Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2021/03

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

List (un)deletions and nominations on "Category talk:" pages

Have a robot list every deletion request of a(n) image(s) in a category (ONLY THAT DIRECT CATEGORY AND NOT SUBCATEGORIES) on the talk page of that category. Most category talk pages are redlinks that barely see any discussions and many categories don't have any edits happen to them in many years this would actually make "watching" categories more beneficial, as you would then be informed about when images in that category get nominated (or plainly tagged) for deletion. Also deletion tags like speedy tags could be listed on category talk pages while they wouldn't be listed in any deletion requests system. This system can also notify who tags what and who deleted what. Undeletions can potentially also be listed in such a manner. Empty categories can potentially become something useful as logs of previous deletions.

This can be added by adding one "=" (level 1) at the top of the listing deletions and undeletions, then two "==" (level 2) per year. Then adding one "=" (level 1) below that named "Discussions" and then preserving all the discussions below.

The main scope of this proposal is both making the "Watch" button for categories more useful and making it easier to find deletion requests that concern categories you watch. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

List (un)deletions and nominations on "Category talk:" pages (Votes)

List (un)deletions and nominations on "Category talk:" pages (Discussion)

Please check the nowiki tags for what I mean above:

Category talk:Example

== Template:UncategorizedHeader == [[:Template:UncategorizedHeader]] should make cats like [[:Category:Media needing categories as of 1 May 2020]] hidden. does anyone oppose?--[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC) : {{reply|RZuo}} <s>I don't think you need to change the template so much as change all the Media needing categories to make them hidden cats.</s> I think we shouldn't hide them as we do want to encourage people to add categories and fix stuff and they will see an uncategorized page if they aren't logged in. Wrong on the template usage. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC) ::all maintenance cats should be hidden. only content cats are shown.--[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC) :::{{re|RZuo}} I added that as another problem at [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Maintenance categories]] and [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Commons maintenance]].   — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 12:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC) == Add an IPBE section to [[COM:RFR]] == This would be the place for users to request IP Block Exemption if they are having trouble getting around firewalls like GFW. I suggested it at [[COM:AN#IPBE for User:Baomi]], but {{u|CptViraj}} wrote that I need a community discussion. Please, discuss.   — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 06:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC) :{{Pinging|Eatcha}} as maintainer of UserRightsBot, which processes COM:RFR.   — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 06:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC) :Please note that local IPBE is necessary to bypass local IP blocks even if the user has global IPBE.   — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 13:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * {{Support}}, as I'm the bloke that was confused about how and where to request the right. <strike>Also, we should have a page entitled "[[Commons:IP block exemption]]" ([[COM:IPBE]]), like [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption the English-language Wikipedia] and the [https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uitgezonderden_van_IP-adresblokkades Dutch-language Wikipedia] for example, with clear instructions on how to ask for this.</strike> Likely the RFR section will only be used by endorsers (like I did for Baomi), so IP blocked people themselves also need to have a clear set of instructions other than we endorsers need. Edit: Apparently the struck section is already the case, my bad. --<small>[[User:Donald Trung|Donald Trung 『徵國單』]] ([[User talk:Donald Trung|No Fake News 💬]]) ([[Commons:WikiProject Numismatics|WikiProject Numismatics]] 💴) ([[w:nl:Gebruiker:Donald Trung/Mijn werk 🏢|Articles 📚]])</small> 11:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC) *Maybe a silly question, but if an editor is subject to an IP block aren't they be unable to edit onwiki? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC) *:{{re|ProcrastinatingReader}} Yes, that's why they would need IPBE. I started off not being exempt anywhere in 2006; 15 years later, I have accumulated global IPBE plus local IPBE on enwiki and ruwiki because some of the IP addresses I edit from or through were locally blocked on enwiki and ruwiki when I encountered those blocks and asked for local IPBE there.   — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 02:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC) *::What I mean is: how is an editor meant to request IPBE onwiki at COM:RFR when they can’t edit? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC) *IPBE is closely related to blocking, so I think it makes more sense that IPBE requests be made at [[COM:AN]], not [[COM:RFR]]. '''''[[User talk:pandakekok9|panda]][[User:pandakekok9|kekok]][[Special:Contributions/pandakekok9|9]]''''' 09:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC) * This needs a recommended process for confidential requests in the light of potential privacy and security information. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC) *<small>The trick is that some users, if you can believe it, will request global IPBE, even when they are perfectly aware they wouldn't qualify for it from the local projects they edit. Luckily, Checkusers have a robust global mailing list that tends to catch people who do underhanded stuff like that.</small> Anyhoo, as regards Commons specifically, many other projects encourage emailing the local checkuser team. However, Commons only has five CUs currently. It would be good to hear from them regarding if they feel they are able to handle emailed requests for IPBE in a timely manner. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC) * <small>TLDR, It's easy to add new rights for archiving. I will add the right once the proposal is accepted. -- [[User:Eatcha|Eatcha]] ([[User talk:Eatcha|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)</small> :No, because this doesnt make sense at all. when a user needs ipbe, s/he cant edit COM:RFR. when s/he can edit it, s/he doesnt need ipbe.--[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC) == Categorising deletion requests == Old title: Re-thinking deletion requests to make them more accessible === Making the Wikimedia Commons deletion system more easy to understand for newcomers and easier to use for Powerusers === ; Introduction Something I only recently realised is that despite Wikimedia Commons being an arguably larger Wikimedia project than the English-language Wikipedia with a lot more daily deletion requests, we have a relatively disorganised deletion requests system that only sorts by date. At the English-language Wikipedia deletion requests are also sorted by subject. But this is not the only way in which deletion requests can be improved, I recently requested undeletion for a file and then started thinking about the context of how the file got deleted and why. I remember seeing the image a couple of years ago on Wikipedia but wasn't able to find it later, well, I will go into the context of the deletion later, but will first list some suggestions I have and why I think they should be implemented. ; Making the deletion and undeletion request system more accessible. Some ideas on how to make that happen: * Categorise deletion requests based on subjects. (Example: "[[:Category:Vexilollogy related deletion requests]]".) * Categorise deletion requests by deleting admin after the file(s) have been deleted (Example: "[[:Category:Files deleted by User:Example]]".) * Categorise deletion requests by nominator (Example: "[[:Category:Deletion requests started by User:Example]]".) * Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request and if exists link the undeletion request to an original deletion request (or requests). This would notify the original participants in the deletion discussion and would allow for the undeletion request to be linked as "This file has been nominated for undeletion at XXX" or something similar. * Categorise undeletion requests in a similar way. (Example: "[[:Category:Vexigollogy related undeletion requests]]".) * Categorise the aforementioned categories chronologically and not alphabetically. (Similar idea to [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/286278123 this comment] related to [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/266402600 these changes].) * Create sepate pages like "[[Commons:Open deletion requests/FOP in the United States]]" and "[[Commons:Open deletion requests/Paintings from Portugal]]" so people can choose to watch deletion requests "in their field of knowledge" (for example User:A knows a lot about the copyright status of electronical parts while User:B knows a lot about the copyright status of buildings and statues). * have a robot list every deletion request of a(n) image(s) in a category (ONLY THAT DIRECT CATEGORY AND NOT SUBCATEGORIES) on the talk page of that category. Most category talk pages are redlinks that barely see any discussions and many categories don't have any edits happen to them in many years this would actually make "watching" categories more beneficial, as you would then be informed about when images in that category get nominated (or plainly tagged) for deletion. Also deletion tags like speedy tags could be listed on category talk pages while they wouldn't be listed in any deletion requests system. This system can also notify who tags what and who deleted what. Undeletions can potentially also be listed in such a manner. Empty categories can potentially become something useful as logs of previous deletions. * Categorise deletion requests by uploader. (Example: "[[:Category:Files uploaded by User:Example nominated for deletion]]".) ; What inspired these ideas. {| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | <strong>Explaining why, and how I was inspired to write these proposals.</strong> |- | I wanted to originally leave a comment at the page "[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drapeau de la République Autonome de la Cochinchine.png]]" about the context of the previous deletion request and the closing sysop and why I believe that that should weaken the case of deletion, but I realised that wouldn't really come off as a good argument, ''per se'', but then I kept thinking about similar deletion requests. |- | Initially I wanted to explain the historical context of the previous deletion request, as the admin that deleted was INeverCry and point out that the deletion discussion was closed with the rather standard "Deleted, per nomination" line. Now this line isn't rare on Wikimedia Commons at all, in fact most deletion requests are closed with this reasoning, nor would I argue that the line itself is problematic in any way, as a well-reasoned deletion nomination doesn't need any further comments by a deleting sysop. My issue comes with the systematic abuse done by this particular person of Wikimedia Commons over the years, and while I am sure that most veteran Wikimedia Commonists will condemn this person's immature trolling and insults after they lost their admin tools, very few users criticised their Deletionist and Exclusionist behaviour and "lived" (remain unblocked/unbanned) to tell the tale. I wanted to point out that the deleting admin in question after their Global Community Ban, Global Steward Ban (or "Global lock 🔒"/"Stewban"), and WMF Global Ban (or "SanFranBan") they continued coming back to Wikimedia Commons bragging about having over half a million admin actions while nominating files for deletion with very little reasoning behind the deletion requests (note that the above bans don't invalidate ANY of their actions as some people love to bring up in deletion requests, including the aforementioned party). I would have brought these things up that this user seemed to have some sort of addiction to deleting files on Wikimedia Commons and often when looking at deletions and user blocks from certain periods one would note that INeverCry / Daphne Lantier basically dominated certain periods and often when I saw files and other pages that were badly deleted based on very little reasoning their names would appear 99% (ninety-nine percent) of the time. In fact, they had some pretty indecent deletion behaviours. I have seen INeverCry / Daphne Lantier (and socks) remove images on Wikipedia's from user pages of long-retired users and then nominate them on Wikimedia Commons as "Unused personal images" (and this is basically only when they even bother with deletion requests). So I began to think on how to address bad deletions by systematic abusers that deleted images basically to get a number of deleted files so they can brag about the number of their deletions. So I came up with this idea. |- | Deleted files would be categorised by deleting admin and blocked / permabanned users by admin as well, creating "[[:Category:Files deleted by User:Example]]" and "[[:Category:Users indefinitely blocked by User:Example]]" which could further be subdivided by year. Regarding the latter this was because INeverCry deleted all images from a Canadian author and then blocked him for "Spamming", when they requested unblocking on INC's English-language Wikipedia talk page (as they had no talk page or e-mail access on Wikimedia Commons) INeverCry said that they couldn't do anything despite having an Adminsock (Daphne Lantier), later Guanaco unblocked him. This user seemed to be so commonly behind bad blocks and bad deletions that I am sure that they all deserve a review. In fact, blocking users from Talk page access and e-mailing without precedent is a very common thing and indefinitely users basically never are ever unblocked. As this user was quite easy in dealing out these ''de facto'' unappealable actions (as deleted files are only rarely undeleted, regardless of the reasoning behind the original deletion as "Not done" is the ''de facto'' standard in complicated cases). Then I started thinking about other examples of how the system can currently be abused and who abuses it. |- | I had to think of an idea that I had that if INeverCry was still around that people 50 (fifty) years from now won't know how a single Wikimedian looked like because they deleted all the images, perhaps an overstatement, perhaps not. But the reality remains that very few users spoke out against their abuses and they received regular praise for "tackling backlogs", while ironically their lack of competence when actually handling deletion requests allowed for more people to have to "waste their time" with the above undeletion request and subsequently re-opened deletion request. |- | Then I remembered a Thai user that used to tag any public domain Vietnamese file on Wikimedia Commons as "No source" and then they would automatically be deleted, in one case this user started tagging 19th (nineteenth) century books I uploaded as "No source" despite the files clearly having a source. When I pointed out to them that they should nominate files for deletion rather than abuse the tag several admins and other users saw their abuse (as it was earlier only seen by bots as many affected users didn't see these as they hadn't edited in years nor did they notify any users about the "No source" taggings, as apparently this doesn't happen automatically). If all their deletion requests were organised in a category admins with knowledge of Vietnamese and Thai copyright © laws could review their actions. |- | Then I remembered a whole bunch of "Anti-porn warriors" that basically nominated every pornographic image for deletion, now, many pornographic images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are bad quality photographs that don't add anything new and should be deleted, but unfortunately some people see all pornographic images as inherently lacking educational value and want to see them all deleted. Usually you can differentiate between the good faith ones from the Anti-Porn Warriors by seeing their other deletion requests as the latter rarely operate outside that area. Of course, I do not want a system where deletion requests are based more on the person that nominated them or the deleting admin, but currently abusing individuals can go "under the radar" because nominators aren't logged. Other effects this could have is allowing users to show their histories during admin requests and to "the INC-/DAPHNELANTIER-types" to brag about the number of deletion requests they started and / or closed, something which I do not see as inherently wrong as to some people life is just a game of numbers. Though this would also allow users to see if hounding / stalking occurs, how users evolve and become better/worse, Etc. I'm not articulating my points well, I meant that it is a handy way to categorise deletion requests in some overseeable dimension. I should probably argue it better below. |- | Anyhow, so I began thinking about other ways to improve the deletion requests system, well, I came up with organising them based on subject so people with certain expertise in certain fields can more easily find deletion requests and argue why such files should be deleted / kept. Today deletion requests are organised by date and date alone, users have to manually add "Undelete in 2XXX" categories and deletion requests are not only rarely categorised, the only time you might find out about them is through watching a Wikipedia page the image is used on, this is not an ideal system. Then I realised that the English-language Wikipedia already automatically categorises every deletion nomination there, Wikimedia Commons has millions of more pages and sees an enormous amount of deletion requests more than the English-language Wikipedia, so why do they have a better system? Several years ago I thought about re-thinking Wikimedia Commons categories and allowing bots to list files in categories like already happens with files used per Wikipedia article, more and more it seems to become clearer that improvents are all technically possible but that on Wikimedia Commons little is done to actually fix the system or improve it. |- | Bots can easily notify users of deletion requests through category talk pages and dedicated lists of current deletion requests per subject. In the current system you basically have to be "in the know" about deletion requests, which means that deletion requests receive less scrutiny by people who have knowledge about certain subjects than they could. This would make the work a lot easier for new volunteers, for admins, for Powerusers, Etc. It would make things easier to find and would inform users more quickly and more relevantly related to deletion requests. |- | I will go down and list more advantages to certain proposals and try to better word them at every individual proposal. Well these improvement proposals are "a package" they aren't all mutually inclusive and I will try to build a case why each individual improvement should be made, plus "voting" for something as vague as "we need better notifications" without stating how this should be implemented is useless. |} {{Comment|TL;DR}} I was inspired to make these cases after witnessing several cases where categorisation of deletion and/or undeletion requests would have been preferred. I will go down and list more advantages to certain proposals and try to better word them at every individual proposal. Well these improvement proposals are "a package" they aren't all mutually inclusive and I will try to build a case why each individual improvement should be made, plus "voting" for something as vague as "we need better notifications" without stating how this should be implemented is useless. ; Implementing these improvements. I think that these should all be added retroactively, as bots can easily read logs and create categories I don't think that starting with "Architecture in Albania-related deletion requests in 2022" when we should also have a "Architecture in Albania-related deletion requests in 2012". In the beginning this will create a lot of work, but then it will make subsequent work easier for everyone. Regarding the categorisation of deletion requests in "the Metacommons" / "the Metacommonswiki" should follow large categories which should all be up for debate, at the English-language Wikipedia they have a system for categorising deletion nominations that we can emulate, but it "doesn't go far enough" for a Wikimedia Commons as we have much more files and cover much more subjects. It might be wise to "Start big" with "Sports-related deletion requests" and then create pages like "Football-related deletion requests" and "Cricket-related football requests" if too many items are listed per day. Generally the implementation will not be too difficult as bots can do most of the tagging as they have access to log actions and probably not everything can easily be retroactively added. What's most important is that Wikimedia Commons is frequented by people that do not really know or understand Wikimedia Commons, they come here from a Wikipedia and want to upload something to use there, they most likely won't be able to find deletion requests based on similar categories and won't be able to see in the history of why certain things have been repeatedly rejected here or even how to look for them. The categories should be bot-added (no different from how statements for the Structured Data for Wikimedia Commons are added by a number of bots now) and if possible the make-up of how deletion requests are made should include the automatic addition of the "{{Green|<nowiki><noinclude>[[Category:CATEGORY_NAME]]</noinclude>}}" tags. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests based on subjects

Categorising deletion requests based on subject will allow people to find deletion requests which concerns them more easily as well as subjects they have more knowledge in.

Note that this would also just be handy in general for gathering statistics, and for getting a better (and easily accessible) view of the workings of (the community of) Wikimedia Commons.

 Implementation, to implement it the bots can simply discover in what categories images are, not too different from how the OgreBot makes lists of new uploads. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests based on subjects (Votes)

Categorise deletion requests based on subjects (Discussion)

I will be the first to say that I already see some issue with it, there are some anti-porn warriors (APW's) that patrol new deletion requests just to "vote against" porn, while I believe that pornography should be a category of "deletion requests by subject", I can see certain types of people storming certain subjects with what can best be described as "empty votes". But I believe that the benefits of such a system outweigh any potential downsides, as experts in certain subjects can find deletion requests that "talk to them". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Additional comment, yes, I am aware that a lot of problematic uploads aren't categorised at all, but for this there can also be a solution like creating a "Category:Uncategorised files uploaded in November 2013 nominated for deletion" or "Category:Files uncategorised since November 2013 uploaded for deletion", people deciding to watch lists of uncategorised files for deletion can always patrol those and find out where they belong, especially since uncategorised files which may be in scope can be nominated as unused "out of scope" images if it's not exactly clear what the image represents, it just adds an extra dimension for patrol and people are free to choose what to patrol. Of course, "the master list" should be "Uncategorised files nominated for deletion" so people can simply watch this page for notifications. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Comment note that many of these categories already exist, see Category:Sorted deletion requests, Category:Licensing-related deletion requests but these categories are currently added manually. MKFI (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@MKFI: , wasn't aware of them because they are so rarely applied, why do they have to applied manually and can't be done by a bot? In the proposed system users could choose to watch a case where sorted deletion requests are transcluded on a single page, so they would only see relevant deletion requests, of course this wouldn't be as handy if all deletion requests would have to be manually sorted (all the time). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by deleting admin after the file(s) have been deleted

Categorise deletion requests by deleting admin after the file(s) have been deleted (Example: "Category:Files deleted by User:Example".)

This can also include the categorisation scheme "Category:Files kept by User:Example".

Note that this would also just be handy in general for gathering statistics, and for getting a better (and easily accessible) view of the workings of (the community of) Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by deleting admin after the file(s) have been deleted (Votes)

not needed. deletion log is for this. you can also search for deletion requests closed as deleted by certain user pretty easily.--RZuo (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by deleting admin after the file(s) have been deleted (Discussion)

Categorise deletion requests by nominator

Categorise deletion requests by nominator (Example: "Category:Deletion requests started by User:Example".)

This could also include a sub-category for files tagged for speedy deletion which wouldn't list pages but be a list page itself.

Note that this would also just be handy in general for gathering statistics, and for getting a better (and easily accessible) view of the workings of (the community of) Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by nominator (Votes)

ofc not. accounts could be thrown away.--RZuo (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by nominator (Discussion)

  • This could be handy in cases where users make the same mistakes in multiple nominations or if someone wants to check in their own history which files they have nominated for deletion. I mostly thought of this is an abuse case where a Thai user started basically nominating almost every old Vietnamese file for deletion because the original uploader didn't fill in the source field by themselves, even if the file was already in the public domain dozens were deleted and many didn't even see a deletion nomination. I noticed that a 19th century book I uploaded was tagged with a deletion notice, I wasn't informed about this tag and as deletions are assumed on Wikimedia Commons we need to be able to keep bad and/or incompetent actors accountable as we already do for bad and/or incompetent uploaders. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by uploader

Categorise deletion requests by uploader. (Example: "Category:Files uploaded by User:Example nominated for deletion".)

This would allow people to view if certain users upload the same type of copyright violations repeatedly.

This could also include a sub-category for files tagged for speedy deletion which wouldn't list pages but be a list page itself. For example "Category:Files uploaded by User:Example nominated for deletion/Tagged" and then include lists for "No source" and "Speedy".

Note that this would also just be handy in general for gathering statistics, and for getting a better (and easily accessible) view of the workings of (the community of) Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by uploader (Votes)

ofc not. go to user talk page for this purpose.--RZuo (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorise deletion requests by uploader (Discussion)

I must state that I am not a fan of any blocks based on such a list, but it should be able to allow us to try and educate people on what mistakes and assumptions they should avoid when uploading in the future. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


General comments on categorising deletion requests

Old title: General comments on "Re-thinking deletion requests"

This proposal is far too complex. Nobody wants to plough through a 4,000 word essay (literally) before being sure they understood what they are voting on. --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fæ: , which is why I split them all up into separate proposals. This isn't a wholesale reform of the system, just separate proposals on what can be improved and should be viewed independently from each other. You can simply go to a single proposal and judge it on its own merits. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Fæ; also, I think that the current system actually works reasonably well and would work even better if we had some more active admins to reduce the backlog. Mea culpa, I'm not one of the most active ones myself, but at least I do process DRs from time to time... and when I do so, using DelReqHandler of course, I think it's quite good to handle - the main obstacle are individual complex/unclear copyright cases which will not get any easier with whatever envisioned new system. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the current deletion requests system is "broken", I am just exploring and proposing ways on how they can be improved. The English-language Wikipedia categorised their deletion nominations and it makes it easier to find by topic. This is about making a good system better, not "fixing" anything. Admins with more expertise in certain fields can immediately find open DR's in "their field" through categorisation. For example if you have a Romanian admin that knows a lot about Romanian copyright they can quickly find open Romanian copyright-related DR's this way. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I realised that I hadn't really addressed your points, concerning finding individual complex cases, if deletion requests are well-categorised then these can more easily be found by the right people, this system will make it more accessible to follow certain types of deletion requests making it easier for more people to participate in the system, thus if we see more users in specific areas they may want to become an admin and we would overtime perhaps get more admins, because an easy to follow system invites more people. Not everyone wants to patrol every new deletion request per day with lots of difficult copyright cases they know very little about, but if let's say a British or German person with a lot of knowledge about their own national copyright laws and how to apply them can just "follow" the pages they know a lot about then they are inclined to watch a list that only lists the deletion requests that they're interested in. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment, I split the "oddball" proposals to simplify it, so the above proposals are now only related to categorisation if deletion requests, mostly to help discoverability and to let people watch DR's in their specific field(s) of interests (could also benefit WikiProjects), the below are related to the other proposals which are radically different in scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment This proposal is too complex for me to follow (at least for now); but as a possibly pertinent use case… I primarily work on English Wikisource these days and am an admin there. As such I have more than average experience dealing with the copyright issues surrounding books and other scanned textual material, which qualification might be of use to Commons. I also have an interest in watching for deletion requests for English-language books and other scanned textual material that would be in scope for enWS, so I can salvage files that can be salvaged (i.e. PD but in a way that is not necessarily obvious, or with insufficient information provided on upload but available in standard bibliographic sources). I also want to grab such files that are PD in the US but not in, say, the UK and transwiki them to enWS (where policy allows them) before they are deleted on Commons (where the policy doesn't). I would also want to watch for DRs for images extracted from books (illustrations, photos, etc.) related to such sources for much the same reason. Having a deletion (and undeletion/review) system that lets me surgically watch these, rather than attempt to filter the firehose, would let me contribute to these processes (and as such I would support such a system). --Xover (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Most proposals do not add much value other than satisfying obsession of categorising.--RZuo (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how having a largely disorganised system that only categorises in one dimension (time when the deletion request was created) is somehow better than a system where one can choose to watch only DR's that you are interested in. The current system only works for people with a general interest in DR's and (unknowingly) excludes those with specialised interests (something which EnWiki already solved). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
probably 70% or more of DR are for online grabs/personal photos/random adverts... that no one would revisit. that's why i say most likely only those obsessed with categorising would be interested in all these impractical proposals.--RZuo (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Categorisation already exists for certain types of deletion requests, see: "Category:Russian FOP cases/deleted (non-architectural)". Even if "probably 70% or more of DR are for online grabs/personal photos/random adverts... that no one would revisit." that still leaves 30% (thirty percent) to be more complicated cases and more specialised cases. For example "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thái-thanh 1968.JPG" could have been classified as both a Vietnam-related and USGov-related DR, if a user would choose to only watch one category of deletion requests they can. Furthermore, you may want to look at every single deletion request filed every day, but I'm quite sure most people wouldn't, if 70% (seventy percent) of what is coming by are just random obvious copyright violations then the people interested in the other 30% will be discouraged from watching new DR's simply because there are too much DR's for them to be bothered with. The current system only benefits those that want their hobby to be to see as much unrelated deletion requests as possible, not to actually look at things they are interested in, so it is "filtering out" people with more specific interests. If you're a copyright © lawyer looking for complicated cases with only some free time you're not going to scroll through random Wikimedia Commons deletion requests if you can't filter the many easy cases out. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
In fact, Fæ's earlier statement "Nobody wants to plough through a 4,000 word essay (literally) before being sure they understood what they are voting on." is literally how current deletion requests work, there is no possible way to "subscribe" to the kind of deletion requests you want to see without going through hundreds of random Facebook and Instagram pictures uploaded by people that have no idea how copyright © works, so it breeds disinterest. This is also why the English-language Wikipedia with much less deletion nominations and a similar proportion of "online grabs/personal {articles}/random adverts" chooses to automatically categorise their deletion nominations. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request

Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request and, if exists, link the undeletion request to an original deletion request (or requests). This would notify the original participants in the deletion discussion and would allow for the undeletion request to be linked as "This file has been nominated for undeletion at XXX" or something similar.

Note that categories for discussions aren't common either, but they all have separate pages, this is mostly for allowing better categorisation, but also to keep better track of undeletion requests. When I file an undeletion request I have to watch the entire page and potentially miss the result because the notification system doesn't always properly work when many different editors make different edits and as it's usually the same few sysops that patrol the UDR page notifications don't really notify users properly. Separate pages would work so much better here.

Potentially a bot can list all undeletion requests related to a deletion request at the bottom (or top) of a (closed) deletion request. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request (Votes)

No. the current system works. the proposed system requires extra work and creates many redundant pages for few benefits.--RZuo (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Create separate pages for batch undeletion request (Votes)

 Oppose it makes no difference whether files were requested in a batch or separately. a batch of files that recently enter PD need no discussion but another single file could lead to long debates, so this proposal doesnt solve the motive described below.--RZuo (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request (Discussion)

creating and transcluding the page are two extra actions, but they wont help at all.
to solve the problem of missing a discussion, force sysops to always ping to notify users when closing requests instead.--RZuo (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Photo challenge winners

i suggest Template:Photo challenge winner be changed to ...[[Category:Photo challenge winners| {{{3}}}]]... so that files in Category:Photo challenge winners can be sorted chronologically (by year) instead of by their filenames. do you support or oppose?--RZuo (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

a whitespace is added before {{{3}}} to conform to {{Catdate}}.--RZuo (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support.--Vulphere 10:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support --Jarekt (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support, in fact much more things should be sorted chronologically, I don't get why the MediaWiki software does not enable "a button" for automated chronological sorting so this burden wouldn't have to fall on volunteers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Providing information for image reuse

Many individuals and organizations often reuse images and other media hosted on Wikimedia Commons without complying with licensing requirements. Attributions often simply read, "Image(s) courtesy of Wikipedia", notwithstanding the fact that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons are the licensees.

To make things easier for those wishing to reuse images and other media files, and to avoid accidental copyright infringement, I think there ought to be a clear link from all file pages, such as a single sentence that reads, "Note: If you wish to reuse this file please read Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia." nagualdesign 18:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Support, I copied the above from this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support as proposer, FWIW. nagualdesign 20:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support good idea.--Vulphere 07:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 Neutral We had this problem since the beginning of Commons and it was addressed several times already, and we already have several ways of providing that info:
  1. Look at File:Brzeg Castle 03.jpg and search for "Use this file" that all files have that link to a page for generating proper attribution.
  2. Look at File:Brzeg Castle 03.jpg and search for "Reusing this file" with link to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. That is for files that use "permission" field.
  3. Many files also use optional Template:Credit line with exact attribution requested by the author.
--Jarekt (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Jarekt. Taking each of your points in order:
  1. First I could not find "Use this file", and using my browser's search function I only found "The following 78 pages use this file" and "The following other wikis use this file". Then I returned here to see if I'd misread your comment. Finally I tried again, this time switching to the desktop version, and found it. Making a determined effort to look for something specific, which only exists on the desktop version, obviously isn't the same as having a clear link in plain English that reusers will find unmissable. And while the "Use this file" link/widget is very useful, you actually have to click on "Information" to reach Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Essentially, I don't think we should just be providing a link, per se, we should be saying "you need to read this".
  2. As noted below, omitting the permission parameter, as per bold, italic, underlined instructions on the template page, renders the link invisible, so many file pages do not show this link. I have personally used this parameter on several of my uploads (example) but I really don't think that the onus should be on the uploader to remind reusers of their legal requirements.
  3. As with the permission parameter, this should not be a requirement. Perhaps if this parameter is omitted a generic credit line could be displayed?
To summarize, I don't think that providing several different ways of finding pertinent information, which may or not be displayed, is particularly useful. Overlinking may actually detract from the point, and make people less likely to click through. What I'd like to see is a single, prominent, plain English link that users are advised to click. nagualdesign 17:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I share your concern about overlinking, and would be OK if we replace some of the current links with the more readable layout. I see trend over the years when someone get convinced that image users are missing something important and we NEED to make sure we inform them. That something could be personality rights, proper attribution to be used, red text reminding people about need for US copyright templates, messages about not uploading images to Facebook, Freedom of Panorama warnings, etc. All those things are important, but trying to make one message be more visible than the rest, creates very cluttered environment, where nothing is readable. I added "Note: If you wish to reuse this file please read Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia." message to the very top of wikitext in File:Joshua_Tree_-_Sweet_Band_belay.jpg and it is blue link number 18, below 43 blue links added by category block. I really doubt this message with this link, will be easy to spot among other links. However I do support in general having a easy to see link to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia page, but I did not see any suggestions about how to do it which sound better than what we are already doing, at least in desktop version. I looked at several files on my phone. and there was a LOT of issues with readability of the page. Missing link to reuse page was the least of of the problems. --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Moral  Support, though I am not sure if it will actually change things, in fact in search engines Wikimedia Commons files are invisible (at least in Ecosia) and only those used in a Wikipedia files show up, so there is a large chance that the people that attribute them as "From Wikipedia" are genuinely unaware that Wikimedia Commons simply doesn't exist and think that the licensing terms of Wikipedia automatically apply to Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Hmm, but isn't there already such a link in the description-template. If you click for example on File:Kehrwochenschild Museum der Alltagskultur LandesmuseumWürttemberg.jpg, in left column of the description-template below Permission you should see (Reusing this file), which links to an explaination-page. --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Túrelio. The {{Information}} template does indeed show a link if the permission parameter is included. However, many (perhaps most) files omit this parameter, as per instructions on the template page, if the relevant license template is shown below the information template. So I guess what I'm suggesting is, let's move the link from the permission parameter to somewhere more prominent (at the top, ideally) and have it displayed regardless of which parameters are used, and written in plain English (such as the wording I suggested above) so that people who aren't familiar with Wikimedia will see it and understand it. nagualdesign 01:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
If the {{Information}} template is edited as I'm suggesting, we should probably make similar edits to {{Artwork}}, {{Art photo}}, {{Book}} and any similar template. nagualdesign 01:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Having thought about it a little more I have a question; would it be possible to display the message directly under the image, beneath the file size information, rather than in the description templates, which people might not even read? So to use Túrelio's example above, there'd be the image at the top of the page followed by:

 Size of this preview: 468 × 768 pixels. Other resolutions: 146 × 240 pixels | 292 × 480 pixels | 695 × 1,140 pixels.
 Original file ‎(695 × 1,140 pixels, file size: 675 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
 Note: If you wish to reuse this file please read Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia

That way I think it would be unmissable, which is the general idea. nagualdesign 13:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the permission field of the information template would be the obvious place and therefore the least likely to be missed. I think the permission field formerly read "See below" if left empty (which is the normal and recommended way, I haven't seen it been left out). We cannot do much about people who do not look for the information, but putting it in an obvious place helps those looking for it.
In a "prominent" position, such as beneath the file size information, it is just one more item of clutter, in fact easily missed. I regularly miss huge red "click here" boxes on web pages, as I subconsciously classify it them as advertisements.
–LPfi (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons should support JP2 file format

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T161934

JP2 (aka JPEG2000 part 1) files are not encumbered by a patent, and would be supported for thumbnail conversion and direct downloading, as the format does not yet have browser support. Supporting JP2 is necessary to streamline the process for getting high enough quality text from scanned copies of printed documents, like those found at the Internet Archive, to OCR reasonably accurately, to support Wikisource. Of course, illustrations from such documents would also no longer suffer from generational loss from conversion to djvu, pdf, or jpg formats.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support The Phab task was opened 4 years ago by Brian, nothing has happened. If the only barrier is that most browsers will not display jp2, that's not much of a Wikimedia Commons problem as the thumbnails will be PNG renderings, plus it should be reasonable to add transcode options (just like we do for videos) for users to interact with a jpeg transcode. --Fæ (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Strong support Absolutely no question about this. It would resolve the previous DJVU vs. PDF discussion as well. This is absolutely necessary for wikisource. Languageseeker (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Why not just use lossless compressed or even uncompressed tiffs? The JP2 compression is still lossy. And I think disc space on server side should not be a problem. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Processing costs as the JP2 are the best and original scan format in the archive, and literally, as far as I'm aware the TIFF is just a container for a jpeg version of the JP2, unless someone is going to invest a lot of time doing something different in transcoding. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not about what's ideal, but what exists. The files on IA are nearly all JP2. For that reason, we need JP2 support for Wikisource. Languageseeker (talk)
  •  Support, I'm always in favour of supporting more file formats and if Wikisourcians need it then it would be a shame to not support it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Increasing the breadth of filetypes allowed on Commons is conducive to creating a more comprehensive media repository.  Mysterymanblue  02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support For scanned books, journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. all the major archives and bulk scanning efforts encode to .jp2 as their primary preservation format. Without direct support on Commons any upload of data from these sources will force an unnecessary reencoding with attendant generational loss. With direct support these become directly usable across all projects. Having the basic support in place is also a prerequisite for more advanced functionality for Wikisource that is desirable long term (and would end our reliance on DjVu, which is currently necessary but not optimal long-term). --Xover (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Xover. Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see any reason not to support it. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support While underpopulated, Wikisource/ja would benefit tremendously if jp2 is accepted: the National Diet Library of Japan scans and releases pages of 17-19th century titles published with woodblocks, a rich trove of sources, and illustrations therein would benefit other wikis as well. --Omotecho (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Xover.--Vulphere 07:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no harm in having this and it seems like it would be tremendously useful in some cases. --10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Raymond 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • More info please I support Wikimedia Commons adopting free and open file formats which are in use for media collections which Commons may import, and it seems that people here feel that this file format meets that standard. I would like to post this basic info
then ask some questions.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T13871
  • I found this phabricator ticket T13871 which says that legal review would be required to determine the patent status of the format. Can anyone show their evidence that this is a free file format?
  • Besides this discussion now and the 2 Phabricator tickets, has this been discussed previously?
  • Can anyone provide links to any media collection using this format?
  • What is the primary use case of this in Commons? Is it mostly for scanned text documents for supporting Wikisource?
  • Is anyone able to guess at a labor amount or financial cost of adopting a new file format? Is this a major decision which requires long term financial maintenance or more like something to do once and have forever?
Thanks Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Biodiversity Heritage Library, all of the lossy jpgs/tiffs we have would be better as original jp2. The use case is for very high-quality scans of original drawings, rather than texts (which are better in a document format for printed texts anyway).
Our guess of the financial cost is about 4 days of WMF dev time. Really don't see why it should be more than this for getting the format available. That's less than 10,000 WMF bucks. Whether anyone at any time will do something about the truly abysmal document (or multi-image) display we put up with is unknown, but so far no WMF plan or strategy anyone has ever seen or discussed has this in it.
Can't prove a negative, but JPEG_2000#Legal_status exists. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Maps of municipalities in Switzerland by canton

I'm having some confusion on the naming convention for various maps of municipalities in Switzerland. First, looking at Category:Maps of municipalities in the canton of Aargau, it seems excessive to include maps by year. Second, it seems odd to have it named like Category:Maps of municipalities in the canton of Aargau to 2011 which I guess are all municipalities until that year. Just want some suggestions before CfDing the whole group. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

If the borders between municipalities change (often happens when they merge), it makes sense to create a new map, but also to keep the previous one(s) for historical purposes - these are, for example, used to show the borders of a former municipality in the article about it. It then also makes sense, IMHO, to use the year for naming of the maps, don't see anything "excessive" about it. Maybe the categories could be named in a better way, though. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought I was the only one wondering about the peculiar naming of Swiss municipality map categories. There is even some spillover into neighbouring regions. To me, category names like Category:2011 maps of municipalities in the canton of Aargau would sound more natural in the overall scheme of Category:Maps by year. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Is that level needed though? I understand that it is a map of the municipalities in the canton by that year but these are fairly small categories (other than the one with 22, it's as high as six) so maybe a merger into the entire municipality category with XXXX year maps of France and XXXX in the canton should be sufficient for someone to cross reference these. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

From en.wiki - adding a "have consent" checkbox to the uploaders

It is likely worthwhile to point to this discussion [1] on Jimmy Wales' talk page on en.wiki related to image uploads on commons. Specifically over the lack of any check if the uploader has gained the right for consent of an identifiable person for photos taken in public places. While the Commons image policy has information on this as well as the caution when consent is required, it is not made part of the upload process. Jimmy suggests that there should be a checkbox in the uploader that asks if the user if consent has been obtained, as to at least minimally meet this WMF resolution, m:WMF Resolutions/Images of identifiable people. I don't know what is reasonable or feasible, but I thought I would drop it here as it a concern there. --Masem (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

While I think that this is a really good point and it's something that many, many pages on Wikimedia Commons already discuss. My issue with this is that there is literally no way to verify this, people can always lie and just because you took a photograph of a celebrity at a book signing convention doesn't mean that you have the means to directly contact them to send OTRS permission, in fact e-mailing a celebrity will likely get your message(s) in the spambox or have it deleted by an apathetic assistant. The check box would simply become an unverifiable formality which would require nothing but good faith that the uploader isn't lying. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 Unrelated comment, I would like to point out how odd it is that Wikimedia Commons policy proposals are being discussed on a rather bitey user talk page on a completely different website. While English loves to hold on to their sovereignty on all interwiki matters (excluding Global Bans and Global Locks), like how Wikidata information is always avoided there. Yet they love to dictate how other Wikimedia websites do their things. Of course, they are absolutely right in this case, but their "WikiSovereignty" only goes one way. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I can answer that since I was the person who started the discussion. Almost 9 years ago the board expressed a desire to achieve "the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media". I know from uploading images here that this has not been done, so I thought I would ask a board member. Jimmy Wales was a member of the board who passed that resolution, so I assumed he would be a good person to answer a question about what the board had done to make that goal happen since then. Mo Billings (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose We were under the impression that Wales has nothing to say about Commons, considering that he very publicly "left" the project many years ago.
He's welcome to raise a proposal here for the community to consider. Obscure discussions on another project are not the way to bring the Wikimedia Community on board with ideas for improvement.
For those unaware, in a quiet way "Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same" is what happens as courtesy deletions are commonplace on this project whenever reasonable and with a good faith presumption for the requestor even when anonymous.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know Mr Wales's history with Commons, but I started the discussion on his talk page because I know that he is a member of the board. If you like, you can distill my question down to "Why hasn't this been done 9 years after the board set it as a goal?". I think it would be more helpful to discuss ways that this goal could be achieved rather than throwing shade at Mr Wales. Mo Billings (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
To the extent that it's reasonable to do so, it has been implemented.
There are at least two WMF Trustees that are active on Commons, and have been for the past few years. Maybe you would enjoy asking them for their views on whether the current WMF board feels otherwise and if there is any evidence to support doing more than has been done. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, I raised it here, not because "This is what Jimmy said" , but that the underlying issue of compliance with the WMF resolution is a valid question, whomever asked it. It just had the visibility due to Jimmy raising it, but any action should not be just because Jimmy raised it, but on the merits of the basic problem. --Masem (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
No evidence has been provided that any change beyond improvement made in the several years since the WMF board resolution would be recommended. There's not actually a proposal being made here.
Courtesy deletions exist, model consent requirements and templates exist, and IDENT already embraces the reasonable legally meaningful understanding of expectations of privacy.
To make a case for more than this needs to start with meaningful evidence, not opinions based on events several years past a decade ago. --Fæ (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Fæ I don't know who's on the WMF board, with the exception of Jimmy Wales. I hope he raises it either with the board or with whoever was tasked with seeing that the resolution achieved its stated goal. You seem very hostile. Have I done something t upset you? Mo Billings (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Teat dilators, just an example. An editor who is going out of their way to cause disruption and appears in their short contribution history to only be here to create a hostile environment is the one who needs to be asked why they are "upset". Fæ (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You think old ads for teat dilators are somehow disruptive? Are you similarly offended by other common tools of dairy farming like milking machines? Mo Billings (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
What I think stays in my head, it's not a matter for others to speculate on. The facts are that single purpose accounts that completely focus on uploading extracted crops of adverts for "teat dilators" from documents where we already have the entire journal hosted from the Internet Archive, and then go on to upload File:President Donald J Trump looking at Japanese cartoon pornography.png is a disruptive pattern. When examined, this behaviour appears creepy or a deliberate pattern of creating a hostile environment for others. --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You're not from cattle country, are you? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This is creepy too. --Fæ (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Note similar issues raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Mo_Billings. --Fæ (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Similar issues"? Someone (not me) made a proposal on the village pump for discussing proposals. How is that an issue and what does it have to do with a groundless complaint made about incivility? Mo Billings (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose having a check box. Years ago it was possible to upload photos if you had an email permission from copyrightholder. Then OTRS was introduced and then it was required to send permissions to the central mail box. The reason was that it was easy to claim that you had a permission but we had no good proof. I think it is the same here. Everyone can say yes I have a permission. But we have no proof. So if we require permission we might as well require the subject to send a permission to OTRS. I think if we introduce the checkbox then soon someone would mass nominating thousand of files where the box is not filled out. If you take a photo of someone in a public space then generally a permission is not needed. It is more relevant if taken in a private place.
If someone send a mail and ask that a photo of them is deleted then we can do that or discuss it case by case. And if someone worry about permission they can always ask the uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Following COM:PEOPLE, I would support something like this. If we're going to do so, however, a simple checkbox for consent isn't sufficient, as it ignore public/private distinctions, country-specific rules, consent for taking the picture vs. publishing, and the nature of the photo itself. Something like this would be better, but I suspect that there's little chance a proposal that begins on enwp will be successful here. Nonetheless:
"does this depict an identifiable person?" and if yes:
"which country was this photo taken in?" (this is something which would be useful in FOP situations, too, by the way)
"is this photo taken in a public place?"
"did the person depicted consent to this photo being taken?"
"did the person depicted consent to this photo being published?"
A "no" to either of the bottom should prompt a warning and categorize the image accordingly.
The argument that we shouldn't have rules or warnings in place because people will break those rules or ignore the warnings is absurd. We might as well not ask "do you own this" too because people can just lie?
The idea is to make people pause for a moment and think before completing the upload. I suspect most people don't even think about consent in this way, and many others would not feel comfortable lying, so simply prompting people will weed out many problematic uploads.
Enforcement would be difficult. This is not a panacea for all matters of consent, but seems like a reasonable start to at least require that people are thinking about consent in ways that conform to COM:PEOPLE. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "consent of an identifiable person for photos taken in public places". Are photographs taken in public places really an issue? meta:WMF_Resolutions/Images_of_identifiable_people only mentions "portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission", and Commons already has Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --ghouston (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • About "an identifiable person". In most cases it is always possible for someone to identify someone and as more and more goes online then it is more and more likely that we can identify someone. In 1 year perhaps it is possible to identify someone we can't identify today using some fancy software. And what about the picture of today File:Hallstatt kath. Kirche Knappenaltar Kreuzigung 01.jpg? I think we all have a good idea of who it is on the cross. Do we know if he gave permission for someone painting him like that? So does "an identifiable person" only apply for persons still alive or does also apply after they are dead? --MGA73 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • At least in the U.S., most images implicitly have consent, since anyone in a public place in the U.S. implicitly consents to have their picture taken. But then the question becomes: consent for what usage? For example, also in the U.S., one must actively consent to have one's picture used to promote a product (e.g. used in an ad). While in theory it is possible to give blanket consent for such use, I would never ask that of the subject of a photo unless it was precisely being taken as a commercially available stock photo and they were a model being paid up front. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose having a check box. Forcing people to say "yes I did" is evil. People are used to checking such boxes (software EULAs anyone?) as the only way to get forward. We tell them about COM:IDENT and COM:DIGNITY and ask about images we find problematic. Should we not if there was a checked box? We can add warnings in the upload wizard and we could have a checkbox for noting the warnings. A checkbox prompting people to lie instead of asking for advice is no good. –LPfi (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support consent process There are two questions combined here: should wiki document consent when the uploader wishes to note it, and should that documentation be this particular proposed process? I oppose this process, but I support the concept of documenting consent. Most people opposing say that we should not have a mandatory consent process. I agree that we should not make anything mandatory, but note that already and for years, Commons uploaders have been documenting consent for photos on Commons by their own choice. The problem is that so many people document this in different ways, and there is no uniform recommended way to do this, so everyone does it differently than everyone else and the nature of "consent" is different in many cases. I have a consent process propose in draft at Commons:Model license and case studies at Commons:Model license/Case studies. If anyone wants to advance the development of an idea then I would join. Some years ago I also made a grant request to organize legal review of industry standards for model consent to draft a consent document for wiki. I would still do that if the will was around - meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we all agree that there should be concent but in the old days many permissions for photos were "Hi can I use your photo on Wikipedia?" And the reply were "Yes of course." or "I would be happy to see my photo used on Wikipedia". The problem is that permissions for Wikipedia is not good enough because content on Wikipedia can also be used outside Wikipedia so that is why we have a formal standard to use via OTRS. And if we get a permission we have volunteers that check the permission and contact the copyrightholder if there is a problem.
I bet that if someone sees a celebrety somewhere they will go "Uh can I take your photo?" and the celebrety would say "Yes". The question should however have been something like “Hi, I would like to take a photo of you and upload it to Commons. Can you affirm that if you say yes then you content to have your photo taken and uploaded on Wikimedia Commons and that you agree to that it is published under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. And that you acknowledge that by doing so you grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. You also confirm that you are aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. Also you are aware that the copyright holder (me as photographer) always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. You acknowledge that you cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.”
So the question is what should a checkbox say? Should it simply say "Did you ask for permission?" Or should it incluse all requirements "Did you ask for a permission that lived up to these x requirements: 1) You asked for permission to thake the photo? 2) You explicitly mentioned that you would upload it to Commons? 3) You explicitly mentioned that photos on Commons can be used every where? 4) You explicitly mentioned that photos on Commons also can be used for commercial purposes? ...." If anything I prefer that there is a link with "If you upload photos of persons make sure to check <relevant link>". --MGA73 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't need a model to consent to "commercial use", because that term means something very different in the stock industry. Selling a news photo of people at the site of an event, for example, does not require their consent in most countries and is considered "editorial" rather than "commercial" use. So asking for a "commercial" release is likely to confuse the subject as that is not how the term is generally understood in the context of model releases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a statement during the upload process, reject the actual checkbox. I understand the idea but not every upload involves an identifiable person in a public area. A checkpoint that says "IF there is an identifiable person and IF it is in a public area, check this box" is going to be ignored if it's largely irrelevant and I think a general warning that the image could be deleted absent active consent and then requesting deletion of those images if more effective. A checkpoint is a false sense of security. We can't even get people to stop uploads "because I found it on the internet" regardless of checkboxes and this check would create more problems if we assume rights based on a person checking the box. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info More forum shopping at Commons:Village_pump#Idea:_explicitly_disallow_nudity_uploading_from_otherwise_non-contributors. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info Mo Billings has (finally) been locked as a sockpuppet. --Fæ (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - it relieves us of potential legal issues and makes the uploader responsible for their representation. As a member of the VRT (formerly Otrs), I believe that checkbox would be very useful, and a time saver that would spare volunteers some of the back and forth emails we're sending now to request model releases, etc. Atsme Talk 📧 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for the general concept. It would be nice if we could only show the checkbox for images of people that are {{Own work}}. Maybe the Google API that we use for structured data suggestions could be used for this. Nosferattus (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment, serious question for those that actually support this, how do y'all think that this would actually be implemented and verified? Such a consent checkbox ☑ may seem like a good idea, but if you actually understand what goes on in people's heads when photographs gets taken from them then it becomes more difficult. For example, I know a sculpture with her own Wikipedia page and know this woman for over a decade and she always found it funny that I took pictures for Wikimedia Commons, one day I asked her if I was allowed to take a picture for her Wikipedia article (as it STILL doesn't have a photograph of her) and she thought that it was "just for Wikipedia", so I explained to her what Wikimedia Commons was and that people could use her picture for literally anything and she suddenly didn't want me to upload her picture here (so I didn't). I met another sculpture through her and I also asked her if I could take a picture "for Wikipedia", her reaction was "What for? Why would anyone gain anything from that?" before telling me to use a picture from her website or "fetch one from a newspaper" and simply couldn't comprehend how copyright © works. Now, why am I mentioning this? Taking photographs of people doesn't mean that they understand what you will do with those photographs, you can have consent for a private photograph, maybe one for the Facebook, heck, maybe even "for Wikipedia" but then they wouldn't want to be on Wikimedia Commons if they know what it is. This is comparable to many people that love the idea of seeing their pictures on Wikipedia, but OTRS verification for their e-mails still fail because they want non-commercial usage.
Now if you ask someone for their permission to take a picture and they say "Yes" for the picture doesn't mean that you have their consent to let literally anyone make a profit on those pictures. Once worded like this very few people want their pictures on Wikimedia Commons, especially nudes.
How are uploaders supposed to differentiate between these different levels of consent? Basically only the OTRS, then again such a "consent checkbox ☑" wouldn't actually solve any issue, it would just be an extra question that wouldn't prevent bad uploads but will prevent good uploads (as good faith people suddenly feel like they will have to ask for extra permission for nudes from public events like porn conventions, which I assume exist...) letting it have its opposite intended effect. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2021/03&oldid=572918107"