was willing to change my vote if also images more likely to cause distress would be deleted. The speedy decision minutes after Bastique's intervention stopped that process. Encouraged by Túrelio, I tried to reopen that case in this DR, which MGA73 closed immediately. I find it very ironic that he is complaining here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Lar Thank you for the comments. There was also some discussion on IRC regarding this image and I was never in doubt, that Zscout370 wanted the image deleted. That in combination with the speedy made me conclude, that he was too involved. Im not sure if this is the correct word but in my view disqualification (Danish: inhabilitet) or "involved" is not only a matter of you ARE to close to be neutral but if others with some reason could asume you are.

Image was in use on dewiki - sere they were informed?

Non admins can see Bonnie here. --MGA73 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No longer: "The photo you were looking for has been deleted." --Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Pieter, Now that you bring that up I have two questions. You tryed to get the Burning Man-image deleted first time and second time. In the Bonnie-case you voted keep but you also said "... However, I can change my !vote when you delete those two photos of the dancing girl at Burning Man. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)" Shortly after the deletion you nominated Burning Man for the third time only one week after it was closed the second time. And now you are trying every way possible to get your will with the Burning Man-images.

First question. Was your "keep" in Bonnie-case ever for real or was it just a game to get the Burning Man-images deleted?

Second question. Do you really think it is OK to keep nominating images to get what you want? Or for me to keep starting a undeletion request for the Bonnie image untill you get tired and do it? I really hope not. --MGA73 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well now the Burning Man are open again reason "I think it was closed in haste, and there is always room for more discussion in these matters". I expect the Bonnie-images to be reopend with the same reason! Thank you Bastique! --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At first I did not quite believe that it was the model who asked for deletion, and that was my main reason to oppose the request. Now that identity is accepted by OTRS people, I am quite neutral. There is no censorship behind this deletion, that is the main thing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record... I closed the DR mentioned above after 1 hour. That was too soon so it was reopend. Now it was closes after 1 hour as deleted... And the deletion of the Bonniw was not reopend... End of story... --MGA73 (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why the undeletion request should have been closed so quickly. That's what that forum is open for; if we wanted to have such undeletion discussion on the Village Pump, we could delete that page altogether. Letting it run until the arguments have stopped makes sure the participants get heard, and continuing arguments into the Village Pump and Administrators' noticeboard will clearly be inappropriate. Here, the issue has spilled over into two other boards because the appropriate forum was closed prematurely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of the general case: I don't think it is bad to close a deletion request early if the image is doing harm to someone, the sooner deleted the better. But I feel the opposite in the case on an undeletion request, especially in the circumstances of a premature closing of the deletion request. As a matter of due process the undeletion request should be left to run its natural course. In fact it could be a matter of policy that "in the exceptional case where a deletion request is closed early (for reasons other than obvious copyvio or vandalism), any further discussion should be carried on at an undeletion request for at least the period allowed for a normal deletion request" if that makes sense :-). ie if the deletion request is closed after 1 day, any further discussion by way of an undeletion request should be allowed to run at least 6 days. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New logo for COM:AN

File:Adminet logo200x42.gif

;-)

--Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing issues at CfD

Hi all. I mostly admin over at enwiki, so I'm not nearly as familiar with the machinery of Commons processes. I raised some concerns about a category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Upstream fitness about a month ago, but there hasn't been any movement since. (The category is for a made-up exercise program being promoted by a single editor, and links to it are being spammed across a large number of Wikipedias.)

What's the procedure for asking a Commons admin to close the discussion and go ahead and delete the category? TenOfAllTrades (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is none but you could probably stick a backlog tag on the main CFD page. Bear in mind there are requests still open from 2008. Majorly talk 17:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As you were the only participant, you might as well close it yourself. If the conclusion is deletion, just split the category and add {{Speedy}}. -- User:Docu at 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)