Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 23

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

Featured Pictures of Passeriformes, Featured Pictures of Accipitriformes etc.

It looks as if these pages were created by one user in 2015. They are not maintained, so are misleading. I had not seen them until I noticed that a current FP nom. was listed even though it is only FP on Wikipedia, not Commons. Should they all be deleted? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the creator @Kersti Nebelsiek: Please explain the point. --A.Savin 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp, when you say "should they all be deleted?", do you mean the files themselves? No reason to delete the photos, right? Otherwise, at least some of them are Commons FPs. I didn't look at all of them, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The photos are fine Ikan Kekek, it's just that these are 'dead' galleries that are not maintained and out of date. The galleries should go. We have up-to-date galleries Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I suppose we could mark them {{Historical}} right now. It would prevent them from being mistaken from updated content. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The above was if they weren't being deleted or redirected right away. I withdraw my suggestion since a sensible redirect was done instead; however, that template's existance might be useful to remember if you see a similar situation: Tag it, then bring it to discussion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever did the redirects Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

copyright and 3rd party nominations

Could we add some wording to the FPC guidelines so that anyone nominating 3rd party images from an account where there is no activity should try to contact the uploader to verify that the images are free-licence? If the uploader cannot be identified/contacted, then it would be safer not to nominate the images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. If the images are not previously published and there is no cause for suspicion (e.g. wildly varying image quality or EXIF), our general policy is to COM:AGF. We often get lots of great images during WLM and similar competitions from one-time accounts, and I don't want to forestall the possibility of those images becoming FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If you have reasonable cause to question the stated licence, take it to deletion requests. We can't reasonably work to a "we're not confident enough about the copyright/licence of this photo for FPC, but we are for continuing to host it on this site." -- KTC (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

en:File:François_Flameng_-_Jules_Massenet_-_Grisélidis_-_Original.jpg

I really want to restore this one, but it's about 3.5 times bigger (287 megapixels!) than the giant ones I've been working on. I'm pretty sure that I'd need to borrow someone's computer to do levels adjustments. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawing an image

Is it just... not possible to withdraw an image once nominated? Because Charlesjsharp is right about Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alphonse Mucha - Poster for Victorien Sardou's Gismonda starring Sarah Bernhardt.jpg, and I'd like it closed, not promoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry Adam Cuerden. It is closed and archived, it will not get promoted. With the new improved FPCBot, once you place the {{Withdraw}} template on a nom, it is out of the game / out of the system and it will not be promoted. Previously we had to actually "close" a withdrawn nom with the "not featured" template and all to get the Bot to move the nom to archive, but to save work for reviewers, the 'withdraw' now acts as a closing too and the Bot will move the nom to archive on the run 24 hours after the template has been added. Or it can be done manually earlier if there is no doubt the nominator will not change their mind. --Cart (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Just the actual nom page didn't get anything added, which threw me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@W.carter: Is the FPCBot not working? It has been more than 24 hours since I placed the {{Withdraw}} template in Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leo belgicus.png and it is still on the list. StellarHalo (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@StellarHalo: The Bot is working fine. It only runs three times a day, not constantly, and it archived your withdrawn nom on the next run, 24 hrs after you had placed the template on it. So it can take 24 hrs + time to next Bot run (up to 8 hrs) before the nom is processed. To be totally precise: The Bot will start its counting from the last edit on the nom page. It is usually the edit where the withdraw template is added, but should someone make a comment after that, the 24 hrs will start from that time stamp. However, if you have withdrawn a nom and just want it out of the way, you are always welcome to archive it manually to the Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log. Some editors do this maintenance work from time to time if the FPC list gets too cluttered. --Cart (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please pay attention to a copyright infringement

I think it's important for all photographers with FPs: Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Copyright infringement info A lot of photographs taken from FPs are added to shutterstock. --XRay talk 08:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Participation/voting request?

Are we allowed to directly send another user an unbiased request to vote on a nomination? Currently, Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Kaernten CoA.svg is only one vote away from passing the requirement for it to be successful and I am worried that it would not pass by the time the voting period ends. StellarHalo (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@StellarHalo: You would get more/better response on your posts if you wrote them on the COM:FPC talk page instead. That's where the discussions usually are held. Not many people visit this talk page regularly. It's mostly just us maintenance users who keep an eye on it. --Cart (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@W.carter: Umm... this is the COM:FPC talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Oooops! My bad. Thanks King of Hearts. The dangers of editing on your telephone, you don't see the heading of the page clearly and my mind was on another post by StellarHalo. Apologies to all! --Cart (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment

There's a big ambiguity in the sub-categorisation here: There are plenty of posters for film and opera.

And that's the problem. Three of the sub-categories are: Advertisements, Film, and Music and Opera. Do posters for film count as advertisements or film? And if they don't count as film, what does, because we literally have nothing in Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Film that isn't an advertising poster. Frankly, I think we'd be best losing "Advertisements" as a subcategory, redistributing everything in it elsewhere, with the two advertisements for magicians - the only ones that don't fit into another category - getting moved into "Other". I think it would be less confusing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, you are most welcome to fix up, add, remove and/or reorganize the subcategories on that gallery page as you think best. It is after all your area of expertise. And as with so much else on the Wiki-project, if you think you can improve something, do it. Just make sure that at the end all images are somewhere in the galleries, don't forget or lose any of them. I set up the gallery pages best I could after requests from other users, but the sorting on the pages is always done best by those who know the subjects. Happy sorting! :-) --Cart (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have done so, and added a few see also links, which should aid navigation - e.g. Entertainment tells you where to find books and magazines, Printed media mentions that posters for public entertainments are under Entertainments, and so on.
The one thing I'm not sure about is the myths and proverbs section of Entertainment, which fits very oddly into the rest of the division. What do you think of turning Religion into "Religion and mythology"? It would, at least, remove the rather awkward situation we have where I'm not quite sure we're being horribly racist by putting the Extermination of Evil scroll under mythology, when it's arguably Buddhist. It would be unintentional, but deciding what is religion and what is myth, unless we're talking about King Arthur or something, kinda puts us in questionable territory. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, not my area of expertise. I hope someone who knows the subject well can give you some feedback on this. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the première of Rossini's Robert Bruce, Act III, Scene 3.jpg

Well, it LOOKS like it's transcluded on the page, but it's not showing up. What have I done? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Serves me right for tablet editing. Ah, well. I'll let it run, but I suspect I'll need to renom. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

New template based on Template:FPpromotedUploader for the creator, but not uploader.

Would there be any objections of creating a new template based on Template:FPpromotedUploader for a creator who is not the uploader. I am getting currently FP credit for pictures that I imported from Flickr, but the creator is actually a commons user, but has only little time in dealing with uploads here himself. I feel he should see some credit for that. Agathoclea (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: Your message probably refers to 1, 2 and 3. As I can see from File:Macracantha arcuata - Curved Spiny Spider (8550192839) by Rushen.jpg, the file was created by Rushen on Flickr, and not by Rushenb on Commons. Both you (as uploader) and Ivar (as nominator) have been notified on your TPs. But our bots cannot send notifications to Flickr, or any other website. Rushenb properly receives the notifications related to the files uploaded on this project. To encourage Flickr users to spend more time here instead of there, you can copy & paste your notifications on their talk pages, so they will read them and understand -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
They are the same person, and yes I fully understand that a bot would never be able to make that connection. My first instinct was was to just copy the notifications over, but the wording is just a little off, which led me to come here. My idea was to create a template Template:FPpromotedCreator which could manually be deployed in such a case where the connection between a flickr and commons account is known. Agathoclea (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Intricate case for sure. But why Rushenb of Commons should be notified, while the creator is Rushen of Flickr? Same person maybe, but in those cases Rushenb of Commons did not upload / describe / categorize for us. They are your rewards, in my opinion (share your satisfaction if you feel inclined to do so). Uploaders of "new versions" do not get notifications either. And I don't think it's necessary to create so special templates for such rare cases, personally -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Agathoclea: , I've copied the 'FP promoted' notifications to Rushenb's talk page so that he can has the credit if he wants it. I'd just do the same for any future FPs by him if i were you. Cmao20 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure

I reverted an FPC bot judgement that went wrong here: [1]

Basically, file rename part-way through nomination, moved the nomination to match the file, and updated everything except the listing in the candidate list. I've fixed it, but figured I should mention it, since, y'know, if nothing else, it's kind of a bug in the bot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Luc-Charles Cicéri - Eugène Cicéri - Philippe Benoist - Adolphe Jean Baptiste Bayot - Décorations de théâtre, Robert le diable, 3e act.jpg

As far as I can tell, this passed FP a while ago, in this nomination, but it never got the FP tick until I just added it. It is in the galleries. Bot error? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  • It happens quite a lot. Take a look at the file history here for instance, I had to add the FP tick myself. The galleries always seem to work though. My working theory is that the bot doesn't like file names that have an accent in them, but I could be completely wrong. Cmao20 (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Church of St Sebastian, Ponta Delgada

If this will be promoted, is the first picture to sort into Exteriors' gallery separately, or should sets always be displayed as one? --A.Savin 23:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sets have been split up in the galleries before. Set nominations is one thing, and how the photos are sorted in the galleries is another. All the links are there on each file page, so people can see how they are connected. --Cart (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Humanité René Philastre and Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the second part of Victor Hugo's Les Burgraves, première production.jpg

I just noticed when looking over my FPs on en-wiki from last year to check for one's I hadn't nominated here that this image is a featured picture on here, but never got marked as such. Did the bot break for a bit? It was in the lists of FPs, and the nomination page passed with seven supports. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's marked as such on the file page. Did you fix it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is the nomination. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The bot did everything except marking the file as FP. It was a glitch for some obscure reason, the bots are not infallible. When the program is written, it's hard to anticipate every bug that can occur. It works most of the time, but everything to do with FPs needs to be supervised by humans. You should always check your noms to make sure all is ok with them. If the bot does miss something, you need to correct this yourself just like Adam did on this. --Cart (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Aye, just wanted to check I wasn't missing something, and - while I don't know what the glitch was - mention it in case it affected more things from the period, or was a readily identifiable glitch. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusion

Dear Commons editorsː I just went through the process of trying to nominate a file for Featured Picture, and I wanted to make some serious suggestions for improvements. The process of nominating an image for Featured Picture seems super complicated. It's not that it can't be figured out, it's just that I don't see any reason it should be anywhere near as complicated as it isǃ A new editor coming along and wanting to nominate a file for Feature Picture is going to get lost. I'd like to suggest we (and I' like to help find a way toǃ) simplifyǃ

We need a form. A form with dropdown menus for various options, so that people can't make mistakes, along with a process that will automatically add the image to the places where it needs to be. I don't have much experience editing in Commons, so my footing here is unsure (honestly, I don't have that much experience with wiki markup generally, I am more of an "idea guy" at this point). In an ideal world, it should work like thisː an editor has a picture that he/ she wants to nominate for FP. Once he/ she finds the main FP page, there is a space to enter the name of the file that he/ she wants to nominate (which we already have, which is great). Right now, entering that file name and clicking on the "nominate" button takes the person to a markup page where he/ she then has to modify a bunch of text. There are explanations as to what to modify, but this is totally unnecessary-- there should be a FORM. The form should have radio buttons for "landscape", "portrait", or "square". And it should automatically enter the user's username as the nominating person. It should also automatically insert the "uploaded by" and "created by" information, which it can get from the file's page (from the "author" field and the most recent "upload" person's username.

Basically, once the person enters a file name and clicks on "Create new nomination", they should see a page with forms and blanks. The first entry should say, "Short description of the image" and it should state the maximum number of characters allowed for this entry. Then a dropdown menu for landscape, portrait, or square, with landscape as the default. Below this, boxes for "created by", "uploaded by" and "nominated by" should all should be pre-filled, so that the nominator can change them if he/ she wants to but with the default responses already set up. Then, the person should see another dropdown menu allowing them to choose which gallery the image belongs to-- asking people to hunt down a gallery name on a completely different page AFTER completing the nomination is absurdǃ Lastly, there has GOT to be a way to automatically add the new nomination to the page of new nominations. This is a VERY easy step to overlook, and just assume the nomination is all set when it actually isn't.

I realize this means making these changes for all of the different language options on Commons, which I know is a hassle. But the current system is filtering out legitimate Featured Picture nominations from legitimate editors who just don't realize exactly what has to be done, or for those who do it very seldom and forget. Is there a way we can fix this? Is there a will? For the common good (as it were)? ̴̴̴̴ — Preceding unsigned comment added by A loose necktie (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This could be separated as it is today QInominator and QICvote, I was working on something like that but for reasons of time I put it aside, let me see if I can do something --Wilfredor (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Poor quality on WLM winners

A conversation is taking place about the poor quality of the images selected in WLM, it may be of interest to you --Wilfredor (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, and as a little help if someone stumbles over this too late (like me ;–): That conversation has been archived and can be read here. --Aristeas (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A point was raised in that discussion that one of the challenges competition organizers face is finding people willing to be on juries. It makes me wonder where they are looking. I don't think I've seen anyone post "judges wanted" on this page, for example. Perhaps it would be useful to have a page like Commons:Users willing to be on juries or a category, Category:Users willing to be on juries or something? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

After invitation I have participed one time in the jury for the WLE of an Asian country, I don't remember what was the country, there were also other FP regulars whose name I keep silent because it is not to me to say that kind of info. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Judging any competition is difficult, because there is one aspect that cant be changed and that is you are limited to the entries that you receive. Gnangarra 07:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well, not speaking for small countries' contests each with just a couple of hundreds contributions in total; but wherever I participated in jury in the past, I cannot remember not having had a choice between decent quality images. --A.Savin 12:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thinking a little more about this, I wonder if this would be useful for the Commons Photographers User Group to help with. Perhaps just as simple as adding a column to the membership list like "willing to be part of juries". What do you think, Frank Schulenburg? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead! Great idea, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done — Rhododendrites talk |  16:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Swedish jury is usually more connected with the museums and organisations taking care of the monuments than pure photography. In this year's jury, only one person is defined as a photographer. Hence the jury is always looking at other aspects of a photo than a photographer would. This might be the case with some other countries too. Myself, I have been on the jury for Bangladesh a few times, a young country in WLM who seemed to turn mostly to FPC members to get their quality monuments photography started. They gladly took to heart what we in the jury said and have later done quite well at FPC with photos from WLM. --Cart (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I just visited that page, and didn't see the acronym "WLM" anywhere. What does it stand for? A loose necktie (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@A loose necktie: That page is regularly archived so the discussion can't be reached by the link above. You will find it here: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/11#Wiki Loves Monument, a mediocre contest. "WLM" stands for Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments. --Cart (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

FPCBot playing up?

These three nominations:

should all have been closed yesterday according to the five-day rule, but this hasn't happened. Is FPCBot playing up again? Cmao20 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed...Poco a poco (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I've closed those which were overdue Poco a poco (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I also let User:KTC know and I guess that he she got it running again Poco a poco (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Ahem... Poco a poco, KTC is a "she", example: Category:Katie Chan at Wikimania 2014. --Cart (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't aware of that Poco a poco (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Ahem... we've met before. -- KTC (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
After Cart posted your photo it was clear to me, sorry, I had 2 puzzle pieces (you in person and your nickname here) and now they are linked :) Poco a poco (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope, can't take the credit. I can see there's a bug with the bot. Something changed on wiki between 21st and today that let it do some of its work. I'm looking into it to determine the exact cause. Will let you know. -- KTC (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This was confusing the bot. <gallery> will display the images regardless of "File:" prefix in front of the images name, but the bot expect it as it (I think) searches for the colon to find the first image file name. Eventually results in an uncaught exception and the bot quit. The bot ran to its schedule these last couple of days, it simply managed to do some work before quitting earlier today due to the manual closing. Parking closed images occurs before closing images, and Set images are parked after non-Set images so it was able to park those that were closed mannually before quitting, which made it appears it worked fine earlier today. I have added a warning to the Set preload template to hopefully reduce the chance of it re-occuring. -- KTC (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, KTC! Poco a poco (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to delete all photos of Italy?

I think some of you will be interested in User:Liuxinyu970226's comment here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

They refer to this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to improve the illustration of the template {{Focus stacked image}}

Please vote here. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Image of the day

Was there any change in the selection of images of the day that now select images that are not Featured Pictures?. I have seen that two images taken by me that are not FP have been placed as images of the day --Wilfredor (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No change Wilfredor. It was Clarice Reis who mistakenly created the POTD for your photo (see comment). This user speaks Portuguese, so perhaps you can explain some of the rules of POTD to them, --Cart (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I've checked the recent templates. 25, 27 and 28 February are also ineligible, I've deleted. Now we need someone who goes ahead and puts alternative POTD's for these upcoming three days. To change the current day's POTD would make way too much mess, so I left it as is. --A.Savin 13:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks A.Savin --Wilfredor (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I've put an alternative for 25 Feb, we still need to fill in something for 27+28. --A.Savin 13:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Those two days are related to medicine (transplant day and rare disease day), although surely there are local dates that are celebrated on those days. Do not hesitate to add one of your photos if you want. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a limitation of 2 pics per author and month, and I already have 2 pics there. --A.Savin 13:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to do a delist and replace nomination

I'd like to nominate the much larger File:(Venice) Bocca di Leone in the Doge's Palace.jpg to replace the old File:Venedig BW 1.JPG, because it's sharper at the same size, but I don't know how. The directions at the top of the page show how to nominate a file for delisting, but I don't see instructions on how to nominate a file to replace it. Do I just note the filename of my proposed replacement in text I type? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you look at an older 'delist and replace' nom to get it right. I keep this in my notebook (Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Mønsted kalkgruber exposure fused 2014-07-18.jpg) to see how such things work. --Cart (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Media search

Photographers/reviewers here may be interested in the new Media Search. See Commons:Village pump#Moving toward Special:MediaSearch as the default search landing page. I gave some feedback about the "Media size" filter at Commons talk:Structured data/Media search# Media size. I'm sure they'd appreciate feedback on how the search works and whether the results and the filter options are useful to you. I for one, thought the size options were too low to be useful for photography. I understand, from the village pump post, that the existing search facility will remain available and logged-in users can opt for that as their default if they want. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the hint to that feature and discussion! --Aristeas (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Media search filter

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T276257

Hi, just a quick notification, a task in Phabricator have been created about the potential to add an additional filter about Quality/Valued/Featured in Special:MediaSearch which will surely become the default search engine in the long term. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

At first glance, this search tool doesn't seem to care about VI, QI, FP, WLx or any Commons-related templates. Or am I missing something? --Cart (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
yes, hence the created task. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I should have looked at both links. Silly me. --Cart (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the hint to that Phabricator task! --Aristeas (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research to understand how you work with media

An invite to participate in a research, has been extended to media creators by MRaish (WMF). Take a look at WikiProject Photography. --Cart (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth noting that this survey only targets editors of the English Wikipedia. I gave up on filling out the form when I realized that the questions exclude contributors to other projects. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Camera recommendation for a Wikimedia chapter?

Hi all, feel free to move this thread somewhere else if it's too off-topic.

The Wikimedia chapter I'm involved with may be interested in buying a camera for our members to use.

Here are the things I think it would be used most for, in order of frequency: pictures of people at events, buildings/landmarks, parks/nature, food/products. Probably not very much for big landscapes or wildlife photography, so probably not as much need for wide angle or long telephoto. It should also be good for video (although 4K probably isn't necessary).

While I would probably learn how to use it myself in order to teach people, we should presume that people using it will be not be very experienced, so user-friendliness is important.

I'm usually inclined to some sort of mirrorless/DSLR for flexibility (and quality), but cost and ease of use may be a concern. Let's say (arbitrarily), that our budget for this has an all-inclusive limit of about $1000 (~850 €). I don't actually know what our budget is for this, though. What are you recommendations?

Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ideally you should probably get a DSLR (buy a used?) for the reasons you mention. But if you want a budget camera, a version of the Panasonic LUMIX FZ1000 I use, is very newbie-user friendly and will only set you back about $800 which will leave room for a good tripod (say $60) and a set of Hoya external macro lenses (about $60), maybe an ND-filter and a polarizing filter. The good thing about its fixed lens (a Leica) is that there is no way to damage the sensor or get dust into the camera so it will survive rough newbie-paws. The quality of the pics is acceptable. Well, you've seen my photos. ;-) (Add: When you select any function in the meny, a caption describing what that function does, will scroll by on repeat at the top of the screen.) --Cart (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it depends whether it is going to be used by enthusiasts or just picked up by random Wikipedians. If the latter, I'd say just stick with your mobile phone for anything that doesn't need a telephoto lens. A lot of the benefits of a DSLR come if the image is taken raw and processed in e.g. Lightroom. Without that, and you are relying on JPG, a DSLR may actually underperform a modern smart phone that has all the latest computational imaging built in. The smartphone will also have GPS, which makes identifying buildings/locations easier, and that isn't always present on a fancier camera. Is the "pictures of people at event" indoors our outdoors? Is it taking photos while mingling or a telephoto shot of someone speaking on a podium while stood at the back of a crowd? I.e. do you need a telephoto lens and high ISO capability? -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest keeping to simple point n shoot cameras with some water sealing so it can be used in rain/snow/dust situations they tend to also be more durable also you will be able to own 2 cameras with memory cards within your budget. An Olympus TG-6 is 400-500 USD, wireless, gps, waterproof, 4k video, 25-100mm, high ISO, and image stabalized. It also means theres not as much burden with insurance they will provide good documentation of events and cover most situations, being compacts they are easier for most people to carry. Gnangarra 12:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This was a question that I also had when suggesting a team in the Wikimedia Canada chapter, however, they told me that if it was not used the budget would be lost so basically they told me to ask for anything, however, it is necessary to take In consideration of the additional time that will be necessary to be able to explain to the other members of the Wikiclub how the camera works, that is, a dslr will be more expensive and also requires more learning time. If I had had the $ 1000 limit, I would have seriously thought in the possibility of a bridge camera that would give me the versatility for many situations in addition to being easier to use which means that most will not need any course, if this were the case a Lumix DC-FZ1000 II is a good option, a Much cheaper option the Canon PowerShot SX70 HS, I had a sx30 when I started. If what you are looking for is something more professional but that entails a greater learning curve, in addition to the models suggested by others, a Fujifilm X-T30 is a very good option, I was researching this camera and it seems to be quite good in relation to quality. vs price, with a sensor that offers a great level of detail and a fairly robust construction for practically any situation. Right now mirrorless cameras are all the rage so DSLRs are falling in price rapidly, in addition to accessing the used camera market as well. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback thus far -- keep it coming! Wilfredor did Wikimedia Canada wind up getting one? If so, could you share your procedures for loaning it out? For example, is there an agreement members have to sign? Did you get insurance that covers multiple users? Or was it more informal? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The process was transparent and formal, it's in French but you can check it out here. Later, I created this other page, to follow the project and use the equipment, and for an information page that I could send by e-mail at the time to ask for permission to places and also to offer more transparency. I think these pages were created more as transparency since we had previously talked about everything by telegram before placing the grant. They proposed to me that I could do this and Colin had also told me about it, finally all the users of the chapter agreed. This is something that must be done with the best possible transparency and involving as many people as possible, showing tangible results, giving it a correct use, etc. Although I am honestly concerned that no one is really following what I am doing with the photographic equipment, nevertheless, I suppose that trust plays an important role. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Just FYI: here's what Wikimedia Germany, Austria, and Switzerland provide to the community members on the German language Wikipedia: loaner cameras and lenses. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems youthey have a slightly larger budget. --Cart (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a member of any of those. But I actually admire how they've gotten increasingly better at supporting their community. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Corrected, my bad. --Cart (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I actually wonder whether they have pieces of equipment that they don't need anymore and that they'd donate to the New York chapter. @Rhododendrites: let me know if you'd like me to ask. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Major changes over promoted FP are not allowed

@Sergey Pesterev: you can't upload a new version over File:Lonely tree at Fairy lake.jpg with a radically different post-treatment. The original image was supported by a few voters who would probably not have accepted this overprocessed version.

Commons:Overwriting existing files#DO NOT overwrite: Files that have been awarded a special status like Commons Featured Picture, Commons Quality Image, or similar status on another Wikimedia project.

You may consider starting a delist and replace nomination with an alternative if you want, but in no case making the voters say they did say yes to that version. Please revert -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Amirpashaei

If you look at Amirpashaei's latest contributions, he has nominated for deletion lots of own uploads (including promoted FP's). No clue what's happened, I'm inclined to reject those RfD's as the images are properly licensed and in use, so a COM:Courtesy deletion would do Commons bad, but at first just letting the others know. Amirpashaei may wish to comment on that too. --A.Savin 11:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I see now: first I didn't understand what does "I decided to cell some of my works" mean, but he actually meant "sell". --A.Savin 12:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the rules for such things, but if there are no objections from Amirpashaei, perhaps A.Savin you could combine the DRs into one since they're basically identical?

Reading there and throughout Amirpashaei's nominations, it seems there's a relatively long-standing feud between Amir and Wiki Loves Monuments judges/organizers. Looking at his arguments, I think I understand his frustration. But the CC BY-SA 4.0 license the images were uploaded with is irrevocable (cannot be changed later, if you change your mind). This is to protect the people who rely on Commons licenses when they use work here. Especially if something has been promoted to FP and used in Wikipedia articles, the odds are higher that someone has used it, relying on irrevocable licenses documented on Commons. Commons does provide a small number of exceptions, which are largely documented at Commons:Courtesy deletions (at the bottom). As it says, we're more likely to delete files that are recently uploaded, easily replaceable, low quality, and not in use on Wikimedia projects. Some of these do not check any of the boxes, sorry to say. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please take into consideration the time each of us take to explore, inspect, comment and judge these pictures. Our volunteer efforts are offered and not supposed to be wasted -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images

It has become popular to nominate satellite images, so much so that the gallery page for these needed some upgrading to keep things orderly. If I've made some mistakes in sorting the photos into the new sections, please fix or let me know.

I also gave the planets in Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Planets sections of their own. Hint: We don't have any FP of Uranus. --Cart (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Can FPs also be a bit of fun?

Hmmm, looking at the crane nom and photos like this, would it be totally wrong to have a 'Humor' page in the gallery? Or are we too "serious" to have a bit of (quality) fun once in a while. We already have Category:Humor. Yes I know, this should not be discussed on the nom, so I'm copying the post to this talk page. Please leave any response here. --Cart (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, there certainly are some fun pictures already, and I never said anything about compromising on quality. I don't think the crane photo has the quality to become an FP in a new category, it just sparked the idea. But there are other photos. If a photo like the racoon photo would come up at FPC, most voters would complain that you can only see the legs of the racoon and it's not good enough for a species photo, but on the whole we would miss a great capture/photo. And humor is so much more than just funny animals, even if I took these as easy examples. Sure, many such photos could fit into other galleries, just like most of the photos in Natural phenomena could be kept in other galleries. I think we could branch out subjects for FPs while still maintaining the high quality criteria. The Non-photographic media already has a lot of images that could be moved to a 'Humor' gallery, instead of just being marked as printed material. Other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --Cart (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment For whatever it's worth, I agree with you and I also agree with Charles that the current nomination, though definitely funny, isn't an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems like there are a couple questions here: whether we should try to promote humor in FPC, and whether it should be a category of FPC (corresponding to a gallery). My concern about the latter is that it would remove the image from any relevant subject-specific gallery, which might do us a disservice in the long run. I suppose it could be a "non-diffusing" gallery (or otherwise a gallery of images that are already in other galleries). But it seems like maybe it's better to encourage via a specific project or award, like maybe something juried and awarded alongside POTY? — Rhododendrites talk |  16:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The whole Gallery system is outdated and flawed, I would gladly scrap it and use only the normal categories. But per previous discussions, people want to keep the galleries, so I help maintain and develop them. We already have lots of photos that could be in two or several Galleries. Take a look at Reflections for example, most photos there could be just as well kept in 'Places' or 'Objects'. It is always up to the nominator (sometimes with the help of other voters) to select the most appropriate gallery. Naturally, there would be subsections on a 'Humor' page, like 'People, Animals, Non-photographic, etc.' But just by having such a page, I think it would attract new fresh photos to FPC. Sure, 50% of them would probably be non-featurable like with any other FPC, but still it would show that we are open to such photos too. --Cart (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You're right, but I think we could all agree that some photos are intended to be funny while others are funny by happy circumstance and still others are unintentionally funny. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

FPC Bot has counted votes wrong

It seems that one of the combinations when voting, {{weak s}}, has been ignored by the FPC Bot lately. It will have to be added to the code for the Bot, so 'pinging' KTC as the contact person. IFAICS this has not changed the outcome of the nominations, it has just been a few 'support' votes missing. I have corrected this on the nomination pages and at Chronological. Those of you who close nomination, please pay extra attention to this and count the votes manually until this is fixed. Pinging some regular closers: A.Savin, Ikan Kekek, Basile Morin, George Chernilevsky.

The following nominations were affected (take a look in their history):

These were the ones I found, there could be more, to be on the safe side, check the counting on your noms. --Cart (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Checking this a bit closer, it seems to have started when the relatively new users at FPC, RolfHill and Commonists, started voting, since they both use the {{weak s}}. Could you two please write the full {{weak support}} instead, that is a code accepted by the Bot. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, we shouldn't, now the issue is fixed :-) </joking> Actually we should yes, but since the bot is 99% right, we've probably all taken the bad habit to avoid this tedious chore. Similarly, no one is guaranteed to always spot all double votes, or the illegitimate voters gathering less than 50 edits. Let's bet on our best will ! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info Tip: There is a "geek-way" to double-check counting in most browsers. They all have a "Search" function. For Chrome it's under the "three dots" at the top right of your page, also activated by 'Crtl+F'. You open the nomination page and enter 'support' or 'oppose' in the box. You immediately get all those words highlighted on the page AND the number of times it occurs will be displayed in the box. Usually this number includes 1 too much since it's also in the closing box. For geeks, this an easy thing do work with and it's a good way to double-check when you have a row of 20+ votes. --Cart (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Urgent request : Wiki Loves Africa First Review

Hello ... we asked people previously to volunteer for the First Round of the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021 review ... but 7 of these have let us down. Despite prompting several times they have not reviewed any images. WE NEED ABOUT 5 VOLUNTEERS to finish the review THIS WEEK. It will only take 1-2 hours for a yes/no round on Montage as a first clean up round. If you are keen, please reply below with your Username and an email or contact me via my talk page. Thank you. Islahaddow (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthere (talk • contribs)

I can help --Wilfredor (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

FP gallery links (again)

Because the matter of Cart’s plea to take care for the gallery links on the FPC page has been lost in discussion, I currently try to help out by adding and fixing the gallery links. Please do no feel annoyed by my many “ Info gallery fixed” hints; I think it is necessary to inform the nominators that something has been changed in their nomination (and what they could do better when they nominate their next candidate ;–). Feel free to improve the gallery links further. I am not an expert e.g. in the taxonomy of plants and animals, so please excuse any errors I may make and fix them. Thank you all! --Aristeas (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict) I was just posting on the same subject with a new section "How to manage the Galleries". :-) Here you go:
I still have an active nomination, so I hang around until it's closed. I see that at least Aristeas (Many Thanks!) is taking over some of the maintenance I used to do, fixing galleries and moving nomination pages after file moves. But it needs a bit more work to run smoothly. Nominators often miss that there are under-pages for galleries, so even gallery code that look ok will have to be fixed, like this one, since people don't do the click-check to see if you end up at the right place. Missing these subpages for, for example 'Places/Natural', is also why a photo tagged '#New Zeeland' ends up in the 'New Macedonia' section or '#Germany' will be Bot-sorted to 'Greece'.
You also need to keep an eye on the gallery pages themselves since the Bot, for some unknown reason, often fails to park images in sections even though the gallery is done properly in the nomination. The birds and bugs are especially affected and end up in the 'Unsorted' section. Example and example. Each nominator should keep an eye on what happens to their nominated image once the voting is closed, but as soon as the star reward is given, the rest of the process is too often treated as an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). It's not at all difficult to do this, creating a nomination is actually way harder, but it's maintenance work and therefore usually skipped.
You also need to keep an eye on what galleries are overflowing, see if new pages or even groups have to be created. This requires a bit of coding knowledge since you have to add such changes to the main FP page and the template.
Tip when moving nomination pages: These don't need the redirect left behind (example). So when you move such a page you can uncheck the 'Leave a re-direct behind' box. That way we don't get a lot of orphaned pages rattling around in the system. --Cart (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Cart, for your excellent write-up and all the tips! Above all it makes clear how much work you have spent in the past for the FPC page, so I want to thank you again for all your work! It’s easy to put a ‘pro’ or to criticize a photo, but there is much more work needed behind the scenes to keep the process working. – I hope that I can (when I have time) help out here, at least with some of this work. There are still many things I have to learn, starting with some tricky asymmetries of the gallery sub-pages (I have already made my first error, thank you for fixing it!). But I will not always be available, so I hope that others will join and that we can do the maintenance work alternately and collectively, more similar to the review process. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As we say here in Sweden: "You don't miss the cow until the stall is empty." And this cow is off to greener pastures. :-) In a few days I will receive a better camera. The incredibly kind an generous Slaunger is lending me his old camera for an undefined period of time. Yay!!! --Cart (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Theses are good news, Cart! I will try to remember that nice proverb ;–). I am happy to read about the camera. Slaunger has made wonderful photos with that camera, and I am sure you will use it to it’s best, too. Now that (almost) everybody is enchanted by mirrorless, there should be a fair chance to find excellent used EF lenses in order to open new artistic possibilites. Anyway, all the best! --Aristeas (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Vote

Excuse me, but wouldn't it be better if the creator, not the nominator, could not vote for hers/his own photo? Not when they submit it and not even if someone else submits it? I'm sorry but I find it inconvenient. It's not nice that someone has promoted a photo for their vote, like 7 votes, including their own. What do you think of it? I'm more proud if I make it without my vote, I don't know about you. I honestly don't understand why it is forbidden in QI and not here.Sorry to disturb you. --Commonists 09:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Considering that the photographer can't give a supporting vote to their own photo on VIC or QIC, it would make sense to adopt the same policy here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Our guidelines demand that nominators think the image is worthy of being featured. Their support has to be assumed (even if not explicit) or else they are wasting our time nominating it. Often the creator and nominator are the same. If the creator is someone else, we do rarely see them oppose, and they do have a right to request the nomination be withdrawn -- perhaps because they want to rework it or they think another is better. I don't think a comparison to QI is relevant as there is only one reviewer. Again the nominator is often the creator and you could consider their nomination an implicit support vote. After all, not every image we upload gets nominated.
The rules are complex enough without us having to police that there were no support votes from creators. And what about images where there is a photographer and also someone else who processed the image or made an alternative crop?
I'd rather support the idea of raising the minimum threshold. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
If the creator wants it to be un-nominated, he can just ask the person who nominated it to remove it. I don't think it's complicated to see who uploaded the photo. If someone makes an improvement, as in QI, they cannot vote for it.Regards. --Commonists 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
When you're candidate for an election, you can vote for yourself, right? Then, same here IMO. Usually a single voice doesn't make great change to the consensus, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about whether the creator should get a vote, but I wonder: what problem would this solve? Are there too many sub-par images passing by a single vote? — Rhododendrites talk |  19:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Some numbers: over the past two full months (May/June), 165 FPs were promoted. This rule change would have affected 5 of them. Two because one fewer support would drop below 67% support (e.g. 12-6 → 11-6); three because they would not reach seven votes (e.g. 7-0 → 6-0). To me, that is neither a great loss nor a significant improvement, and so leads me to think it is not worth changing. The downside of a change is, of course, having to constantly tell/remind people that they are not allowed to vote on their own nomination, even when they see that in all past nominations it was allowed. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It is not a problem of numbers but of elegance and above all no project (QI,VI) you can vote for your photo, either all or none. And in any case if even one photo passes for your vote I find it inconvenient.Thanks --Commonists 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

FP Gallery help needed

Since I now have left the FPC, someone else needs to step in and take care of the FP Galleries. This also includes making sure FPC nominations have the proper coding for galleries so the Bot can sort them. I have left temporarily a few times before, and I've had one foot out the door for some time now. So I want to thank Charlesjsharp and Basile Morin; their most recent juvenile behavior has finally made it quite clear that FPC is no longer a place I want to spend my free time on. There are some good guys here, and they have kept me going so far, especially Ikan Kekek who is a credit to any Wiki project. I'm not leaving Commons, I will continue to upload photos here, but I will not be doing any FP-related work.

This is written after some days of careful considerations, cold showers and discussions with friends. So I would appreciate if this resignation was accepted without any fuss or drama. --Cart (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No drama, exactly, but better also not to ping me to tell me I'm juvenile 👎. Per COM:NPA -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Cart is the one who has clearly ignored COM:NPA. Mind you, to be accused of being juvenile at my age is not her worst insult. Read Cart's breach of behaviour guidelines here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
If you care to read what I have written correctly, I have not said any of you were juvenile, only that your recent behavior was juvenile. Any adult can lapse in judgement and exhibit juvenile behavior from time to time. --Cart (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Come on people, calm down. Are we here to have fun or not? Let's not take things too seriously. Somebody insulted me here but honestly I just had a laugh. Please Cart stay,I don't understand anything about these things! You help me and then you disappear? That's cruel 😥. And by the way, Charlesjsharp, you didn't act like a real gentleman. I'm sorry to say that, but that's what I think. Take it easy, thanks. --Commonists 10:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Commonists: The conflict between me and these two guys goes back years before you came here. I have kept a good face for long, since accepting your fellow co-workers is in the rules of this workplace but finally, enough is enough. I'm sure you will do well here even without my help. (Btw, you own my dream camera. :-) ) --Cart (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As Charlesjsharp should not edit photos without consent, even if a friend. And Basile Morin if Cart and Charles are arguing I don't think we should get involved,you are a great photographer and a nice person,sorry to say but that's what I think. And you should remember that Cart is a woman,even if you could slide now and then,so it would take a bit of tact,also the only one,which makes her extremely valuable,something I think is deplorable in a world project! And in this way we are not helping her, despite her efforts. Now, however, excuse me for this outburst and Cart 5 minutes and I've already made a mistake [2]. Come on, stay with us and I'll be more careful, I swear 😃. P.S. Thank you Cart,is a great camera--Commonists 11:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Reply to Commonists and general comment Well, I'm not the only woman, but perhaps the only articulate woman. Let me share some of my thoughts about women and the FPC. We do not require some special consideration or tact, but:
FPC is more or less basically like an old Gentlemen's club, a place where men like to gather and swap stories about their photo expeditions to distant locations, compare lenses, show off their latest cameras and decide the fate of some of Commons photos. Any woman who dares to enter here and not assume a very low profile will disrupt this fraternity. She will bring with her a new perspective on things, might draw back the heavy curtains and, heavens forbid, perhaps open a window to show that there is a whole new other world out there. She will not be viewed as an asset, only a disruption to a venerable old institution. Some members fight this change, a few radicals might like it but keep quiet least they attract an evil eye from old members, but most just sink down into their armchairs behind a photo magazine and hope she will just go away so things can get back to normal. Let me stress that this is my view and (as is often said in media) it does not represent an official standpoint of any kind.
Perhaps it is simply best to leave FPC as it is. I have many times pondered the idea of seeing if there is any interest in creating a Commons space for women photographers, since I'm certainly not the first female to have experienced FPC and fled. (Btw, I also think we could have a space for photos taken with mobiles. They are still very seldom up to FP standards, but it's what is used in the whole world and Commons would benefit from taking those photos seriously too.)
As with any problem, you should analyze it and see what other solutions you can come up with. --Cart (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to say that you should be treated in a particular way, I meant that we men are often rude to each other, I have three daughters and a wife and I notice it even when I answer them, unfortunately we are often too rude. That's all.--Commonists 12:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles uploaded a file at 15:19 the 1 July 2021 and then reverted it at 15:20, only one minute later, to let the author decide which version to keep. This clearly shows the constructive intention of the reviewer -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Just my quite humble opinion; Cart's behaviour has appeared to me very friendly and civil all the time, what I unfortunately cannot say about the behaviour of Basile and even much less about the behaviour of Mr.Sharp. Just in case someone is interested to hear an opinion from someone who has been VERY long active on FPC, longer than most of the other discussants here including the three users mentioned. Whatever may occur, I would be sorry to see Cart go. Not much more to say here. Thanks. --A.Savin 12:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course, no one wants to crucify him for this, but the answers afterwards were not really nice, if he had said "sorry" it would have been over in 5 minutes.However, I would be very sorry too.--Commonists 12:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I very much regret that Cart no longer wants to actively support the work here. However, I can understand that and hope that she continues to make a valuable contribution with her pictures. I find her photos remarkable, especially since she often think outside the box and deliver a refreshingly different line. In my opinion, her pictures are what photography is all about. --XRay 💬 12:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Politeness
Evitons l'anglais et les approximations nauséabondes. Certains ici manient leur langue maternelle comme Eminem. Les Français ne rivalisent pas :-) Ce que tu dis, XRay, est intéressant, néanmoins les nominations de W.carter ne sont pas toujours FPC-level, je crois. Les archives abondent d'interactions complexes 😕. Souvent nous sommes nombreux à voter. En général l'union détermine le consensus. Un échec n'est pas la fin du monde, néanmoins. Il faut être persévérant comme A.Savin (VERY long active on FPC), humble, etc. Schöne Grüße -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No More Drama -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many of you know about Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct or the discussions about how to implement it effectively on all Wikis.
Between 2018 and 2020, the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process invited volunteers to look at how to best guide the Wikimedia movement towards the future. Through working groups, online discussions, and in-person events around the world, 10 recommendations and principles were published in May 2020. One of these recommendations was to “Provide for Safety and Inclusion”:

We will establish Movement-wide standards for an inclusive, welcoming, safe, and harassment-free environment. This will enable us to better attract and retain new and diverse volunteers and grow as a movement.

Note particularly the stated purpose of this effort. From my standpoint, the most reprehensible thing in the discussion we had was the "Oh well" dismissive attitude about women having little presence on FPC and one after the other, saying they've left because of a hostile atmosphere here as just something that was common to Wikis and, essentially, so what? If instead of some of us spending a lot of mental effort feeling self-righteous about the men somehow being the real victims, we tried harder to listen to what women say and treat them with more respect, there would be more women participating at FPC. How do we know that? Because there have been women who participated in the past, and they've left one after the other, complaining of a hostile atmosphere. But sure, right, Cart was somehow guilty of sexual harassment or some other bullshit that makes you feel good about yourself. I've said my piece and don't plan on going on and on about this, but if you expect me to apologize for calling out bullshit as bullshit, go jump in a lake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan, for calling out one of the biggest wrongdoings in all of this: "the "Oh well" dismissive attitude" and the rest of the forum's blatant "meh" attitude to just ignore it. And for the record, if you harass someone sexually, it implies that you want to have something sexual to do with that person. Sorry to burst your bubble Charles, but you are the very last person on Earth I would have such thoughts about! You really were barking up the wrong tree there. --Cart (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Many apologies to Cart and Ikan Kekek. Sexual harrassment was not what I meant to say. I meant to say sexism and harrassment. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you owe me an apology, and that's all I'll say right now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, Charles, that you too often just fling out terse and/or rude comments at people here on FPC without really thinking about what those comments do to people. Real people, not just user names on a screen. And when someone stands up to you and say: Enough!, you immediately start to cry harassment and oy vey woe be me. Please, do a little more thinking and a little less throwing your weight around. That would be a good start. --Cart (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
When I write to someone here, I always have a vision of a person in front of me. I try get some sort of connection to that person. In many cases, it is easy since there are photos of the person. So for Charles I think of the happy person in a hat from his website, Colin I've met so that's no problem, etc. For some users it is more difficult but I imagine Ikan as a typical happy New Yorker musician probably wearing a woolen coat and a scarf/muffler and for Commonists I'm having a conversation with Nicola Tesla :-) but at least I'm seeing people and not just some letters on the screen. --Cart (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I too have a vison of the person I am writing about. A person (Cart= Qvarnström) who created the Wikipedia article about herself using a false name, then lied when the article was nominated for deletion, also using multiple anonymous IPs to contribute to the discussion. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Now you are really going too far. I have never used an IP on any Wiki or Commons project. Also my identity was submitted and accepted to admin and several other users. You don't need to escalate this with lies. You have got rid of me, so you've won. Congratulations. --Cart (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Charles, that was unnecessary and misplaced aggression. Cart did not attack you with her two last statements (“The thing is …”), but tried to explain why your often very apodictic evaluations on the FPC page can be understood as harsh and unkind and contribute to people not daring to nominate photos here. That was not flattering, but it was constructive and helpful. In return you have emptied another bucket of shit over her. Even if the allegations in your statement about misuse of IPs etc. were true, that wouldn’t change the fact that your response to Cart’s constructive post was quite unreasonably aggressive. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Les mots ingrats véhiculent en général des idées ingrates. Métaphore infecte, insultante pour les deux camps -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Quite right, but I don't see the wool jumper on Ikan in this heat. 😂 --Commonists 13:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, if I were any notable I still wouldn't create myself an article about myself... but yeah, she created an article about herself using her WP nickname, anything wrong about it? Seems to me you've finally lost any connection to reality; embarrassing. --A.Savin 16:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, more like batik shirts and dark slacks, or in colder weather, a thick woolen sweater and a black corduroy jacket with black jeans. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Interprétation sophistique, c'est-à-dire fallacieuse. Ni Charles ni moi n'avons jamais prétendu que W.carter était un homme. Charles a écrit "if I was a woman and she was a man". De toute évidence, Charles n'est pas une femme, et réciproquement. Donc les prémisses du raisonnement étant irréels, la conclusion n'est pas valide non plus. Ce qui m'a fait rire, c'est d'imaginer un homme (n'importe qui) écrire au sujet d'une femme (n'importe laquelle) "my bad attitude is reserved exclusively for conversations with you". Effectivement, en théorie, cette phrase sonnerait comme du harcèlement, mais en théorie seulement, et c'est rigolo je trouve de prendre conscience des nuances sociétales qui régissent nos communications. Néanmoins, la sexualité n'a rien à voir là-dedans, c'est le genre qui importe (masculin / féminin). Il s'agissait d'une nomination de photos d'oiseaux, avec une erreur technique relevée par Charles, expert dans ce domaine. Cette allégation de W.carter: "You have been using these master suppression techniques on me for years now, to get me to quit FPC" était choquante et hors sujet. A peu près tous les ans, W.carter déclare en catastrophe qu'elle renonce à FPC, où l'ambiance selon elle est "hostile", "shit", digne d'un "Kindergarten", etc. Sans se rendre compte qu'elle contribue. Pareil aujourd'hui, de façon tout à fait paradoxale, cette personne ouvre une section "FP Gallery help needed" pour annoncer que Charles et Basile sont juvéniles. Voilà l'"aide" prétendument requise (et par qui ?). COM:CIV: Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages. A ce niveau, un break peut soulager le groupe, je le pense sans inciter personne, car j'ai déjà déménagé de nombreuses fois dans ma vie et ça m'a fait du bien. L'année dernière, Wilfredor s'était retrouvé à l'origine d'un (autre) séisme identique parce qu'il lui avait conseillé de prendre un "brake" (homophone de break). A chaque fois, c'est l'apocalypse, le scandale absolu. Hey, il faut rester cool, zen, serein(e) ! Pourquoi ce besoin de cibler systématiquement les participants (Charles et moi ici, mais tant d'autres auparavant), et d'attirer l'attention vers elle ? Quant au mauvais procès que certains tentent de récupérer avec un langage ordurier parce qu'eux-mêmes ne décryptent que les grands-titres des journaux à sensations, "oh well" 💤 Le problème des oiseaux mignons a été réglé 🐣 c'est tout ce qui importe (✅ translate) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Ikan's "bullshit" removed but the edit was reverted. A few users here want that bullshit -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
In the context of an intemperate attack that chased away a valuable FPC regular, you agreed with a totally absurd, scurrilous accusation that Cart was engaging in sexual harassment, and after I called bullshit on it, you presumed to quietly set yourself up as the self-appointed censor of this board. Now that you've been reverted, you double down? My God, how arrogant! For God's sake, drop this nonsense while you're behind! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
N'importe quoi -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
De voir la façon dont ceux qui hissent leurs victorieux étendards "Universal Code of Conduct" enfreignent impunément le texte, et sans honte, cela illustre à quel point le projet sera un enfer à appliquer -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

FP Gallery help needed, subsection

The upload/revert noted above by Basile is misleadingly incomplete. Here is the full story wrt the image file and the nomination:

  • Charles does indeed upload a test edit and revert.
  • That action was soon followed by photographer Prasan uploading a new version of the file, which was both cropped and flipped vs the original.
  • Charles then, unsolicited, uploaded another version that was flipped back, denoised, sharpened and brightened.
  • It is at this point that Cart complained about Charles "unsolicited major changes" on "other peoples' photos", which is entirely accurate. Prasan's entire Commons communication during the candidacy has been the redundant words "uploaded another version" in the file history. So Charles edit cannot possibly have been solicited on Commons by the photographer.
  • When Charles then claims "it is certainly not unsolicited" and "I am trying to help a good friend. We have spent good times together in Kathmandu". I think perhaps here may be where the confusion has set it, for it isn't clear if Charles is referring to Nirmal or Prasan as the friend, and both are in Nepal. Charles did write on the nomination "I will then run it through my software to sharpen it up for you." but that is an offer to Nirmal, and Nirmal only agreed to pass on the message. If Prasan was the "good friend", then one might expect Charles would be talking direct to them, rather than via Nirmal. Neither Prasan nor Nirmal explicitly on-Commons took up Charles offer of enhancing the image. So the change made is neither solicited by the nominator nor the photographer. I think Charles has incorrectly assumed the lack of a negative response to the offer was actually agreement to go ahead.
  • At this point Charles reverts the image back to the very original version with the clone error (rather than Prasan's latest version) and strikes his support "until cloning error sorted". It would be odd not to trust a friend to fix a simple clone error. This, together with the "Sorry, Nirmal, I tried to help" message, further confirms I think that it is Nirmal who is the friend, not Prasan.
  • I guess Cart thinks the photographer Prasan is the friend, because their complaint is about unsolicited changes to the author's work, not about unsolicited mucking about with a nominator's candidate. Either way, they reasonably assume that if the image change "is certainly not unsolicited" and they are "a good friend" and that there was no on-Commons request for Charles to edit Prasan's photo (from anyone), then there must have been off-Commons communication. Off-Commons communication is not a crime. Cart only mentions it as an explanation for why reviewers are in the dark.
  • Thereafter Charles behaviour is not befitting a gentleman, to put it mildly.
  • Some days later, Prasan uploads another version, uncropped and with the cloning error fixed.

What is ironic is that both Charles and Cart have said they dislike it if others edit their photos without asking. Perhaps Charles has merged Prasan and Nirmal into one team in his mind, and not fully appreciated that the photographer wasn't in the room, as it were, and their consent could not be assumed. At no point did Prasan or Nirmal ask Charles to edit the photo, which is the definition of "solicit".

The only explanation I can see, where all parties are being honest, is that Charles has got rather confused and also that what he wrote was confusing. That is not a crime. We all make mistakes and have incorrect assumptions at times. But this toxic mess only further emphasises the need for photographers and nominators to respect the artist who's work we are considering, and to ask before making in-place edits. And to try to keep changes during a nomination to a minimum. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Colin's reasoning is perfect. --Commonists 21:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Tous les projets wiki, Wikimedia Commons inclus, sont décentralisés. Personne n'est individuellement responsable de telle ou telle section. Les galeries FP n'appartiennent à personne. Idem pour les catégories, parfois en désordre. Il m'arrive de faire du rangement ou de corriger les erreurs du bot. Aucun souci. Si chacun fait sa part, ça glissera comme sur des roulettes. (translate)

Dear nominators, please check your images after promotion

If you nominate here on Commons a picture which is already a FP on some Wikipedia, and the picture is successfully promoted to FP status, the bot does (often? always?) not change the image description page of your picture as appropriate. It seems that when the image description page already contains the {{Assessments}} template (because the picture is a FP on some Wikipedia), the bot does not add the necessary featured=1 parameter to the template, but just does – nothing.

Why is this important? Only with that parameter your FP will actually “look” and “work” like a valid FP on Commons – the description page will show the “This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons …” message and the image is sorted into the appropriate category, and then another bot will flag the picture in the structured data as FP which is necessary for the search function to recognize the image as FP.

Therefore, if you nominate here a picture which is already a FP on some Wikipedia, please go after the promotion to the image description page, search in the Wikicode for the {{Assessments}} template and add the missing parameter. E.g., when the template reads like this: {{Assessments|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Museum of the History.jpg}}, please add the parameter featured=1, so that the template now reads: {{Assessments|featured=1|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Museum of the History.jpg}}. Thank you!

Probably there is a bug in the bot and that bug should be fixed, but until that please take care for your FPs – they are great and worth that additional effort ;–). Thank you!

Background information: I am currently examining the FPs listed in our FP gallery pages. XRay has helped me very much with a script that lists suspect entries (thank you very much!), now I check each suspect image manually. There are many delisted FPs, duplicates and other problematic entries in the galleries, so a spring cleaning is really useful. But the most interesting thing is that I often find entries which actually are FPs, but do not “look” like FPs because the {{Assessments}} template is missing or because it misses the featured=1 parameter. This happens (mostly) to pictures which match the pattern I have described above. Some recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4 (all are already fixed by my, take a look into the history to see that the parameter was missing).

Thank you for your attention! ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Random slideshow

I just copied a template from enwp that I suspect some of you may find useful. It's {{Random slideshow}}. You can see it in action at my userpage, or just check out User:Rhododendrites/fps for the code. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thank you very much for this hint! --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Educational purpose

It's something that has been on my mind for a long time. The intention is the reason for a contra vote, which has already been mentioned several times: "no educational purpose." What's that for? What should pictures look like that serve this purpose? Or better, how not? When I look at the variety of topics and, above all, have a look at photographic topics, almost all pictures should fall under it. But pictures are nearly always rejected, for example when they use other photography techniques. In opposite, images of paintings are often wound through, although the motif of the painting should not be used for an evaluation. But even with the technical implementation alone there are questions because, for example, the color fastness cannot be checked - there is no comparison image with a gray card. But back to the "educational purpose". I have the impression that some people look too much through Wikipedia glasses when evaluating. I would prefer if we look more through the glasses of photography and evaluate photos because they are simply very good photos. Photography is manifold, including abstract photos, high-key photos, black-and-white photos, and much more. Therefore, I would like to appeal to you to widen your view and focus more on interesting and well-made photos. An "education purpose" can also exist if one does not see it at first sight. (Sorry for my clumsy english.) --XRay 💬 15:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

+1. Often that ‘educational purpose’ seems to be interpreted in a very narrow way, so that it becomes more or less equivalent to the usefulness of a photo to illustrate Wikipedia articles. Well, some language editions of Wikipedia have their own ‘featured pictures’, and I can understand that in the discussions there the usefulness of a photo for illustrating articles is emphasized and even that photos which seem not suitable for such purposes are rejected. But Wikimedia Commons is much more than a media database for Wikipedia, Wikivoyage & Cº. Therefore we should evaluate photographs in a more general way and on a higher level, emphasizing more the technical quality, the composition, ingenuity, originality and expressive power of a photo. We should also not treat these criteria as blunt rules, but strive to be open to novel and unfamiliar perspectives. After all, one of the often-mentioned main virtues of photography (and of art in general) is that it can help us to see familiar things with new eyes. In this respect, a photo that deliberately breaks a number of rules and exposes our viewing habits as mere habits can ultimately also have much more ‘educational value’ than a well-behaved illustration, because it teaches us a new way to see. (I do not want to criticize anybody. On the contrary, I say this as a photographer who usually takes rather conventional pictures, but is all the more pleased when other people are more audacious.) --Aristeas (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • XRay, I've had a quick look - where in FP criteria does it mention "Educational purpose". Can you link to a few images where someone has voted oppose saying 'no educational purpose' and were the votes challenged? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't want to compromise anyone, so I didn't link any images. But you can search yourself: Commons: insource:/educational (value|purpose)/ intitle:/Featured picture candidates\/File:/. --XRay 💬 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, XRay, I cannot understand the code you've given. But reading the exchange of views, which all make sense, I imagine one type of image you are referring too would be an abstract. We would have to change the rules to allow voters to oppose with "I don't like it". I found this rejected image of yours. I would have liked to vote "I don't like it", another might have said "You can do better", but both are not approved reasons for an oppose vote under the guidelines. With this type of image, it is not possible to "Explain your reasoning" as recommended under the guidelines. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I stand by the comments I made on the purple rain nomination after Yann voted and Colin commented. I have sympathy with Colin's view, but I don't know if he's right or not. I would have preferred to be able to say "I don't like it". For this type of artifically-coloured image (or even for the B&W version), how is it possible to have an objective or scientific rationale? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we shouldn't concentrate on individual images or comments, but rather on the basic way of evaluating images. I am not concerned with the individual images, but with the aspects of the assessment in general.--XRay 💬 09:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • We should not limit this question to the actual use of “educational pupose/value”. The influence of the ‘educational purpose’ paradigm is also appearant in a general restraint regarding abstract photos, high/low key photos etc., i.e. all photos whose intention is not mainly to reproduce a clearly defined piece of reality. --Aristeas (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree and have also found a strange conventionality and conservatism on this board frustrating. Photography has been radical for well over 100 years, yet there's so much talk of "rules" on this board and QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The educational purpose is just a starting point for me. My concern is that we should concentrate on photography and its facets and not on restrictions, for example through a Wikipedia view. Here are a lot of people looking only with a view of Wikipedia. So we'll miss other really good photographs. A beginner may not yet know the possibilities of photography, but they may find their way there. And especially the excellent pictures should take good photographs without restrictions into account. --XRay 💬 04:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think my comments at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple rain on roof.jpg still hold. Some reviewers come here from Wikipedia or with a mindset of illustrating Wikipedia articles and bring that to FPC. At its most obvious, is when they slip and say "encyclopaedic value", which is easy to argue against. But even without that mistake, reviewers can fall into a trap of having a conservative view on what is educational or useful for an educational purpose. FPC takes in a huge variety of images. Take species identification photos, which are useful and often technically demanding and of course nature provides amazing subjects. But from an artistic photographic point of view, they are not generally illustrative of our finest works. In an artistic work, matters of lighting, composition (not the Rule of Thirds) and capturing a special moment, all dominate and distinguish one photographer from another. Sure, we do have some animal photos that capture a great moment or demonstrate great composition, but for many we only really check the technicals: is the subject in focus, well enough lit, sharp, nothing cropped off, background not distracting. We shouldn't take the mindset of reviewing a Wikipedia article lead image on some bird and apply it to an image that actually demonstrates the amazing creative talent of someone other than God.

I share the views of others here that conservative ideas about photography lead to oppose votes that harm the project. FPC is supposed to be about "wow". I wish there were more photographs that made me go "Wow, that's different". -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

+1. Yes I would say that I completely agree with Xray....we need to be more open, more artistic and not close ourselves in an "encyclopedic value" --Commonists 13:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This is similar to what some others have said, but the way I usually explain highlighted content on Commons to people is: QI is about technical quality, VI is about educational value, and FP is about technical quality, educational value, and a "wow factor" where a lot of one can make up for deficiencies with the others. That's to say, my understanding is we certainly do consider educational value, but that educational value isn't absolutely required if it's extremely high technical quality and/or "wow factor". There are various diagrams, scientific photos, etc. that we promote which, if we truly didn't care at all about educational value, would not likely be promoted. We can state this relationship (that we look for X, Y, Z, but none are absolute requirements), but short of writing that into the guidelines I don't know how much will realistically change even if everyone expresses here "no, high educational value is not required". Ultimately, as long as we allow "wow factor" (or something like that), people can support/oppose for any reason they like and just say e.g. "nothing special". I'm not saying that should change -- only that any part of one's personal criteria can be categorized under "wow"/"special". — Rhododendrites talk |  14:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The 5-component International Judging System for figure skating comes to mind. --Cart (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Rhododendrites. You have set out convincingly that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Emphasizing only the educational value as main criterium is highly problematic, as explained above by various contributors; but we must keep it in the list of special features which contribute to make a FP an FP. --Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I think I've written something like this before: I try to think of the "wow-factor" as an over-arching quality of an image that can manifest in a variety of ways. I can be wowed but flawless technical execution of a difficult technical shot (e.g. a focus stack), by a perfectly captured mood or emotion, by very high educational or historical value, by a great composition, and by a bunch of other things I can't think of right now. I don't really have the capacity to really get into any of this right now, but I'd really welcome a bit more creativity and less handing out stars to the same image of a different flower over and over again. It's getting boring, which is part of the reason I've been gone for a while – and taking a glimpse at what else is being discussed on this page right now I'm not sure I feel like coming back. --El Grafo (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
FP is not quite QI + VI + wow, however. In 99% of cases, FP sets an equal or higher bar for technical quality than QI. However, FP often has a lower bar for educational value than VI. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible votestacking

The accounts were blocked for spamming and sockpuppetry. It is also highly likely that they votestacked FPC nominations as well. MER-C 19:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Very sad this situation --Wilfredor (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I was blocked without even getting a chance of speaking up for myself. This is not something I expected from a community to which I contributed valuably for so many years. FWIW, I have made my case on my wiki talk page and I welcome admins to contact me by DM/phone/email if they need any ID proof to show who I am and where I live. --Muhammad (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree this looks a bit odd, as one user is a Nikon photographer and the other a Canon photographer. They cannot even be friends, never mind the same person ;-) -- Colin (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Mydreamsparrow and Muhammad Mahdi Karim have both successfully appealed their blocks. Blacknclick remains blocked. MER-C 17:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Great! --A.Savin 20:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks A.Savin and Colin for your kind words and sensible attitude. Surprised at how this went and grateful for your support -- Muhammad (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Set Criteria

The nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Blue Shark Azores raises again questions about what the criteria are for sets. There are two main questions wrt sets. Firstly whether the set nomination is even valid per the nomination criteria. Secondly whether the set of images meet the criteria to be featured.

Examples of sets failing the the first rule: Is this an FPC set?

Examples of sets failing due to quality:

Sets usually fail simply for not meeting the set criteria. But meeting the criteria to be considered as a set, is only a necessary but not sufficient condition. Each of the photos should be featured standard. The rules and the community have not historically given a free pass to a set with only some great photos. Naturally with some sets one or two nominators grumble that one or two entries aren't as good as the others, but the standard is still expected to be consistently high. It is quite common for a set to be withdrawn and renominated with one photo. -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

One other interesting one to consider is Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/James H. Clark Center. On this one almost everyone supported or opposed the two images together, implicitly endorsing them as a valid set, though there was one objection to the set on the grounds of criteria compliance (from Poco a poco) and one objection to the set on the grounds of quality (from Basile Morin). Normally I would agree with Poco, but in this case one of the views (from the north) is not possible due to being blocked by trees, and since we don't have a full set anyways I didn't see a reason to include a view from the west which would be practically a mirror image of the view from the east. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the requirement that each image in a set be featurable, with one exception: a moving subject shown over time. Each image would still need to be of FP image quality, but would not necessarily need to have "wow" factor on its own; the "wow" factor can come from viewing the images as a set. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that your example of a moving sequence would perhaps be better done as a collage, or even a slow motion video. Remember that each entry in a set gains its own gold star and highlighted as "among our finest". They aren't presented as a set anywhere on Commons except the FPC. King of Hearts you say each image "would still need to be of FP image quality", but you haven't voted on the nomination. Charles only asked a question about whether every entry has to be FP standard on its own, but also didn't vote. The criteria do not say anywhere that a set's entries can be of lower standard, and that seems to be the case in practice (a few examples above). -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Just an example of a recent non-set nom with a relevant discussion about whether to nominate as a set (and what that would mean): Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marsh wren at Hammonasset Beach (12908).jpg — Rhododendrites talk |  13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I don't really know why Charles, in that linked discussion, thinks there may be some lower grade for sets, because the rules have never said that the featured requirements are any less for a set, and in practice reviewers have routinely complained about sets where there are weak entries. Maybe there is a different mindset on en:wp where Charles participates. Rhododendrites, you mention that perhaps all the entries in a set would fail if all were nominated, because reviewers would consider them too similar or have a favourite. I think this is one reason why we do have sets, because often reviewers do challenge a candidate that is simply the same photo but a bit later or from a different angle, and we require nominators to select the "finest on Commons". But if someone nominated any one of the entries of a set, it should still meet the critiera, perhaps being opposed only for someone saying "Oh, if only you'd taken this half a second later", or "oh I prefer the front elevation", and the set satisfies that.
Nearly all of us will have multiple photos from a photo shoot, each with their own qualities. What the set candidates is not designed for, is to give photographers an easy way to get several images featured, or have some weak ones pass because they complete the set. If anyone can find a contemporary set nomination where some of the entries have misplaced focus, or where most are 20MP but one is a soft, low-contrast 3MP.... I've never seen this before. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the 3MP tail/rear image in the set has been replaced by a 20MP image. -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

New nom template edit

FYI, I added a line about selecting the correct gallery to Template:FPCnomNewInstructions. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rhododendrites! Given the fact that the gallery link is quite often incomplete and sometimes broken or missing, your additional explanation is very welcome! --Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

POTY

September is coming soon. Will Commons:Picture of the Year/2020 be held this year? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: See here for the pending CentralNotice: meta:CentralNotice/Request/Picture of the Year 2020. The start date is September 12 (unless something goes wrong). I suspect page creation, etc. will begin once that's approved. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Basile Morin (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa

There are some possible FP candidates among the Wiki Loves Africa "Health and Wellness" competition. Many of them have relatively minor technical issues, many of which are fixable (perspective, CA, noise, etc.). I started to address some of them (since most participants aren't likely going to be active on Commons), but figured I'd ask for thoughts here, first.

There are probably others, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Take care to respect COM:OVERWRITE. I think it is worth trying to contact the photographers, if you think fixes can help. For example, per Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata viewer, the microscope image is over-sharpened in Lightroom, without a sharpening mask, which emphasised the noise. The best solution to that is to fix the original Lightroom settings to reduce the sharpening a bit and apply a mask, then consider some NR. With some other images, the "faults" may be more a reflection of FPC pixel peeping obsession than an issue that truly needs fixing. -- Colin (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Featured pictures: wow

In a recent nomination there was again some confusion of the role of Featured Pictures vs the other review forums like Commons:Valued images and Commons:Quality images. There is also occasionally some confusion with en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Perhaps it is useful to note the differences:

A complaint by a nominator was: "look into the poor quality of ... pictures of this species we have on Commons. We have ... no living QIs/FPs for the species, neither for the genus, nor family nor for the whole order". This isn't the first time that a comparison has been made with Commons' existing pictures in a category in order to argue for promotion of an image that isn't otherwise outstanding or is flawed. So how does that fit with FP's aim to select "the finest on Commons" and why do nominations link to the feature picture gallery for similar images?

The answer is that being better than the rest is a necessary but insufficient condition. We look at other these images in the feature picture gallery, and other pictures in the categories that image is associated with, in order to say "No, we already have better images that are featured" or "No, this isn't really superior to lots of other images we have". So the fact that we may have no featured or even quality images of this subject is not itself a help in overcoming any other problems an image has. Commons repository may be large, but it is quite oddly biased in many ways, and there is no end to the list of species, regions, buildings, objects and peoples for which we lack good photos.

The attribute that sets Featured Pictures apart from other forums is "wow". Wow is the single essential attribute, and sufficient wow can overcome technical issues that would fail the image at QI. In contrast, Quality Images "need not be extraordinary or outstanding, but merely well-composed and generally well-executed". Valued Images is the place to praise the best photo we have of a given subject, which isn't so concerned amazing images and technical details but just "the most valued illustration of its kind" on Commons.

Although Featured Pictures are "some of the finest on Commons" we don't require that there is only one Featured Image per subject. This contrasts with Wikipedia where a featured pictures must illustrate an article, and is usually the lead image, meaning there is often only one. That means that Wikipedia may perform a "delist and replace" on their featured images should a better one come along. On Commons, we only delist featured pictures if they are clearly far below today's standards, and it isn't necessary to find a replacement.

Hope that's a useful summary. Any additions/corrections? -- Colin (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"sufficient wow can overcome technical issues that would fail the image at QI" - for me that's relatively rare. Admittedly, for technical quality I tend to have a higher bar at FPC than many, and a lower bar at QIC than many, so my usual standard at FPC is adequate wow + state-of-the-art image quality (which would be much higher than QI for landscapes and architecture, but similar to QI for things like small birds and night sky). Alternatively, I could accept a landscape/architecture shot with exceptional wow and bare minimum QI quality. I would only support a QI-failing image at FPC if it has historical value (or some other good excuse for poor technical quality) in addition to exceptional wow.
Regarding the last part, what do you think is the appropriate procedure for a photographer who has gone back to the site of one of their own FPs (which would still meet the technical bar if nominated today) and reshot the scene (perhaps with better equipment)? The three possible actions are: 1) Allow both to become FP. This just feels a bit vain, to have two FPs of essentially the same thing (especially if they were shot at the same time of day, same season). 2) Delist and replace. The issue with this approach is that FPC is supposed to be about the image, not the contributor, and the old image clearly would not be delisted if it weren't by the same uploader. 3) Keep everything as is. FPs are supposed to be our best, but now we have an inferior image occupying that title. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Wrt wow vs technical quality, this isn't just my opinion or analysis of voting patterns over a decade, but part of the rules. Featured pictures 'must have a "wow factor" and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.' It is variable how often this happens, and there are examples of great images passing with technical flaws, and of great images being nit picked to death about noise or the focus being misplaced or a vertical being slightly wrong.
"Delist and replace" is described as being: "for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images." So in your example, the rules won't encourage delisting the older photo unless it was so weak that it is far below today's standards for such photos. The point about "finest" is that FPs are "among the finest on Commons" and not that "for this subject, this is the finest image". That's what VI is about. So I think we should be relaxed about FPs containing some older images and newer better images of the same subject. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It's fine to say that theoretically, there are photos that should pass FPC that would fail QIC. But when's the last time you've seen that happen in practice for a modern photo? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It isn't theoretical but isn't nearly as common as it should be. Pixel-peepers and those who think composition is rule-of-thirds or are allergic to cropping or tilting get too much attention.
For me File:James Hetfield with Metallica -- 7 October 2004.jpg is a QI pass for me. Same with File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg, we don't require impressionist images to be sharp at QIC (e.g. foggy landscapes where everything is naturally blurred). I don't see anyone nitpicking File:Hou Yifan (29762728494) (cropped).jpg for QI-related reasons? I opposed over lighting, which I almost never decline an image for at QIC unless it is so horrendously bad that the subject can barely be seen. It's a clear QI for me. With File:Serge Gainsbourg par Claude Truong-Ngoc 1981.jpg and File:Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg, fine, I'll grant you that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed 100% with Colin and 50% with King of Hearts, because the wow is for me more important. The visual impact of a photo, what I call the "wow" is more important. Of course a balance between wow and quality is needed but Photography is for a bit more than perfect technical achievement, there is soething more... something ...wow. That being said I appreciate a lot perfectly mastered photographic techniques and the photos with tip top quality. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I don't know why some vital aspects of FPC are hidden away, and yet the header is way way too long. -- Colin (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment I think I agree, too. Maybe we should talk about the wording. I think we can't give a universal definition of "wow" and shouldn't try, but it could include being moved by a photo, finding it unusually striking, finding its composition exceptional, finding the image very unusual and special, or being amazed by its quality per se or within a particular category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

POTY 2020

Picture of the Year 2020 is finally up and running. Go vote! :-) And if you have language skills, please help out with the translations. --Cart (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

FPCBot

Since a few days now, FPCBot has been generating meaningless edit summaries "Pywikibot 7.0.0.dev0", does anyone know why? Regards --A.Savin 21:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly meaningless, see Pywikibot. Maybe KTC knows why FPCBot is now using its "home address" as an edit summary. --Cart (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Eatcha have kindly updated the bot codes, and I've followed their instruction to update it on Labs so the bot should be working as previously now. -- KTC (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Revenge voting?

At FPC Basílica de San Jorge, PetarM (Mile) is the sole oppose with rationale "The borders are fuzzy". Looking at the 36MP image, I think this rationale is ridiculous, and I don't have a problem with Poco a poco saying so. I've been banging the "We need to stop pixel peeping" drum for a long while, and pixel peeping at 36Mp is ridiculous and harmful to the project. I don't actually see any significant softness at the edge, but if there were, I'd accept some due to optics, due to depth of focus, and due to projection stretching. What I do have a problem with is that Poco said "No worries, will raise my bar for your noms accordingly, ridiculous". This is a threat to revenge vote. Specifically, to single out PetarM for "ridiculous" levels of pixel peeping, while maintaining a reasonable bar for everyone else.

At FPC Basílica de San Ulrico, Mile again opposed ("Corrections needed, anoted") and Ikan Kekek comments "You two always oppose each other's nominations, or at least as long as I can remember. I think both of you are just feuding and should stop voting on each other's nominations". Two other reviewers (Aristeas and Cmao20) examine the annotations and agree that one of them (highlights on a roof) might be improvable and the others are likely natural features. Mile retracts the oppose. Actually, I think the reduction in highlights on the roof look terrible. Sometimes, bright is bright. Poco should have left it alone and I strongly suggest reverting.

I don't know if Ikan is right and these two are feuding. I think we should be extremely reluctant to ban reviewers from commenting on the nominations of specific users. There are at least two reasons.

  1. Some nominators make a habit of being as unpleasant as possible to those who dares oppose their photos, to the point where many reviewers will not oppose their work, or avoid their work. Out of our pool of reviewers, many only ever vote support, and many others will only oppose if someone else has been brave first. So we are reliant on a small number of brave opposers to stop FPC being simply an award factory. The result of this practice is that the nominator has reduced the chance of opposition. Since PFC is a popularity contest with a low bar, that makes it much much easier to earn gold stars. This has been going on since FPC started.
  2. Ridiculous nit picking opposes are unfortunately common. There is a tendency when one is a nominator to think one is being singled-out, when in fact the reviewer is ridiculous at other times too. We don't have a mechanism to resolve such voting other than to comment on the supposed flaws for the image we are reviewing. So it is hard to tell if either Mile or Poco are being fair on each other. Being habitually the only oppose for an image that otherwise gathers large support would be one clue. But then that is also the mechanism by which FPC naturally mitigates such votes and makes them ineffectual. But, Poco, if you telegraph to the world that you are going to start revenge voting on Mile's nominations, that is just asking for a topic ban from FPC.

Unlike Photo Challenge, we aren't judging photos blind. We are all human and have the failings that come with that. Reviewers must not be subject to personal attacks nor threats to revenge vote in retaliation. I hope Poco strikes his comment, agrees that was unwise, and does not follow through with his threat. Otherwise AN beckons. For those unfamiliar with AN, the rest of Commons can take a dim view of FPC, regarding the forum as full of egocentric prima donnas. It isn't wise to end up there if you are being one of those. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Oh, wrt "[Mile] never comes back" (after opposing), it is telling that the reason for coming back is that Poco has fixed something. In that regard, Poco, you have yourself somewhat to blame. You have historically the highest nomination failure rate at FPC of any regular, and nominations that regularly need fixing. We are all volunteers with no obligation to keep checking back on an old nomination. Both of those statistics could be improved with more attention and selection prior to nomination. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I try to become less "pixlepeeper". Pixlepeping is normally at the begging when some start with photography. But i think we should have some critique. Maybe politically not the best decision, if one tries also to proceed with own nominations, but I believe we might have enough "independent" voters. Trustful are actually those who don't have their own nominations. It's easy to stay idle, put oppose "here and there" after bunch is behind you, to keep calm and take for your "own business". In this time i have been here i saw many who proceed in quality and some who don't. Sometimes is better to take time with the edition to make a photo a keeper, some want quantity others might try with quality. When i see EXIF, i suppose i can expect more from 6-7 k€ equipment than another photographer with camera below 1k€. I saw Ikans comment, should i skip some nominees by other person ? But where will this end. Why do i more like 2008 FP than 2018 or 2009 than 2019 !? We are talking about Featured picture - ...some of the finest on Commons. This means also the photographer should pull out the best of it with edition, if needed (actually always). "Oppose" with reference is not so bad, actually it is making photographers better (or at least it should), the man who opposes might get a bill, but I make no friends here. Whose bill will be bigger at the end one can guess. --Mile (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What I've observed for a long time is that you two always oppose each other's nominations. I don't think either of you should be banned from commenting on each other's nominations at this point, but I do think that neither of you should vote on those nominations. And that means both of you. I don't mean to single you out. (Clarification: I'm referring to Mile and Poco a poco. I thought that would be clear from context, but I now know that it was not clear to at least one reader.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Mile, when you make a comment like the "The borders are fuzzy" on a photo that plainly does not have fuzzy borders. When that photo certainly compares better in border sharpness to your own cathedral ceiling. When that photo has 20+ supports and you are the only oppose. Well, it is hard to convince anyone you are being neutral and fair. I don't think you should judge Poco with extra pixel peeping ridiculousness because he has $$$$ equipment. The laws of optics and the effects of perspective distortion correction apply to us all, and I've yet to see anyone focus stack interiors as well as HDR and high resolution stitch. Wrt other photos, when you find yourself out of step with the community, and the lone oppose, or when there are persistent complaints about nit picking pixel peeping, then perhaps you should reassess your reviewing practice. We are here to choose great images, not great pixels. Poco may nominate far too many "meh" photos imo, but that cathedral is an amazing photo, and so your vote sticks out. That's still no excuse for Poco threatening to revenge vote, and screwing up your own cathedral ceiling with his misreading of the D&R rules. -- Colin (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Colin, reading "No worries, will raise my bar for your noms accordingly, ridiculous" you are interpreting my comment and affirming that what I mean by that is a revenge vote. I have never done that and will not do it. Doing such a think proves that you can behave as a child and are not here to help but to disrupt. If I oppose, I do it for a reason I believe and I oppose pretty often noms from many photographers not just Mile's noms. And I will keep doing so as I believe that it is the best way to improve the project in the long term. I've personally no problems with opposes if they can be sustained.
You keep saying that "You have historically the highest nomination failure rate at FPC of any regular". The fact that you repeat that doesn't make it true and I really doubt it. Can you please provide any evidence? I can give you my numbers as I document all failed noms here. So far it has been 729 from 1053 which is a rate of 69,2%. Is it that bad? and what would be the rate that makes you happy? Poco a poco (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
When is the last time either of you gave a supporting vote to the other's photo? I will nominate you two for being prohibited from voting on each other's nominations if you continue this feud. (Clarification: I'm referring to Mile and Poco a poco. I thought that would be clear from context, but I now know that it was not clear to at least one reader.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in the rest of the argument, but I think it is worth pointing out that Poco a poco's success rate is probably quite a bit higher than 69.2% because out of those 300 or so failed nominations a significant number were photos that other users have nominated, which of course are not photos that he has preselected for nomination himself. It is surely unfair to judge him on those so you're looking at an effective success rate of a fair bit more than 70%. Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Cmao20 To be honest, I'm so sure about that. I'm definitely biased, specially when it comes to pictures that were hard to take for same reason or required many hours (that's something that you don't necessarily know when you look at it). So, I'm really happy and thankful when I see mostly you or Ikan nominating a picture of mine. I have no clue what rate you got but I wouldn't bet that is lower. In the meanwhile you are experienced in this matter and have a good criteria for good FP candidates --Poco a poco (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Some accusations here, so while on my lunch break, I got the numbers:

of Poco's nominations, Mile commented on 23 of them
11 of them were opposes (of which 5 were promoted, 5 failed, and 1 is pending)
6 were supports (of which 4 were promoted and 2 failed)
6 were comments/neutrals
these are ending votes. in 4 cases Mile upgraded a vote during the nomination, either removing an oppose or upgrading an oppose or neutral or support
of Mile's nominations, Poco commented on 10 of them
8 of them were opposes (of which 4 were promoted, 3 failed, and 1 is pending)
2 were supports (of which 2 were promoted)

Importantly, this doesn't take into account that Poco has many more total nominations, and doesn't take into account voting behavior on other people's nominations, which would be necessary to conclude any unfair targeting has occurred. Neither always opposes the other's nominations, and in fact I associate Poco with higher-than-average standards in general and Mile with regular additions of specific technical issues in general. Best practice, IMO, would be simply to try not take either one personally (I know this is easier said than done, though).

Importantly, after clicking through these, I don't think there were any nominations where the other person's vote was critical to its failure. That is, the balance of everyone else's votes determined the outcome, so not worth getting too upset about regardless. For what it's worth. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a natural cognitive bias where nominators pay great attention to the votes and especially opposes they get. Whereas when they are just one of many fellow reviewers (if they bother reviewing), there isn't the same focus on what other people think about someone else's photo. So it is easy to fall into a trap of thinking one is being picked on.
It is hard to know if an oppose vote was "critical" unless it was added in the final hours and tipped the balance. Normally, you have no idea what votes will follow and a failed nom does need others to agree it should fail. What would be more relevant is if someone was habitually the lone oppose (either because they have standards and rules not shared by the community, or because they are picking on someone).
If someone feels they are being picked on by a biased reviewer, they should take the issue to this talk page and calmly request others to examine. Getting angry and making (empty) threats to revenge vote in return is not acceptable. But unless it is glaringly obvious we can't read people's minds, so there will always be an element of having to put up with a degree of perceived unfairness and rely on the community overall to mostly get it right. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanx to talk for the math. I could not solve it, i don't do registry. But this wasn't 1st accusation. A month or two ago it was similar - i oppose just to that photographer nominations. But objections to that person made much better than before - much more capable to do edit in software ! I make objectives often, means i spent time checking upside-down, from left to right. Ikan i could support you if we try to make 1 nomine per person. I think FP would become much better, people will spent more time with edition. Now try to guess if we push to 3. I made objctions, thats is good. Maybe thats why i was a part of jury. And as you can see, it is still up to community. I wasnt sole in jury, neither is FP done on the sole vote, but objections could be done in sole. It should not be a problem, we are still rotating around the Sun. --Mile (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mile, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of your hyperlink is (and I actually don't want you to explain it). It is clear your English isn't strong. I'm having a hard time putting a good-faith spin on including Nazis in this conversation. See Godwin's law. You are on thin ice here, Mile, and this sort of thing just makes admin action against you really easy. I ask you to remove the link (and then you can remove my response also). -- Colin (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Colin Waiting your action, be strong. --Mile (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what you think I'm going to do. I assume your response indicates you have no intention of removing the Nazi link. I'm not an admin, Mile, merely warning you that this sort of behaviour is the kind of thing admins would block for, and won't sit well on your record if you end up before AN. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Before imposing any sanction, it would be helpful to know what did he actually mean. Regards --A.Savin 12:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Colin can probably explain, he likes to put some "Godwins" and is good to put his words to your mouth. Waiting for your action. Don't hold now. --Mile (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I accept the proof in the numbers. I doubt that a limit of 1 concurrent nomination per person would be worth spending the time to consider, because I can't see it being approved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Poco a poco, after your (possibly empty) threat to revenge vote, and Ikan's criticisms, I don't think your vote comment at Mile's Dragon on the Dragon Bridge was a bright move. The first sentence is explicitly a grudge vote, bringing over your hurt feelings that five people didn't think your castle was an FP, and comparing your candidate with Mile's. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please Colin, don't assume always bad faith from my side. I didn't review FPCs for a while and I went through (and reviewed) a bunch of them, that was one of them. Look, you don't just vote in the noms as most people do, but rather try to explain why and I implicitly see a kind of effort from your side to "educate" reviewers. In the castle nom I read from you: "Photography is about light. The light here is meh.", which I cannot refute, but the subject and the angle are IMHO overcompensating that issue. That's not the case in the dragon picture, and I just applied your feedback to make my point more clear. It's an easy shot, without any special ligthing, not showing the item completely and without anything extraordinary. To me not a FP, and I though that you agree with Mile and me that there is no need to issue a gag order on us but if I have to justify here and there all my opposes I'll think twice before opposing anywhere. Poco a poco (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
If it was criticism of your photo that you accepted [albeit that you think there are compensations] then you shouldn't have written "I had to heard in my castle candidate above that everything is about light" which in English sounds like a sullen remark about unfair criticism you got from others, and are passing onto Mile. Ok, I should be more COM:MELLOW about non-native-English writing. So, sorry about that. -- Colin (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

POTY round 2 open

The banner hasn't come up yet, but voting is now open for Round 2 (Finale) of POTY 2020: Commons:Picture of the Year/2020/R2/Gallery. Congratulations to all the finalists! --Cart (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Please vote only once (= 1 vote per reviewer, no more)

Hello,

In this recent nomination of a set, King of Hearts votes twice, setting special conditions. This is not valid, as far as I know. I have never seen that before. Cmao20 fixes the issue, then KoH insists to be allowed to vote twice.

The bot was mislead of course. And I had to read all the boring discussion to fix the problem. I wonder what would happen if everybody vote like that. Then the closing person needs to ask each reviewer what exactly they mean, yes or no, or it depends ?

Please keep the procedures simple. And easy for the others. 1 candidature = 1 proposition. You say yes or you say no. If you say yes, you vote {{S}} and if you say no, you vote {{O}}. You don't need two votes at the same time. You can strike one out and should not rely on someone else to fix it. I really don't see the advantage of keeping the two votes open at the same time. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I just find it a waste of time to have to discuss the nomination a second time if a set fails but one member of the set clearly would succeed on its own. In my own Clark Center nom, you actually voted both support and neutral. IMO the true result for the set is 9/3/2. If there had been 5 opposes instead of 3, then the correct result would be to promote only the first image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wait wait wait. You're saying I voted both support and neutral? Never. I voted once. And the bot was not confused. Everybody vote once at FPC. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
There is already a procedure by which people vote twice at FPC: it is called alts. Those also require manual intervention to decide which of two alts to promote. You can just think of this as similar to alts, with a few differences: 1) if you have the same opinion on the set as well as all of its individual members, then you only need to support or oppose once to make sure your vote is counted across the board; 2) the largest subset of images reaching the support threshold is promoted, rather than the alt with the most support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
For alts, the bot notices. And doesn't make the sum. For sets, the bot doesn't notice. And makes the sum. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Making the bot work shouldn't be a priority, since the human reviewer is supposed to manually review the votes anyways instead of blindly trusting that the bot did the right job. Would it help if the first person in a set nom to deviate from having one consistent opinion on the whole set put in bold letters This nomination must be tallied manually? My goal is to save effort for the community as a whole, and I fail to see how requiring two nominations for a failed set saves effort compared to the slight amount of extra work required to count the original nomination when partial votes are allowed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. The set did not fail. Thus the so-called "save effort" is just the inverse, here.
  2. The bot almost never fails. Thus it's quite easy for the human reviewer to verify. (And here too, the bot was right, but not the votes. Lucky I noticed.)
  3. The human reviewers (there are not many at FPC) should not spend the whole day on such repetitive tasks. I've been helping for several years now. No problem KoH if you want to join us.
  4. There is enough work already to verify the accounts of the reviewers, to check the crossed votes and the hidden ones in the middle of text blocks, and sometimes unusual templates displaying well but unknown by the bot. Thus, no need extra challenges of this kind. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The fact that this set did not fail, when it could have easily gone the other way, does not mean anything. If another person came last-minute to oppose, the set would have failed. Are you saying we shouldn't close the FPC as successful for the first image? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
"If, if, if"... And the inverse possible also, with double votes, that's endless. To answer your question: what if the set fails? That's it. Consensus. Another nomination, individually, welcome. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
And to me, that's a massive waste of time, when there is clear consensus for promoting the first image. Anyways, I think we've made each other's positions abundantly clear. Let's wait for others to weigh in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
One vote.
The waste of time would be by allowing people to cast two or three votes each. Because the too complex interpretations will bring endless debates, and potential revisions, afterwards. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "voting twice," which calls to mind double-support or double-oppose for the same image. This is just opting to support one image from a set. The relevant question is whether we are equipped (technically and/or procedurally) to allow voting to include/exclude individual members of a set, or if one bad component to a set means the other must be nominated independently. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we should formalize rules like:
  1. If you support a set, then you are assumed to support any individual member of the set unless you specify otherwise.
  2. If you oppose a set, then you are assumed to oppose any individual member of the set unless you specify otherwise.
  3. If you support an individual member of a set, then you are assumed to have no opinion on the set or any other member unless you specify otherwise.
  4. If you oppose an individual member of a set, then you are assumed to oppose the set but have no opinion on any other member unless you specify otherwise.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You can specify anything you want in the content of your review. But when you use the specific templates to clearly indicate your position, just use once at the same time (for each nomination). -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Either way the bot will get it wrong, so why does it matter? You did not support my set, but the bot counted your vote as if you did. (Unless you did actually intend for your vote to be counted as a support? Then that's even more confusing - saying that you're supporting only the first image, but actually intending to have your vote counted as support for the whole set.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Difference is my vote was properly cast. And the bot got it right. Difference also is this neutral vote had no impact on the set I voted for. Since it was a set, evaluated as such (and not two separate nominations). Content of the reviews are what they are (and sometimes ambiguous). Official templates are explicit. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess we just have fundamentally different ideas of what the vote template means. You use it to express your opinion of the original nomination, even if that is contradicted by what you say in the rest of your vote. (I did not interpret your vote as being in support of my set.) I regard it as just a convenience to assist counting, but not the absolute expression of a vote. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, then let's make the interpretations very clear:  Support means "OK".  Oppose means "Not OK". Easy. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
What's the problem of striking out striking out one of both votes? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Basile is clearly right. It's easy to express your views without doing something you know will mislead the bot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a set nomination, KoE gives an oppose to the set. Final point. Just hope that the BOT will works well and will count just the oppose vote, otherwise this will have to be fixed manually. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It isn't often I find my self agreeing with Basile. FPC voting on a set is for the set. Please let's not create complicated variants where people vote for individual images within a set as a secondary vote. After going through thousands of previous nominations with a little analysis program I wrote, I can say that humans are crap at counting. I mean, even counting to 2. And that's including the obvious votes next to the bullet point. If your vote is in the middle of a paragraph then it is often not spotted. And a vote that gets struck is often tallied when it should have been ignored. So please lets keep it simple for the bot. Of course I should say that all the humans who double-check the bot are doing a valuable job that nominators don't always thank them for, but there is a reason why "I'm only human" is an admission of inevitable fallibility. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there still consensus for the 2 active nomination limit?

The current limit of two active nominations per user is a result of this rules overhaul in 2010.

Is there still consensus for this limit?

I was not active in 2010, but I presume the reason was a lot of low quality nominations, and that is a risk if we increase it. There may also be a risk of stretching our participation too thin. But there may be a benefit, as well: if the pipeline were larger, there are several users who may be more likely to nominate other users' photos, since they would not use up their two slots with their own photos.

Speaking for myself, I've gone through periods of more and less activity, and when I'm in a period of higher activity, I'm also more likely to notice other people's photos to nominate, but nominate my own first and sometimes forget. This is perhaps my own failing, but I wonder if other people feel similarly? What difference would increasing it from 2 to 3 have, I wonder? Curious what people think. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Two nominations per user are enough, in my opinion, and fine. I'm not in favor of increasing to three.
The more candidates there are, the less carefully they are evaluated individually, due to the time spent for each.
I remember a discussion at QIC to increase from 5 to 7 nominations per participant, but the proposal was refused consensually.
Two is a well-balanced ratio, in my view, here -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the limit of 2 self-noms is pretty sensible and not be increased, as it forces nominators to be selective about what they nominate. However, I would be in favor of increasing the total number of nominations allowed per nominator to 3, with at most 2 of them coming from the same creator. This incentivizes people to look for great images by others that they wouldn't have previously nominating since that would use up one of their precious slots, by making this kind of nomination effectively "free" for someone usually only nominates their own. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A problem with the nominations of other people is that when they need corrections (quite often), we usually struggle to obtain them from the photographers, sometimes absent. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems that images by absentee photographers are mostly nominated by non-photographer FPC regulars. This will hopefully get photographer FPC regulars to nominate each other's images more often, e.g. if you see a great image at QIC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
As I understand your suggestion, you plan to allow three nominations of photographs taken by others ? Thus, as much corrections sometimes needed, and hard to come. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, 3 nominations of others' photos might be too much. So how about: if you want to nominate 3, then at least one of them must be by yourself and at least one of them must be by someone else. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The rules might become soon a bit difficult and too complex. Keep things simple and easy to explain IMO. Two, and that's it. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting approach: 3 nominations as long as at least 1 isn't yours. I've not seen a big problem with needed corrections of others' photos. It happens sometimes, but we have many people who prolifically nominate other people's work without an issue. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I like KoH's proposed new rules. I'd be happy to continue having a limit of 2 photos by others at a time and would be interested to see more nominations of others' photos by some of the great photographers who are regular contributors here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we already have a problem with some nominators not being selective enough with their own work. Increasing the limit would just make that worse. I think we should either scrap the withdrawal option or else permit it and close the nom, but keep the nomination around until the usual timeout. The current process permits nominators to fling weak images at FPC and remove them after a day or two at no great cost to themselves, but considerable cost (reviewer time, bookkeeping) to the process. We are all about the "finest", not just "taken with a good camera by someone who knows how to operate it", which sometimes seems to be the case. Really, how many FPCs in the list actually make you go "wow"?
I have some sympathy with the idea of allowing an extra nomination for other people's images, for those who would be booked up with their own images. But we have had problems with some folk who always nominate others images and who were very unselective (I'm not referring to Ikan, who is a good judge). In the end, though, even the 2-nominations limit is too complicated for folk who don't read the instructions anyway. So a more complex rule could just increase the number of FPD. If we had some automation for the process, like POTY has, then these rules could be encoded in a script. -- Colin (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That we sometimes have people who nominate unselectively (something which isn't just limited to nominating other people's work, of course) doesn't strike me as enough of a negative to outweigh the positives here. It only takes a couple clicks and for someone to say "oppose" and then everyone else can ignore it, more or less. Likewise, I've not seen enough people flooding FPC with nominations without reading the rules such that it was a major time sink for anyone slapping templates on those pages. On the other hand, I'd like to think having one more spot for other people's nominations could mean a somewhat greater diversity of nominations, perhaps bringing a few people into the process. If there were always a slot for someone else's nominations, people who wouldn't otherwise be thinking about nominations while reviewing QIC or browsing through contests might start keeping an eye out. Granted, it could also mean that two people would just nominate each other's or something, but I can't imagine that would happen across the board. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dimorphotecaeclonis1-2.jpg

I'm really not sure about this nomination -- it is about to be promoted, with 8s/3o, apparently just because three users, who are almost never else active on FPC (though eligible to vote), came and supported it during the last two days. What should it mean, canvassing? Pinging Ezarate as nominator, other opinions welcome. --A.Savin 02:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears they largely just participate in FPC to support Exarate's nominations
Pepe piton - two FPC votes, both for Ezarate's noms
Scann - two FPC votes, both for Ezarate's noms
Marinna - eight FPC votes, one self-nom, one for someone else's, and the other six for Ezarate's noms
It's a hard situation. Sometimes we might have a conversation with people at a wiki meetup/event where a nomination could come up. I think it's important, when an active nomination comes up, that we're clear that those whom you tell should not be voting, as that spoils the process by canvassing. Yes, between my various wiki groups, if I didn't care about canvassing I could get basically any nomination to pass (and some of you come from larger wiki communities than I do). If someone were only voting because it was my picture, however, and it swayed the vote, I would flag that here. Thankfully, because I don't typically bring up active nominations and always ask people not to vote, it's only happened once or twice and didn't affect the outcome. The big question, however, is how to prove it? A pure vote is vulnerable to that kind of interference, so it's worth discussing here. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
We've had problems like this in the past. Pinging also User:Scann, User:Pepe piton, User:Marinna and User:Jaluj.
Looking at the past six years of their many FPC nominations, they are almost universally failures. Most attract only oppose votes. These abject failure nominations don't tend to get any canvassed supporters (FaroPuntadelEste being an exception). One gets the feeling that if the very occasional nomination looks like it just might scrape a pass, friends are asked to help. In my view, the canvassing is so obvious, and so obviously called on only when it might be necessary to make a difference, that I would support a ban from FPC. The two recent nom above (Dimorphotecaeclonis1 and Victoria Aguirre Anchorena) both had three/four canvassed votes. It is really sad, as I think all those involved are dedicated to Commons, with many contributions and uploads. I think past discussions have noted that some users culturally don't view "helping their friends get ahead" as a bad thing. So I'm not saying the people involved are bad people. But their actions aren't compatible with how FPC works, which is essentially a popularity contest that relies on trust that voters are voting to support for the image, not to support the photographer or nominator. -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
We can nominate for delist the FPs which passed with the help of canvassing. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
As I understand, there are then two is one problematic FP: 1 and 2. So, either we nominate them it for delist, either we remove the canvassed votes, and someone else can renominate them it later if they want. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to go down the slippery slope of disqualifying certain votes when they did not violate any of the rules. Counting votes at FPC should be very mechanical and not subject to interpretation. We can discuss if suffrage requirements should be changed for future nominations, of course. And anyone can nominate any FP for delisting, and then it'll be up to the voters to decide if the rationale is valid. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
+1 --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
We should not rush to disqualify them, but as canvassing is a rule, this seems like a reasonable conversation to have. Hopefully the people mentioned respond soon. The appearance suggests canvassing, but certainly appearances can be deceiving. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Canvassing is not an official rule, and it shouldn't be - too hard to prove for such an objective vote-counting exercise as FPC. We could have eligibility requirements like: you can only vote if 1) you have contributed to at least 5 FPs (by being the creator, uploader, or nominator); or 2) you have voted in at least 25 FPCs (exact numbers subject to change). Of course, once something like this passes, someone who is currently ineligible would not be able to cast legal votes to count towards the second criterion, so it would function more as a grandfather clause. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. It's true there's no official policy on Commons about canvassing, but our use of voting is meaningless otherwise, and ignoring canvassing would be/is demoralizing. Also disagree that it's necessarily hard to prove. Most canvassing is out in the open, often because people don't realize they're doing anything wrong. Case in point, being clear about what canvassing is and why it's not allowed would probably be enough here. These are just local Wikimedians supporting each other, which is completely understandable. Just saying "you know, you shouldn't really support each other if you're not otherwise active at FPC, and unless you have a good understanding of the standards involved" is almost certainly enough. If they keep on doing it, that's when what to do becomes less clear. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
What you have described is a guideline, not a rule, which I completely agree with. To me, a rule is something with a hard enforcement mechanism, and a guideline merely describes best practice and expectations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
At least this vote should be removed because it breaks the rules. In September 2016 (like today), our guidelines were "Editors [with] 50 edits can vote", while this voter just had zero edit. That is more than weird.
Concerning the rules, I propose to add this line: "Canvassed votes are not allowed." at the bottom of the section Commons:Featured picture candidates#Voting. That will help in such situations.
Since we met a similar case with suspected canvassed votes in the past, that would be a good thing to stop these practices.
Here with 3 suspicious votes in the candidature mentioned at the top of this section, it is quite clear to me the FP would not have been promoted otherwise. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done It doesn't change the result in this case. Yann (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right, the result does not change. I confused with that one which passed, but here also the score would not change. I've amended my comment. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
To delist an already promoted FP is not as easy as to reject a non-FP, that's the problem here... --A.Savin 04:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This image has been properly promoted FP according to the rules. I am merely stating the procedure that would need to be followed if someone wants to remove the FP status, and giving suggestions for how we can avoid similar circumstances in the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
We are human beings, not robots, and there's no need to respond with extra rules, nor to reject any community response with a "but there's no official rule against it" mindset. This is a wiki and we can decide ad hoc to do or not to do anything, without that needing to be codified in rules or set some precedent, etc. A "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. Nobody is proposing that nominations are regularly subject to voter analysis. In the case of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dimorphotecaeclonis1-2.jpg, the canvassed votes were their only contribution to Commons after 20, 5 and 16 days, These canvassed voters only participation on FPC is to support their friends. Pepe piton and Scann's only ever FPC votes were twice to support Ezarate. Marinna's only FPC vote other than six support for Ezarate and their one self-nom was Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Female mosquito head.jpg - a candidate that got six negative votes and Marinna was the only support, and the nominator is from Uruguay where Marinna appears to be located.
Rules are necessary when we need to regulate a common problem. This situation happens only occasionally and I don't think we need a "Canvassed votes are not allowed" any more than PumpkinSky's cheating required a "Don't sockpuppet" rule. While in generally it can be hard to know if a vote is entirely impartial as we do form wiki friendships (and fall-outs), here it is, to put it bluntly, bloody obvious.
I think we should wait for a response from those involved before deciding what to do. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I'm member of several chapters of WMF and my editions are followed by severals users but I didn't do canvassing of this nomination, assume good faith Ezarateesteban 11:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ezarate: Where did I say I assume bad faith for you. That's not true. But still this seems unplausible to me that User:Scann, User:Pepe piton, User:Marinna and User:Jaluj came to this nom by coincidence. What shall it mean "my editions are followed by..."? Commons is not Instagram, we have no follow or subscribe functions. It is possible of course to look at your contributions, but do they really permanently? Anyhow a statement from those users would be appreciated, especially if they claim AGF. Regards --A.Savin 12:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This is that I say, they look my contribs Ezarateesteban 12:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Ezarate, you have made about 130 featured picture candidate nominations over the last decade. These friends only support the nominations that are borderline for whether they will pass or fail. Do you think your friends are voting with the interests of impartially selecting the finest images on Commons, or voting to help a friend in need of just one more support vote.. ? -- Colin (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't request anynone to support my pictures Ezarateesteban 13:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is indeed a delicate situation and I agree there's not much we can do about this particular promotion. Except, maybe, to post a message in the talk pages of those three editors, asking them to clarify their contributions to FPC and suggesting the possibility of withdrawing their support votes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I only gave my support to this file so I prefer to stay out of this discussion.--Jalu (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh wow this is such a long discussion for such a minor thing. I just removed my vote to avoid any further problems. To be frank, I don't think that Ezarate was canvassing or anything like that, I've known him for years and I know he likes to play by the rules. He shared the link in a closed group and invited us to vote if we felt like it -- to me, the photo looks OK but again I don't have a PhD in photography and for sure I didn't want to be involved in such a long thread about Commons rules (God forbid). I'm always for supporting active users that I know are doing good work, and I think it's unfair to Ezarate to assume bad faith on his side. With that being said, I removed my vote. Scann (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    To be honest, I'm disappointed about Ezarate's behaviour (if "He shared the link in a closed group and invited us to vote if we felt like it" isn't canvassing, then what else is?), including his responses. FPC is about quality, not collecting likes. Who wants to collect likes, should go to Instagram instead. IMHO. --A.Savin 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, now we have the truth, that friends were asked to vote at the candidate page. So "This is that I say, they look my contribs" isn't really the truth. I can believe the message didn't explicitly ask for support, but it would be known the audience were predisposed to do so. This is what Commons:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Canvassing call "votestacking". Again, I don't think anyone involved here is a bad person, unlike the couple of cases where we've had editors involved in longterm sockpuppetry to support their candidates. This is more not really thinking wisely. What if everyone got four free support votes by notifying their friends off wiki? I agree with A.Savin that I'm disappointed with Ezarate evasive and not entirely truthful comments. -- Colin (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello: my vote is worth the same as any editor's. I like the photographs, work and quality of this user, where I also make my own contributions. Best regards. Marinna (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been busy developing photos and evaluating photos on wiki events. However, I think my participation is important. I personally know Ezarate and have helped him many times with photo editing and I know both Marinna and Ezarate in real life and I know they have both been friends for years. I am convinced that this was not done in bad faith (Because cultural situation), but it is counterproductive under the FPC rules. In wikipedia in Spanish, support among friends is widely accepted, which has done great damage to the encyclopedia due to bias. It is important to have clear rules, but I also do not want to waste my time checking votes because precisely the most valuable thing about FPC is the well-founded negative feedback comments that help us improve. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm surely not going as far to believe canvassing votes are done in bad faith; most likely it's just a misunderstanding of the FPC's purpose, however that is still problematic. Neither revenge opposes nor pure friendship supports are something we really need here. Regards --A.Savin 02:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Ezarate might wish to help us to resolve this, if he declared to post facto withdraw this nomination (so we can speedily revoke the promotion) and promised not to canvass his noms in chats etc. in future. --A.Savin 07:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I promise not to post my nominations in any place in the future, but it is neccesary to revoke this?, the reviewers checked the photo, they don't vote automatically Ezarateesteban 11:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wilfredor, I vote for the images when i like them: the photographs, work and quality, and my vote is worth the same as any editor's. I am talking about the work and photos - NOT of the collaborators - ¡That rule exists! Regards (talk) 01:55, Nov 30, 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not impressed by the above. A good response would have been "Ok, sorry. I mentioned to my friends about the nomination. Being good friends, they all went and supported me. I can see now that wasn't a wise thing to do. Yes, if everyone did that then the process wouldn't work and it would be one big friendship party." And a similar reaction from the friends. Instead we have not been told the truth about friends being notified, and they are still arguing to retain a prize that is clearly tainted. And the friends (except Scann) are insisting their friendship vote is valid and should be retained. These are friends who don't vote on any other nominations, who only turn up to support Ezarate. Although we have a promise not to inform friends, I'm not at all convinced future nominations will be free of friendship votes.
Ezarate has made 135 feature picture candidate nominations. Only 6 have been successful. Looking back at the years of contributions I can find only a few votes for other people's images. While I don't doubt their valuable contributions to Commons and Wikipedia, but it is not clear what value they are adding to FPC, with a 4% nomination success rate and virtually no reviews.
It is not too late, Ezarate. Listen to Wilfredor and Poco. Withdraw that candidate and insist of your friends that they no longer support your nominations. Then we and you can be sure that a bronze star is earned fairly and properly. Without that, I think we may need to ask you not to nominate here any more. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
You are doing a partial review of my contributions, I have also in QIC and VIC (where I evaluate pictures of another photographers) and doing maintenance in the project Ezarateesteban 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Does it mean that by a tiny difference of 65% I've been uncrowned as the one who "historically has the highest nomination failure rate at FPC of any regular". Thank God, it's a load off my mind :) --Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Today checking Facebook (I usually use this to talk to relatives), I saw with surprise a post from Ezarate announcing his featured photo so I thought I'd come here to comment again. While what happened with the Marinna vote is not right, I have also observed similar behavior from Colin (since we have been friends he has decreased the negative votes in my candidacies) and A. Savin (recently he was trolling a candidacy I made about a restoration). I have known them for years and I have always tried to be impartial, but I myself have stopped voting in a candidacy when I feel that my negative vote can hurt the ego of a friend. So, in addition to judging Ezarate, this situation can be a call for introspection of how we could evaluate photos impartially, possibly something impossible. What is necessary is to restructure the section so that there are more participants and they are not the same group of friends as always.--Wilfredor (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Please remain civil, Wilfredor. I'm not trolling any nominations, and in particular I cannot remember having done sth like this recently. Regards --A.Savin 15:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The thing is that it I and A.Savin vote on a lot of nominations, and generally I don't think either of our voting patterns is much out of step with how the candidate is reviewed by others. We sometimes support a candidate that fails and sometimes oppose a candidate that passes. I'm not sure whether I've become less negative about your nominations, or you have improved, or I'm less negative generally, or just vote far less often than I did. Wilfredor, you are the only person who has ever written to me asking for more oppose votes! I think we are all aware that friendship or ill feelings can swing one's opinion and change the mood from looking for reasons to support vs reasons to oppose. If an image isn't very obviously a pass or fail then in those cases it may be better not to vote at all. Other than that advice, these small biases are natural and why we require a minimum number of support (which perhaps should be raised) in the hope that they disappear in the noise. This case was very obvious and I don't think anyone here is happy that clear friendship votes are being insisted upon as equal to the vote of a stranger. But then, I don't understand why anyone would want some star if the image hasn't earned it. I'd want my photo to be so good, even the people who don't like me grudgingly support it. And I want my friends to be so honest with me that they will oppose my photos if they aren't up to scratch. If I just want unearned praise, I'll show my photo to my mum. -- Colin (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I've read through this whole thread. The FP designation should be removed from this photo due to canvassing. If that somehow can't be done, may I withdraw my supporting vote? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedily delist this one + the one below. --A.Savin 03:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. --A.Savin 19:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek It would be helpful to improve the documentation of what happened here if you indeed remove yor vote from the nom. Doing so the result wouldn't be a successful nom. Right now it looks awkward with a successful nom but rhe picture having no star. Poco a poco (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Right. If I remove my vote, I should mention a reason. It's not clear to me whether it's necessary to do so, and so far, no-one has taken up my offer to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, if you want to remove your vote, use the strike through like others have. It is up to you if you mention why. -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess that would make things less messy, but it should be an exceptional case to remove a vote after the end of the voting period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:080710-N-7981E-482.jpg

I've discovered this FPC with 7 support, 4 oppose, which should not have been featured but was. What should we do about it? -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think there is no statute of limitations for procedural errors, and it should be delisted immediately. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. --A.Savin 19:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Colin, for discovering this error and thank you, A.Savin, for handling it! I have updated the nomination page in order to reflect the new insights. All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate Nomination Statistics

I've created a table of statistics: User:Colin/FPC

This is based on an extract of the featured picture candidates that existed mid October 2021. I excluded candidates for removal/replace and only list the top 100 nominators. You can sort the various headings to see who is top and who is bottom. There's a key at the bottom of the page. I've provided a detailed table of the individual results for the first five entries (and myself), which you can see by clicking on the nominations cell. If anyone wants a detailed table for their own nominations, let me know and I'll add it (it only takes me a moment). If you spot some mistakes, please let me know. -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: I count 257 nominations today, but I am not sure about the exact number (+ 3 for which I took the picture or did the restoration, and nominated by others). Regards, Yann (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: I've now done the detailed figures for the top 10 nominations, which includes you. Let me know if there are nominations you think I'm not counting. There are sometimes candidates that I count for User:X even though X just created a well-formed nomination on behalf of someone else who had difficulties. I've tried to fix any that I've discovered. -- Colin (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Colin: I mean 257 successful nominations, however you mention 231. Yann (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you know some that I didn't count? Perhaps some of your successes were delist-replace? -- Colin (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Here are the detailed count: taken by me: 17, restored by me: 14, nominated by me: 223 = 254 (including 3 taken or restored by me, but not nominated by me). Yann (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll check tomorrow to see where the differences are. Note that I'm counting nominations, not images that are currently FP. -- Colin (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: I found one image missing from my list and two that had been wrongly associated with you (you created the nom on behalf of someone). The other differences are at User:Colin/FPC/YannDiff and remember that sets are one nom but multiple images. -- Colin (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I added some comments. I guess the count is OK now. Yann (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't include delist or delist & replace in my analysis because they aren't common and it was complicated enough without interpreting those as well. -- Colin (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Yann, I see there are two candidates on User:Colin/FPC/YannDiff where the same image was later successfully by you. This is a result of me taking your categories of images and trying to work out which nominations they had. If there are two nominations for one image with an obvious /2 on the end of one, then I could tell which was which, but those two had different names, so I didn't spot they were for the same image. -- Colin (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Would appreciate a detailed breakdown for mine, thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: done. -- Colin (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. As much as it's a good reminder that (a) one should only nominate their best, and (b) if you find that you have a lot that aren't promoted, you might want to spend some time getting to know what passes/what doesn't, I feel like it's also worth saying that having a high success % isn't necessarily a virtue in isolation, either. What missed 7-4 one day might've been 7-3 if nominated a month later/earlier, and it's valuable, I think, to take risks with nominations. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
There are many interpretations for a lower success %. One is that you are testing things the community is not used to and unsure whether to support and pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable among a rather conservative reviewer pool that tends to pixel peep. Another is that you fling nominations at the wall to see what sticks to maximise the number of stars collected. Another is that you simply don't have the eye for what makes a great image, but persist regardless. There are probably other motives. I think if you are worried about 7/4 vs 7/3 then you are aiming too low. I've added your stats btw. The detailed stats for some people show a progression towards greater success %. -- Colin (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. I've tried to check the results. I've got other values. For example: Nominations: Your value: 407, my search result: 394. (Search argument: Commons: intitle:"Featured picture candidates\/" insource:/\*\s?\{\{Info\}\}[^\{\}\*]*?\[\[User:XRay(\|[^\[\]]*)?\]\]/ - includes nominations of images taken by other photographers) --XRay 💬 09:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@XRay: I've added your details to the table. I've also created User:Colin/FPC/XRayDiff to list the differences between your search results and my analysis. The analysis only examined candidates closed at 14th October, and the search results are from 6th December, so the second table may list some recent nominations. I see that a lot of other people nominate your images. I'm not sure why the pictures in the first table aren't being returned by your search. -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Still very interesting. Thank you for the details. Sorry, but your list contains images nominated by me, but not created by me. An example: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boerenkrokus (Crocus tommasinianus) 27-02-2021 (actm.) 03.jpg. --XRay 💬 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
XRay, the point is to focus on nominators and nominations, not creators and their creations (e.g., Category:Featured pictures by creator). Do you know why your search doesn't find this candidate. The regular expression for the source text matches the contents when I test it. I note that the result snippets sometimes have more bold than is warranted by the search expression. Makes me suspect the Advanced search feature is buggy. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I tried commons: intitle:/Hohllay/ and this search hasn't a result with a featured picture. So it looks like the search index doesn't contain the page. --XRay 💬 11:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the list to include the top 200 nominators, which goes down to just 30 nominations per nominator. -- Colin (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Since the data is looking reasonably accurate, I've added details for the top 20 nominations by nomination number. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not that important, but there is something weird with these 2 early nominations: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sempervivum.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:La Palma-observatory.jpg. History shows that I created the page, but nothing else, and there are apparently self-nominations. Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 Comment According to history you were the creator, and similar this one falsely listed as mine. IMO just minor database inaccuracies. --A.Savin 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no standard way that editors have indicated they are the nominator. So I've gone with the creator of the nomination page according to article history. The exception was IP addresses, which I went through identifying who was the real nominator but was accidentally editing while logged out (vs actual IP nominations). And I fixed a few more obvious ones by hand, but that's quite a lot of work. Unless one has been in the habit of fixing up malformed nominations and creating them for someone else, it shouldn't affect much the overall stats. -- Colin (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a great job, congratulations. However, I agree with XRay. --Commonists 17:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, everyone!

I'd be afraid I'd forget someone if I tried to post to everyone's user talk page, so I'm just posting this here. Thank you for all the great pictures, and be well!

-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing noms and sock suspicion

Hi everyone,

I'm no longer involved, but just to let you know we have evidences proving that Commonist is a sock of Livio. Yes the infamous.

I didn't want to explicitely mention before the inquiry is complete, but I still do because I remember what a pain it was to look back at everything after all his socks were uncovered.

In short, my suggestions are that:

  1. we don't support any of his personal noms,
  2. we don't immediately close any nom where his vote has swayed the result toward his side.

I can provide the evidence to anyone trusty who asks me privately.

Regards

Benh (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Commonist's changes

Since Commonist was banned, I'd advocate for reverting all his changes on FPC. I think we can agree that all his votes on current noms can be safely removed. But what about the pictures that he managed to get promoted? - Benh (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  1. Current nominations ✓ Done
  2. Self noms ? ✓ Done See below
  3. Non self noms ? Proposal to keep them. See below
  4. Votes on closed nominations. Non litigious cases handled. Waiting for consensus on litigious cases. See below
Thanks so much Benh for cleaning up! I'm only in favor of delisting all their noms (although I understand that this would be a huge amount of work and probably no one has time and desire to do that... me included...). Yet even more important is, what to do with their surely-to-come future socks and their contribs -- I think a request for Global ban on Meta should be placed, and if granted, all their future uploads would be then subject to speedy deletion as is anything submitted by a banned user. This is the only way to make them stop, if there ever is one. Regards --A.Savin 14:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for catching this and cleaning up. But it looks like you're already going around to edit old, closed nominations -- let's hold off on doing that until consensus emerges here. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm cleaning noms where it is very obvious his vote hasn't affected / swayed the results. I will then list all close calls here. Hope it's fine with you and everyone else that way. I will provide extensive logs of my action for you to review too. I won't remove any FP before consensus is reached, obviously. - Benh (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
And it was A.Savin and I who caught him together :) - Benh (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Especially where it doesn't affect anything, I don't really see the point in striking the closed noms. I mean is his socking motivation really to vote at FPC? Seems like it would be more about getting things promoted at FPC? I say this without really knowing much about Livio. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
You are right that it seems a bit pointless. Just to correct scores in case someone someday does statistics ;) for everything else that is close call, I won't take action and list them here. You will then decide what to do. - Benh (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll rephrase: I don't think we should be doing any mass striking/rollbacks/whatever for closed noms without finding positive consensus to do so. We can discuss the close calls without mass edits beforehand.
The fundamental question that needs to be answered: is a single vote from a sockpuppet, when no other sock from that account has voted and without canvassing or other issues, worth invalidating in closed nominations, regardless of whether it affected the outcome (after all, every vote can affect the outcome even when the result wasn't determined by a single vote)? When two votes from e.g. PumpkinSky resulted in promotions, that made sense to go back and fix, but is there precedent for this? If there is, and I'm uninformed, I apologize. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm doing the boring harmless mass edits now because I have time at this moment and don't want to wait for consensus on these (I'm to think they are unecessary, but I hope I'm not wrong). Maybe I won't have time afterwards and someone else will have to do it. Whenever there's potential change in the outcome of the votes, I don't do anything. I'm fairly sure that Cart or Colin did this sort of mass edits to patch things as well on some previous case of Livio sockpuppetry uncovering but I also hope I'm not wrong. I'll take a small break and will wait for some other inputs. - Benh (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
You can read the full text on how we handled this before in this archive: Livioandronico2013 aka Σπάρτακος aka Architas cheating at FPC. --Cart (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of what we did only dealt with the double voting, and we striked one of the votes. The noms that failed because of this were later renominated. This time we are only dealing with one account (as far as we know). However, we are dealing with a pathological FPC-er and I think keeping any of his votes, or promoted self-nominations, would send the wrong signal; that he can go on and pop up at intervals with just a slap on the wrist and getting the satisfaction of conning us all.
Those noms that hinges on the vote from the Commonists account and fail without it, should be listed here and renominated, same as we did before. --Cart (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Indeed there is (AFAIK) no such policy that all previous & otherwise valid votes by a confirmed sockpuppeteer are to be striken once the abuse is revealed... But if a user is globally banned, this means that any contribs by them, no matter if via IP, sockpuppet, or meatpuppet, are unwelcome and subject to revert and speedy deletion -- that's why I'm in favor of requesting a ban; Livio is globally blocked but not banned so far; not everyone knows the "little" difference, it's technically the same, however a banned user (unlike a blocked user) is unwelcome as person and shall have no chance of a cleanstart too. That's exactly what we need here, after all these years. Regards --A.Savin 17:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is precedent for a indef-banned/blocked user returning on a single account, but I think whatever we decide, we should be consistent. We should either throw out all the votes of the sock (including when it wouldn't matter and when it would end up promoting or delisting an FP), or we should throw out none of them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

List

Proposal

OK so my proposals, after reading some bits of what was done previously, and knowing that in this case, only one sock is involved :

  1. Removing all Commonist's votes when doing so very obviously doesn't change the result of the vote. In my view this is harmless and just to keep correct counts.
  2. Leaving FP all (non self) noms from Commonist that made it through to FP
  3. Removing FP status on all self noms.
  4. Listing all the close calls here and vote on what to do

I can do 1) and will provide you all elements so you can focus on 2, 3 and 4 later. I don't intend to get involved much more than that.

Is this fine with you? - Benh (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. I got hit with a bunch of edit conflicts. --Cart (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your comment above. If I read it right, you agree with me that I can go on and strike all of his votes when they don't affect the outcome of the vote. If they do (I have seen some of them already), I won't touch them and list them here, and you decide what to do (I won't participate in that part, I'm not a contributor anymore). - Benh (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't work at FPC any more either, but since you 'pinged' me it was only prudent to clarify what we did before. --Cart (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Fine with me. As of 3), see Category:Featured pictures by Commonists. Out of the 13 promotions, I would do the work of undoing maybe four or five; so we need some more volunteers to finish that. --A.Savin 17:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I will handle 5 more -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I will handle the remaining self-nominations. I will also remove all self-nominated FPs from the FP gallery pages right now, if that’s OK. --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Fine with me, too. But how will we proceed now? Should we vote on this proposal? IMHO it would be OK just to wait for some more comments and then to proceed immediately with 3) and 4), because (as IIRC somebody stated in a former Livio-related discussion) an endless discussion and a formal procedure are too much of an honour for a fraudster and in the end even give him pleasure because it causes more sensation. --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm working on listing everything, and am close to completion User:Benh/Commonist_Damages. I need to review it. In the meantime, I guess we can work on 3 already? I'm not familiar enough with FP promotion (it's changed too much since last time I did it) so I'm afraid I can't help here. Once I'm done, we could proceed with 1) and 4). - Benh (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! You are doing a great job! I would be happy to do my part of 3) immediately – today I have some free time, don’t know about the next days ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Benh, I'm a bit busy to look at this much but I ask that whatever you do with the previous noms, please edit it in a way that the bot would produce the (new) results score. So if you completely remove the vote or use strikethrough on the whole line (after the '*') then you need to decrement a count somewhere. -- Colin (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Colin, I'm proceeding exactly as you describe I believe (you can check my latest contribs). And I only fix cases when it doesn't change the outcome of the voting. The rest, I will only list and let the regular contributors decide (and fix). - Benh (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Images in articles

There is also a problem of aggressive self-pushing of C.'s images in WP articles in the past months. In general replacing images by own ones is no problem as such, I do it myself too, however this requires photographic knowledge and a very careful approach, which C. of course didn't show at all, not surprising. Some replacements by them may be just okay, but otherwise we have same dilemma here as with FP noms -- wrong signal, encouraging future socking... At least for Michelangelo's David, I'm not sure if this one is really the best available, despite having passed FPC with 11/0? What do others think? --A.Savin 17:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you that Livio has shown he doesn't master photography. And I would revert the changes too only if there's an obvious better alternative. As for the David, what picture do you think is better than Livio's version? - Benh (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The picture C. replaced was File:'David' by Michelangelo Fir JBU005 denoised.jpg. It's probably not capable of being an FP, but still I think it should not have been replaced by C.'s photo, even regardless the sockpuppetry. But maybe among hundreds of David's photos an even better one can be found. --A.Savin 18:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The replacement is definitely worse than the original. I also didn't understand how it gets through the whole FPC without any opposition. See [4]. Yann (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm in my view Livio's version is better, and shows much more texture (even if I look at the non "denoised" version). I honestly would have replaced it had I have been the author of the photo. But in general, I still agree with you on the agressive replacements. - Benh (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Note that on Wikipedia it is not merely our Commons QI guidelines that have to be taken into consideration if you choose an image. For example there are lots of article authors who don't mind noise, other than overall brightness. I always disagree if someone says QI standards aren't important for WP, but some of their arguments I understand too. An image should be replaced if the new one is clearly better. --A.Savin 21:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this too. But it's impossible to verify everything anyways. There are people watching pages on other wikis too. If they don't agree with the changes, I assume they would surely revert? I would change on a per case basis, if I came across a litigious Livio's swap... and if the new picture is obviously worse... and wait for someone to complain, or not. - Benh (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Speaking as a Wikipedian: Be sure to write an explanation in the 'Edit summary' when you revert/remove/replace an image in an article that C. put there. If you write something like "That image was added by a blocked user with multiple socks on Commons, now removed in a big clean-up of their edits", people will understand and perhaps be less inclined to revert the action. --Cart (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I just recognized that this problem is not limited to C.’s featured pictures. A bad example is this photo, taken with pixel shifting, which has been inserted into 9 WP articles. While C.’s other photo of that church is IMHO OK, the one with pixel shifting is IMHO terrible and useful only as an example of pixel shifting gone wrong. --Aristeas (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Therefore I am reverting now all cases in which C. has replaced another photo by this one. --Aristeas (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree regarding Pixel shift. But yes we should be careful and not blindly revert to previous version, as some of the replacements are (sockpuppetry aside) justified. Instead, we should take a look on the topic's Commons category and search for a really better alternative. I'm sure for most of Livio's uploads there is. --A.Savin 17:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit wary of a Commons conversation discussing edits on Wikipedia(s). Wrt whether the natives revert bad image placements, it depends on the popularity of the topic and you have to remember that most Wikipedians only care about the thumbnail. A mass edit because of a behavioural issue on Commons might not be welcomed. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
True, ways differ between the sites. But whatever we do, make sure to leave a good explanation for it in the 'Edit summary', that's the main point. Commoners are unfortunately notorious for ignoring this step that can make all the difference on WPs. --Cart (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Back Commonist's FP contributions

Hi,

From the comments above, I'm assuming everyone is OK if we proceed as follow.

The litigious cases, in 4. will be handled later and after consensus is reached. But We can safely proceed with 1, 2 and 3.

1. Crossing his votes which didn't affect result

I will handle that - Benh (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - Benh (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I probably did a few mistakes... Maybe someone has the time to review? - Benh (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Votes Which Didn't Affect Final Result (Crossed)
  1. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Börnste, Teiche in der Heubachniederung, Baum -- 2020 -- 3500-4.jpg
  2. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:001 Chateau de Chillon and Dents du Midi Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg
  3. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 Penny Onchan Internment Camp (rev)-7229.jpg
  4. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2019-03-14 CAPITÁIN LEONIDAS - IMO 5542705.jpg
  5. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2019-11-24 Men's World Cup at 2019-20 Luge World Cup in Igls by Sandro Halank–031.jpg
  6. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2021-10-19 Deutsche Meisterschaften im Skeleton Altenberg 2021 by Sandro Halank–079.jpg
  7. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:210120-D-WD757-1061 (50860528518).jpg
  8. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:210120-D-WD757-1080 (50860527893).jpg
  9. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Delta Oasis in Southeastern Kazakhstan.jpg
  10. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A floral fantasy of animals and birds, India, Mughal.jpg
  11. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Hundred Steeds.jpg
  12. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-2 aircraft flies in formation with a U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress.jpg
  13. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abtei Seckau Basilika Kreuzigungsgruppe 02.jpg
  14. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Acorn woodpecker holding a nut in its beak-0225.jpg
  15. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aescher-Wildkirchli 20210528 01.jpg
  16. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Afgevallen kastanje van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus) 10-10-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg
  17. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Afghanistan, Gandhara, Hadda, late Kushan Period - Seated Buddha - 1967.39 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg
  18. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agha Bozorg Mosque, Kashan, Iran.jpg
  19. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aiguille et Porte d´Aval.jpg
  20. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Äkäslompolo and Ylläs in Kolari, Lapland, Finland, 2018 September.jpg
  21. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Akelei, zaadboxen. 28-08-2021. (d.j.b) 01.jpg
  22. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albergue de Castilla, La Valeta, isla de Malta, Malta, 2021-08-25, DD 234-236 PAN.jpg
  23. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ali Gholi Agha hammam, Isfahan, Iran.jpg
  24. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alligator mississippiensis 113744549.jpg
  25. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allium oleraceum inflorescence - Keila.jpg
  26. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altare del SS Sacramento Michelangelo Grigoletti Vantini duomo nuovo Brescia.jpg
  27. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum) 26-01-2021. (actm.) 05.jpg
  28. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:American Black Duck pair at Green Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn (62110).jpg
  29. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:American lady on purple coneflower (74770).jpg
  30. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:American tree sparrow in CP (41285) (cropped).jpg
  31. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:An Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter during a training exercise (210120-A-II094-096M).jpg
  32. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:An Italian partisan in Florence, 14 August 1944. TR2282.jpg
  33. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Analcime - Kahwan Mountain, Semman, Iran.jpg
  34. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anchusa officinalis.jpg
  35. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anémona de mar común (Anemonia viridis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 07.jpg
  36. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angling in Troubled Waters A Serio-Comic Map of Europe.jpg
  37. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthidium manicatum (50868517517).jpg
  38. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arabis hirsuta - Keila.jpg
  39. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea alba with prey at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge-1670.jpg
  40. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Argynnis paphia Mitterbach 01.jpg
  41. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asiyab badi.jpg
  42. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Australian Brushturkey 2 - Newington.jpg
  43. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bad Rappenau - Heinsheim - Burg Ehrenberg - Ansicht von Norden (1).jpg
  44. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baffled LIGO Scientists.jpg
  45. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bahia palace celing 1205.jpg
  46. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balantiocheilos melanopterus - Karlsruhe Zoo 02.jpg
  47. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Bruderwald Herbst-20151102-RM-110637.jpg
  48. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Banco de peces trompeta (Macroramphosus scolopax), islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 38.jpg
  49. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Banded demoiselle damselfly (Calopteryx splendens) male 4.jpg
  50. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de San Jorge, Victoria, isla de Gozo, Malta, 2021-08-22, DD 05-07 HDR.jpg
  51. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de San Jorge, Victoria, isla de Gozo, Malta, 2021-08-22, DD 14-16 HDR.jpg
  52. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baumsilhouetten am Uetliberg mit Novembernebel und Sonnenstrahlen.jpg
  53. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beilstein-Maad - Schmidbachtal mit altem Feldweg am Nonnenwald im November.jpg
  54. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bell Miner 1 - Nepean Weir.jpg
  55. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van Watles via Sesvennahütte en de Uina Slucht naar Sur En 19-09-2019. (actm.) 18.jpg
  56. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Siemensbahn at Siemensstadt asv2021-03 img5.jpg
  57. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bern Panorama von Rosengarten 20211007.jpg
  58. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bir-Hakeim bridge, Paris 24 June 2021.jpg
  59. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bisajärvi in evening light from the southwest in Sipoonkorpi, Vantaa, Finland, 2021 May.jpg
  60. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black-faced Woodswallow 1 - Sturt National Park.jpg
  61. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black-fronted Dotterel 2 - Bow Bowing.jpg
  62. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus).jpg
  63. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bleachers and goalpost at Brastad Arena in snow.jpg
  64. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bled Island 07.jpg
  65. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloeiende Euphorbia amygdaloides var. Robbiae. 31-03-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  66. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een Astrantia major 'Roma'. 24-06-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg
  67. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een Astrantia major. 03-07-2021 (actm.).jpg
  68. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een Camellia × williamsii 'Roger Hall'. 20-04-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg
  69. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een Helenium. 03-07-2021 (actm.).jpg
  70. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een herfstaster. 30-09-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  71. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een kerstroos (Helleborus niger) 16-12-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg
  72. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een muurfijnstraal (Erigeron karvinskianus). 13-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  73. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een Papaver (klaproos). 14-05-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg
  74. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloem van een schijnpapaver (Meconopsis cambrica) 23-05-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  75. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemen van adderwortel (Persicaria bistorta, synoniem, Polygonum bistorta) 06-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  76. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemen van een Chaenomeles x superba 'nicolina' (chinese kwee). 20-04-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg
  77. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemen van een Solidago rugosa. 07-10-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  78. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknop van een Allium (sierui). 16-05-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  79. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknop van een Clematis texensis ´Princess Diana´. 20-07-2021 (actm.).jpg
  80. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknop van een Magnolia. 18-04-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  81. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van een Kamperfoelie (Lonicera) 26-07-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg
  82. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van gevlekt havikskruid (Hieracium maculatum) 06-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  83. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van Verbesina alternifolia. 07-09-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  84. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van Winterakonieten (Eranthis hyemalis) in smeltende sneeuw 16-02-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  85. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue jay fledgling (53513).jpg
  86. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue jay in PP (30960).jpg
  87. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boat with autumny mountains at Digermulen, Hinnøya, Norway, Norway, 2015 September.jpg
  88. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boats on Lake Oroville during the 2021 drought.jpg
  89. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boerenkrokus (Crocus tommasinianus) 27-02-2021 (actm.) 03.jpg
  90. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bogolyubovo asv2019-01 img06 Intercession Church.jpg
  91. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bombus ruderarius - Taraxacum officinale - Keila.jpg
  92. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bombus terrestris su Prunus domestica.jpg
  93. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bonfeld - Mühlberg - Eiche südlich vom Weg im November mit Gegenlicht.jpg
  94. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bonnet Macaque HD.jpg
  95. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bonsai Adam and Eve (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2.jpg
  96. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bousquet Castle in Montpeyroux 08.jpg
  97. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bovington modified type 59 2014.JPG
  98. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brackenheim - Stockheim - Schloss Stocksberg - Ansicht von Süden im Herbst (1).jpg
  99. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bridge of Jacques-Gabriel in Blois 02.jpg
  100. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brighton West Pier, England - Oct 2007.jpg
  101. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brown headed cowbird female in JBWR (25487).jpg
  102. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brown thrasher in CP (02147).jpg
  103. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bruges City Hall Interior.jpg
  104. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buddha statue at Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim, India (1).jpg
  105. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buff-banded Rail 1 - Newington.jpg
  106. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Building Up the Yellow River Delta.jpeg
  107. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burg Vischering nach Sonnenuntergang.jpg
  108. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bussard IMG 9541.jpg
  109. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caldeira, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-28, DD 25-30 PAN.jpg
  110. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canal du Rhône à Sète toward Sète.jpg
  111. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cappella Piccolomini partenza Basilea Pinturicchio Siena.jpg
  112. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caracalla 6033 dettaglio Museo Nazionale Napoli.jpg
  113. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catalina-Ara - Vogelburg Weilrod 01.jpg
  114. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de San Pablo, Mdina, isla de Malta, Malta, 2021-08-25, DD 150-152 HDR.jpg
  115. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catherine Cooper Hopley with turtle (restored).jpg
  116. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of a room in Tabatabai House2, Kashan, Iran.jpg
  117. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Borujerdi House, Kashan, Iran.jpg
  118. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Ljubljana Cathedral (strop Cerkev sv. Nikolaja, Ljubljana).jpg
  119. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of the National Museum of Slovenia (Ljubljana).jpg
  120. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cerussite - Nakhlak mine, Anarak, Esfahan, Iran.jpg
  121. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CH.SZ.Stoos Fronalpstock Sequence Rescue-Helicopter REGA 16K 16x9-R.jpg
  122. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chachani, Peru ESA413331.tiff
  123. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Châteaux du Pays cathare - Château de Peyrepertuse - 20.jpg
  124. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago September 2016-21.jpg
  125. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chiesa di Santa Maria della Pace Evangelista ingresso Brescia.jpg
  126. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chinees decoratief vaasje op glas 20-12-2020. (actm.) 02.jpg
  127. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Saint Sava (Belgrade, Serbia).jpg
  128. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of the Redeemer, Toronto, Canada.jpg
  129. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Close wing Mud puddle of Delias agostina (Hewitson, 1852) – Yellow Jezebel (Male) WLB IMG 2640.jpg
  130. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Close Wing mud-puddling position of Delias berinda (Moore, 1872) – Dark Jezebel.jpg
  131. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cohombro de mar pardo (Holothuria arguinensis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 34.jpg
  132. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common darter (Sympetrum striolatum) female.jpg
  133. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common grackle iridescence in CP (43218).jpg
  134. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Convento de Jesús, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 75-77 HDR.jpg
  135. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cooper's hawk in Prospect Park (22513).jpg
  136. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Copper sunbird (Cinnyris cupreus cupreus) female on Persian silk tree (Albizia julibrissin).jpg
  137. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2.png Antivaxxer
  138. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CP GE AC4400CW 8608 Morant's Curve.jpg
  139. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CP GE AC4400CW 9739 Exshaw.jpg
  140. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CraneDistorted190831.jpg
  141. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocosmia × crocosmiiflora - Levada da Serra do Faial - Madeira 01.jpg
  142. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocus cultivars-20210326-RM-123445.jpg
  143. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cyclamen hederifolium 05-08-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg
  144. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danube Delta ESA23450088.jpeg
  145. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Daphne mezereum flowers - Keila.jpg
  146. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dark Hedges near Armoy, Co Antrim (cropped).jpg
  147. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:De Famberhorst 08-11-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg
  148. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:De Strubben-Kniphorstbos (d.j.b.) 05.jpg
  149. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Decke der Eingangshalle in Schloss Marienburg.jpg
  150. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:DeepDream SchillerGym 20210821 Hof04021 RAW 202109251094CROP.jpg
  151. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Deesis with Saints, triptych 18-19 cent.jpg
  152. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dendrocygne fauve (Dendrocygna bicolor).jpg
  153. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Derveaux & Tavernier, Le plan de la ville, cité, université fauxbourg de Paris - Paris Musées.jpg
  154. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Desserts and Wine.jpg
  155. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Domiporta filaris 01.JPG
  156. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Downy woodpecker in PP (90879).jpg
  157. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg
  158. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dranse de Montriond 09.jpg
  159. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drop of water on water-resistant textile (100% polyester).jpg
  160. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Fröbelstraße, Mohn am Feldrand -- 2021 -- 9174.jpg
  161. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Baum -- 2021 -- 9387.jpg
  162. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, eisbedeckte Pflanze -- 2021 -- 5015.jpg
  163. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Zaun einer Wiese -- 2021 -- 5100-4.jpg
  164. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Abstrakte Bäume -- 2021 -- 8241.jpg
  165. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Felder und Bäume -- 2017 -- 3160-6.jpg
  166. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Dernekamp, Baum -- 2021 -- 9412.jpg
  167. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Dernekamp, Bäume -- 2021 -- 9397.jpg
  168. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Rorup, NSG Roruper Holz -- 2021 -- 8187-91.jpg
  169. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duomo nuovo Brescia supplica la Madonna della Salute Francesco Paglia Brescia.jpg
  170. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dürnstein Burgruine 20211024 02.jpg
  171. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eagles Nests Trail 34.jpg
  172. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earth 300 vessel design.jpg
  173. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Easter breakfast in Serbia (close-up).jpg
  174. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Église Saint-Charles-Borromée de Québec.jpg
  175. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eilean Donan Castle winter scene.jpg
  176. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:El 18 2262 Ring - Brøttum.jpg
  177. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EL foto, Eimar Kull - 5stROHUKEDRIK-2.jpg
  178. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EL foto, Eimar Kull - PILT4427 Boreus.jpg
  179. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EL foto, Eimar Kull - PILT6519 kasekirilased.jpg
  180. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elbaite with albite - São José da Safira, Minas Gerais, Brazil.jpg
  181. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant Island by Landsat 8.jpeg
  182. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elzenproppen (kegels zonder zaad). 15-01-2021. (actm.) 01.jpg
  183. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erizo de mar violáceo (Sphaerechinus granularis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 85.jpg
  184. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erythronium ´Pagoda´-20210426-RM-122542.jpg
  185. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Espirógrafo (Bispira volutacornis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 43.jpg
  186. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Espirógrafo (Sabella spallanzanii), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 70.jpg
  187. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Espirógrafo (Serpula vermicularis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 02.jpg
  188. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estrella espinosa común (Marthasterias glacialis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 28.jpg
  189. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Etna Awakens on its Side.jpg
  190. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eucomis montana, Ananasplant, Kuiflelie. 16-05-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  191. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:European starling in CP (33830).jpg
  192. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:European starling in CP (33849).jpg
  193. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Evans Peak Panorama.jpg
  194. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-15EX Eagle II.jpg
  195. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fawn and white Welsh Corgi puppy standing on rear legs and sticking out the tongue.jpg/2
  196. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FCAB GL26C-2 2005, 2010 and GT22CU-3 2402 Ascotan.jpg
  197. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FCAB GL26C-2 2005, 2010 and GT22CU-3 2402 Salar de Carcote.jpg
  198. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FCAB GL26C-2 2005, GT22CU 2501 and GT22CU-3 2401 Cebollar - Carcote.jpg
  199. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FCAB GT22CU 2401 and 2402 with Cerro Ascotan.jpg
  200. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FCAB GT22CU 2405, 2401 and GL26C 2005 at Cumbre II.jpg
  201. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fernsicht von der Belchenflue.jpg
  202. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg
  203. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Firefighter fighting fire 02.jpg
  204. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fish crow in Red Hook (42759).jpg
  205. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing huts reflected in the ice at Fisketången, Kungshamn.jpg
  206. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flame Robin male 1 - Jenolan Caves.jpg
  207. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flicker hole in CP (31848).jpg
  208. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flies (02).jpg
  209. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Footprints in the snow, Munich 2021 01.jpg
  210. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forest (08).jpg
  211. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forum Romanum (14).jpg
  212. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fósiles de dientes de tiburón tigre (Galeocerdo aduncus), Zuber, Florida, Estados Unidos, 2021-01-19, DD 105-144 FS.jpg
  213. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fränkische Schweiz Getreideernte-20210821-RM-154344.jpg
  214. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frauenstein Dornhof Felder und Baumgruppe mit Magdalensberg dahinter 14122016 4663.jpg
  215. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gagea minima flower - Keila.jpg
  216. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galanthus nivalis mit Aphididae--20210301-RM-153708.jpg
  217. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gallocresta (Salvia pratensis), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-20, DD 38-61 FS.jpg
  218. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gazania rigens cultivar in Conques.jpg
  219. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gdow Cemetery 65.jpg
  220. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gemeiner Spaltblättling, Schizophyllum commune-20191216-RM-152856.jpg
  221. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geographic map of Somaliland.svg
  222. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:George Floyd protest in Grand Army Plaza June 7 (73161).jpg
  223. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:George-peabody-library.jpg
  224. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geranium macrorrhizum 06-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  225. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gesloten bloemen van Allium canadense. 13-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  226. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glencoe Lochan reflections 3 20211022.jpg
  227. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gloucester Cathedral Choir 2, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg
  228. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Delicious apples.jpg
  229. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gomphus pulchellus (50849318483).jpg
  230. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gorgonia anaranjada (Leptogorgia sarmentosa), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 71.jpg
  231. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gostiny Dvor Gallery SPB 3.jpg
  232. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grapefruits - whole-halved-segments.jpg
  233. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great blue heron in GWC (16570).jpg
  234. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green heron in PP (14296).jpg
  235. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green kingfisher (Chloroceryle americana) male 3.jpg
  236. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grensekart nr. 21.jpg
  237. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Große Kaskaden - Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 02.jpg
  238. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gryphaea arcuata 01.jpg
  239. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gypsum - Sieroszowice mine, Lubin, Lower Silesia, Poland.jpg
  240. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hainesia crocea 01.JPG
  241. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly'. 19-02-2021. (d.j.b) 01.jpg
  242. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hazelnuts (Corylus avellana) - whole with kernels.jpg
  243. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heather, past and present, in the rain at Rågårdsdal, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden.jpg
  244. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hecken und Skulpturen im Landschaftspark „Les Jardins d'Étretat“, Normandie, Frankreich.jpg
  245. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helenium 'El Dorado'. Bloeiwijze. 18-07-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  246. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helenium 'El Dorado'. Opengebarsten bloemknop. 18-07-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  247. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heliconius charithonia 2021.jpg
  248. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hemimorphite - Mapimi, Durango, Mexico.jpg/2
  249. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Herbstlicher Ausblick vom Pferdskopf.jpg
  250. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hibiscus syriacus capsule hoarfrost -20200101-RM-102111.jpg
  251. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hieflau and Gesäuse from Rotmauer panorama 20210424.jpg
  252. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Historical stylization — Slavic of the 12-13th centuries, Karoling Club Ruza.jpg
  253. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hohe Dalle im Winter.jpg
  254. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy SURP Hovhannes Church.jpg
  255. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hortus Haren 18-10-2021. (actm.) 05.jpg
  256. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:House finch (33687)2.jpg
  257. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:House sparrow feeding behaviour.jpg
  258. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:House sparrows in CP (60060).jpg
  259. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) head.JPG
  260. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hyangwonjeong (Winter, 2013).jpg
  261. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de las Angustias, Horta, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-28, DD 22-24 HDR.jpg
  262. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Julián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-08, DD 07-09 HDR.jpg
  263. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Sebastián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 10-12 HDR.jpg
  264. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ilsfeld - Schozach - Schozacher Höhe - Birke vor Sonnenuntergangs-Himmel (1).jpg
  265. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:India, Chandragupta II, Gupta Period - Coin with Figure of an Archer - 1977.62 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg
  266. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:India, Kushan, Vasudeva II, 3rd century - Coin of Kushan King Vasudeva II - 2011.212 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg
  267. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 003.jpg
  268. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Interior of Hallwyl House - Great Drawing Room DSC7306 - edited.jpg
  269. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iphofen St.Veit Orgel-20201018-RM-154545.jpg
  270. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iris sibirica, zaadboxen. 28-08-2021. (d.j.b) 01.jpg
  271. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Isfandiyar’s Fifth Ordeal.jpg
  272. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jabirus (Jabiru mycteria) on nest.JPG
  273. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jacky Winter - Glen Davis.jpg
  274. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:James Abram Garfield, photo portrait seated.jpg
  275. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jeongjeon, Jongmyo (Summer, 2013).jpg
  276. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jinji Lake Suzhou November 2017 002.jpg
  277. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joseph Mallord William Turner - The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons, 16 October 1834 - 1942.647 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg
  278. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kamianiec Podilsky Stary Zamek DSC 0829 68-104-9007.jpg
  279. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kancamagus Highway October 2021 HDR.jpg
  280. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kapelle auf dem Michaelsberg - Untergrombach 03 - Vierzehn Nothelfer.jpg
  281. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kapelle auf dem Michaelsberg - Untergrombach 09 - Deckengemälde Michael.jpg
  282. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karachay-Cherkessia, Western Caucasus, Mountain lake in clouds.jpg
  283. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karol Hiller - Kompozycja BA220 - Google Art Project.jpg
  284. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katjes van een hazelaar (Corylus avellana). 26-01-2021. (actm.) 02.jpg
  285. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keeper of the Plains Morning.jpg
  286. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Khalili Collection Hajj and Arts of Pilgrimage MSS 1288.jpg
  287. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Killer Whales Hunting a Seal.jpg
  288. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kitzingen 50 Pfennig 1921 Schiffbauer.jpg
  289. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krakow - Collegium Minus.jpg
  290. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krakow-Collegium Novum.jpg
  291. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kroondomein Het Loo. 22-02-2021 (actm.) 35a.jpg
  292. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Fenice Opera House from the stage.jpg
  293. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lac de Montriond 06.jpg
  294. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lac de Tavaneuse 31.jpg
  295. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lady Peak panorama.jpg
  296. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lady Peak panorama1.jpg
  297. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Willoughby October 2021 003.jpg
  298. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape with rainbow and the Old Bridge over the Nam Khan river in Luang Prabang Laos.jpg
  299. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Latarnia morska w Kolobrzegu.jpg
  300. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laura Pous Tió 4, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg
  301. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lelietje-van-dalen of meiklokje (Convallaria majalis). 14-05-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg
  302. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lemon - whole and split.jpg
  303. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lenguado común (Solea solea), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 05-06 FS.jpg
  304. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lesser yellowlegs at JBWR (30664).jpg
  305. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Li Phi falls at sunset with orange sky and a fishing boat in Don Khon Si Phan Don Laos.jpg
  306. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Long jetty in the shallow end of Gullmarsvik.jpg
  307. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Louis Béroud, La Place Du Louvre, 1902 - Artvee.jpg
  308. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Löwenburg - Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 03.jpg
  309. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Antelope Canyon November 2018 006.jpg
  310. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island with a fishing boat (46294p).jpg
  311. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lupinus polyphyllus in Canterbury Region 07.jpg
  312. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lycaena phlaeas - Kulna.jpg
  313. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lychee fruits and seed.jpg
  314. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macrophotography of Vespula germanica, Queen in hibernation, awaits spring to awaken and establish a new insect colony.jpg
  315. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madagascar stonechat (Saxicola sibilla) male.jpg
  316. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus galerita).jpg/2
  317. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Malaspina-panorama-meters.jpg
  318. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male northern pintail (Anas acuta) in flight at Llano Seco-0708.jpg
  319. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male northern pintail in flight-8276.jpg
  320. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mandíbula y dientes de un oreodon (Merycoidodon culbertsoni), Dakota del Sur, Estados Unidos, 2021-01-15, DD 162-186 FS.jpg
  321. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mandrill global.jpg
  322. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marabou stork (Leptoptilos crumenifer) in flight 2.jpg
  323. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marsh wren at Hammonasset Beach (12893).jpg
  324. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Matterhorn, March 2019 (01).jpg
  325. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michelangelo's David - right view 2.jpg
  326. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michelangelo's David 2021 - 1.jpg
  327. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Migrant hawker (Aeshna mixta) male on rose mallow (Hibiscus syriacus).jpg
  328. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mockingbird in Bay Ridge (85082).jpg
  329. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mohammad Helal Ali امامزاده هلال ابن علی 04.jpg
  330. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montage of 9 photographs of an island with colorful clouds at dusk and sunrise in Don Det Si Phan Don Laos - white borders.jpg
  331. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon jellyfish in Rågårdsdal 4.jpg
  332. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morena negra (Muraena augusti), Monte da Guia, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-26, DD 40.jpg
  333. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow Spiridonovka Tarasov Mansion asv2021-07 img21.jpg
  334. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mosqué Riad d'OUJDA.jpg
  335. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Murchison panorama.jpg
  336. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Ōdake crater and Mount Kodake.jpg
  337. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Shasta as seen from Bunny Flat.jpg
  338. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Sir Donald panorama.jpg
  339. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mountains of Wadi Shawka denoised.jpg
  340. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MTAB IORE Søsterbekk - Norddalen.jpg
  341. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Prinzipalmarkt, Arkaden -- 2021 -- 8931-3.jpg
  342. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muscari botryoides-20210428-RM-121422.jpg
  343. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museum Geyerhammer Scharnstein-2915.jpg
  344. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw building 0012.jpg
  345. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw Main exhibition Gwoździec synagogue.jpg
  346. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:NaCl polyhedra.svg
  347. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nassarius arcularia 01.JPG
  348. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:National Museum of African American History and Culture (97901).jpg
  349. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 05-12-2021. (d.j.b) 03.jpg
  350. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Necklace made of rough diamonds.jpg
  351. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neighborhood Church of Chico, April 2021.jpg
  352. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New ice cracking on stone as tide goes out at Govik.jpg
  353. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nieuwe blad van een berenklauw (Heracleum). 30-05-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg
  354. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Noctua pronuba caterpillar - Keila.jpg
  355. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nokia Arena November 2021 5.jpg
  356. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Northern cardinal female in CP (02035).jpg
  357. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Northern rough-winged swallows in JBWR (25338).jpg
  358. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odorrana chloronota, Green odorous frog - Doi Phu Kha National Park (48563173517).jpg
  359. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ofiura lisa (Ophioderma longicauda), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 50.jpg
  360. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ohio Stadium Overhead.jpg
  361. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympus E-M1 Mark III Zuiko 12-100mm.jpg
  362. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oppeln - Młynówka chanel.jpg
  363. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oratunturi central summit from the west in midnight, Sodankylä, Lapland, Finland, 2019 June.jpg
  364. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Osphronemus goramy albino 2015 G1.jpg
  365. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ospreys in Sandy Hook (70331).jpg
  366. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Our Lady church in Marvejols 25.jpg
  367. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Outside view of Wartburg Castle (4).jpg
  368. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pacific oyster from Brofjorden on a chopping board in Tuntorp.jpg
  369. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 001.jpg
  370. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parco fluviale alta Val d'Elsa 10.jpg
  371. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Park zamkowy wPszczynie 01promykjck.jpg
  372. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parroquia de Santa Clara de Asís, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 03.JPG
  373. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peñón de Ifach, Calpe, España, 2014-07-01, DD 14.JPG
  374. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Perna viridis 01.jpg
  375. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue des Écoles (Colmar) (8).jpg
  376. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pettstadt Mariae Geburt Decke-20211128-RM-151941.jpg
  377. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pez ballesta (Balistes capriscus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 24.jpg
  378. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phidippus regius female 01.jpg
  379. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Photoelasticity - Spiked castor cup.jpg
  380. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PIA22939 - Jupiter's Brown Barge.jpg
  381. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Picea omorika young female cone - Keila.jpg
  382. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Piece of chocolate cake on a white plate decorated with chocolate sauce.jpg
  383. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinot Grigio-20201027-RM-114053.jpg
  384. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PK Chaukhandi Necropolis near Karachi asv2020-02 img08.jpg
  385. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img08 Shah Jahan Mosque.jpg
  386. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PK Truck on N-5 near Thatta asv2020-02 img2.jpg
  387. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PlayaVarese-04920-edit.jpg
  388. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza Pustkowo 1.jpg
  389. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plexippus paykulli - 50959617953.jpg
  390. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pointe de Nantaux 05.jpg
  391. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pointe de Nantaux 06.jpg
  392. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pomegranate (opened).jpg
  393. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pomegranate fruit - whole and piece with arils.jpg
  394. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pommersfelden Schloss Weissenstein-20210801-RM-170531.jpg
  395. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pond sliders in Prospect Park (03861).jpg
  396. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont de Bercy, Paris 23 December 2021.jpg
  397. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont de Ceps 03.jpg
  398. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont du Vialais.jpg
  399. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont du Vialais.jpg/2
  400. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of an Indian peafowl.jpg
  401. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of Mary Pickford, signed (CHS-2292) digital restoration.jpg
  402. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pörtschach Halbinselpromenade Kopperbucht Seeblick 07012021 0324.jpg
  403. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Príncipe sunbird (Anabathmis hartlaubii) female.jpg
  404. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulpo común (Octopus vulgaris), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 33.jpg
  405. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pupil.jpg
  406. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Put van Nederhorst in de mist. 28-02-2021. (d.j.b) 18.jpg
  407. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Put van Nederhorst in de mist. 28-02-2021. (d.j.b) 31.jpg
  408. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrit-with-hematite-01.jpg
  409. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrite - Huanzala mine, Huallanca, Bolognesi, Ancash, Peru.jpg
  410. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrus communis mit geborstenem Stamm 01.jpg
  411. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raikoke Volcano Erupts (48132762546).jpg
  412. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Railroad Park Resort in Dunsmuir, June 2021.jpg
  413. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ramsau Kirche mit Wagendrischelhorn 2.jpg
  414. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rasgulla With Rabdi.jpg
  415. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ratusz w Kolobrzegu.jpg
  416. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raven on Branch.jpg
  417. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red fishing huts in Rågårdsdal.jpg
  418. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red hiking stripe sign Lysá hora 2021 06.jpg
  419. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-and-green macaw (Ara chloropterus) juvenile.JPG
  420. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-browed Finch - Penrith.jpg
  421. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Redcurrant (Ribes rubrum) fruits.jpg
  422. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reftinsky reservoir of Sverdlovsk region.jpg
  423. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstagsgebäude von Westen.jpg
  424. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RENFE 730 Pedralba de la Pradería.jpg
  425. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Replica of the Equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome (2).jpg
  426. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RhB Ge 4-4 I with freight and ABe 4-16 as S-Bahn at Reichenau-Tamins.jpg
  427. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ring-billed gull in Red Hook (42799).jpg
  428. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ring-billed gulls in Red Hook (42792).jpg
  429. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ringelblume mit Raureif-20211123-RM-110947.jpg
  430. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Romaine Lacaux, by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Cleveland Museum of Art, 1942.1065.jpg
  431. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Romanesco broccoli (Brassica oleracea).jpg
  432. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roodbruine schijnridderzwammen (Lepista flaccida). 22-01-2021 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg
  433. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rooftop farm at the Essex (65787p).jpg
  434. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rooster portrait, France.jpg
  435. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rosa Veilchenblau 2019-06-13 1988.jpg
  436. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rotkehlchen im Landschaftsschutzgebiet "Unterer Neckar, Zwischen Heidelberg und Ladenburg" 04.jpg
  437. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rotmilan IMG 1336.jpg
  438. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Pujsa, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 04-07 PAN.JPG
  439. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Francisco Bay ESA22014515.jpeg
  440. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Moritz Lake Piz Muragl.jpg
  441. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Afra volta a botte gloria di Sant Eufemia Mazza Carloni Brescia.jpg
  442. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria del Popolo September 2015-3.jpg
  443. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santuario di Santa Maria delle Grazie interno Brescia.jpg
  444. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SBB RABe 514 DTZ Rheinfall.jpg
  445. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scarlet tanager in GWC (25318).jpg
  446. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:School strike for climate in Melbourne 2018-11-30 (32313630908).jpg
  447. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schwetzingen - Schlossgarten - Großer Weiher - Westende mit Brücke im Herbst 2.jpg
  448. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schwetzingen 009.jpg
  449. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Second Beach Olympic June 2018 008.jpg
  450. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sedge warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus) 3.jpg
  451. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seiser Alm 11.jpg
  452. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sella group - View from West.jpg
  453. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Selva Sella Saslonch Lech de Ciampac.jpg
  454. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Semipalmated sandpiper at JBWR (30545).jpg
  455. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sflavomaculata - Dol2.jpg
  456. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg
  457. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shah Ghalandar.jpg
  458. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sharp Centre for Design - fragment of facade.jpg
  459. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque, Isfahan,Iran.jpg
  460. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sierra Nevada Brewery, Chico, during blue hour.jpg
  461. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Simmelsberg Winter 2021.jpg
  462. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SJ Norge El 18 with Regiontog on Orkla bridge.jpg
  463. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skimmer (Dragonfly) mating in air.jpg
  464. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SL Badulla asv2020-01 img11 Muthiyangana Temple.jpg
  465. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SL Bundala NP asv2020-01 img30.jpg
  466. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ślewiński Władysław, Woman Combing her Hair.jpg
  467. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF B81500 Gap - Veynes-Devoluy.jpg
  468. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF TGV Duplex Cize-Bolozon.jpg
  469. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF X73500 La Bastide Saint-Laurent - Villefort.jpg
  470. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snowstorm on lake Baikal.jpg
  471. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Soffione - Pappo di dente di Leone, infruttescenza di Tarassaco.jpg
  472. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spain’s chilly blanket ESA22415247.jpeg
  473. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spielfiguren (surreal) -- 2021 -- 8820.jpg
  474. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spielplatz Sägmüllermatte - Lichtental 01.jpg
  475. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spoon Lake panorama.jpg
  476. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Squirrel in CP (40494).jpg
  477. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Martin church in Portet-sur-Garonne 17.jpg
  478. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Symphorian - Zell am Harmersbach - Main altar 01.jpg
  479. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Staring Down Hurricane Florence.jpg
  480. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stibnite - Herja mine, Maramures, Romania.jpg
  481. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Still life with strawberries in a crystal bowl.jpg
  482. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:STS-134 launch seen from a shuttle training aircraft 4 - edited.jpg
  483. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Submerged buoy with algae at Rågårdsdal 2.jpg
  484. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sulfur - El Desierto mine, San Pablo de Napa, Daniel Campos Province, Potosí, Bolivia.jpg
  485. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunlight on the curved honeycomb glass façade of the hotel Andaz mixed with interior lighting at sunset in Singapore.jpg
  486. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunny mist in the mountains at golden hour, South-West view from Mount Nam Xay, Vang Vieng, Laos.jpg
  487. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset at Montmajour 1888 Van Gogh.jpg
  488. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suzdal asv2019-01 img39 Kremlin Cathedral.jpg
  489. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suzhou canals November 2017 003.jpg
  490. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Swayambhunath temple - an ancient religious architecture of Nepal.jpg
  491. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:T-28 Trojan NAS Ft Worth Air Show 2016-3.jpg
  492. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tanguar haor, Bangladesh 01.jpg
  493. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tbriz guy machid.jpg
  494. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Teele Wali Masjid-Lucknow-Uttar Pradesh-DSC 0001.jpg
  495. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Athenaeum Library.jpg
  496. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Grand Congratulatory Ceremony to Celebrate the Fortieth Birthday of Queen Dowager Jo.jpg
  497. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Great Belt Bridge, Eastern Bridge, August 2020 -01.jpg
  498. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Mother of God Trenousa (17-18. century).jpg
  499. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Red Kerchief, by Claude Monet, Cleveland Museum of Art, 1958.39.jpg
  500. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Twins SE Asia 2019 (49171985716).jpg
  501. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomisus onustus, Vic-la-Gardiole 01 (cropped).jpg
  502. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Three moon jellyfishes captured by a lion's mane jellyfish 1.jpg
  503. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thuringia Eisenach asv2020-07 img29 Market Square.jpg
  504. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thuringia Suhl asv2020-07 img06 Cross Church.jpg
  505. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thuringia Suhl asv2020-07 img20 PlDerDtEinheit.jpg
  506. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiger swallowtail (74863).jpg
  507. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg
  508. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tomatoes in basket 2020 G1.jpg
  509. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tordo verde (Labrus viridis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 20.jpg
  510. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre del Pian dell'Isola in Rignano sull'Arno risalente all'anno 1100 D.C. circa.jpg
  511. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:TR Izmir asv2020-02 img58 Salepçioğlu Mosque.jpg
  512. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:TR Pamukkale Hierapolis asv2020-02 img29.jpg
  513. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tree swallow in JBWR (25579).jpg
  514. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Treppenhaus Handwerkskammer Hamburg oben.jpg
  515. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trifolium hybridum inflorescence - Keila.jpg
  516. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trollius europaeus seed head - Keila.jpg
  517. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tübingen - Neckarfront - Blick entlang Neckar im Herbst.jpg
  518. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tübingen - Stiftskirche - Kapelle SO - Gewölbe mit Marien-Schlussstein - Detail.jpg
  519. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tulipa bakeri 'Lilac Wonder' 09-05-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
  520. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbulent Tropical Skies.jpg
  521. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turtle rock in Prospect Park (01717).jpg
  522. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two Poplars in the Alpilles near Saint-Rémy, by Vincent Van Gogh, Cleveland Museum of Art, 1958.32.jpg
  523. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two water buffaloes bathing at golden hour.jpg
  524. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:U.S. Navy T-6B Texans in a 4-ship formation over a military operations area in Southern Texas.jpg
  525. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Überlauf Edertalsperre vom Uhrenkopf.jpg
  526. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Uitlopende bladknop van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus). 18-04-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg
  527. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ulmus laevis flowers - Keila.jpg
  528. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Umnak oli 2014123 lrg.jpg
  529. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Urzad Wojewodzki (cropped).jpg
  530. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valeriana officinalis - Niitvälja.jpg
  531. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vanadinite - ACF mine, Mibladen, Morocco.jpg
  532. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Variegated Fairy-wren - Kurnell.jpg
  533. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vassholmen island outside Väjern harbor, Kungshamn 4.jpg
  534. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veery in CP (43277).jpg
  535. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vepricardium orbiculare 01.jpg
  536. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vexilla vexillum 01.jpg
  537. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vieillot's black weaver (Ploceus nigerrimus castaneofuscus) male on nest.jpg
  538. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vietnamese Dragon blue.svg
  539. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of San Francisco from Ina Coolbrith Park-01445.jpg
  540. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista Geral do Museu de Arte Contemporânea de Niterói... MAC.jpg
  541. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wake waves on Åbyfjorden at Rågårdsdal 5.jpg
  542. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Walderdbeere Frucht-20210617-RM-124006.jpg
  543. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Water reflection of mountains and hut in a paddy field with blue sky in Vang Vieng, Laos.jpg
  544. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weingartener Moor - See.jpg
  545. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wells Cathedral Arches, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg
  546. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:White-breasted nuthatch (31195).jpg
  547. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wiesmann Roadster MF3 Classic-Gala 2021 1X7A0177.jpg
  548. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 Iran Ghale Robat (1).jpg
  549. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windows in Quebec city, Canada.jpg
  550. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winter auf dem Himmeldunkberg.jpg
  551. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winter auf dem Melpertser Rasenberg.jpg
  552. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winter in der Rhön.jpg
  553. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden Entrance Door, Palácio da Pena.jpg
  554. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Worcester Guildhall Assembly Room.jpg
  555. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wroclaw-Mlyny sw. Klary.jpg
  556. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Würfel, gemischt -- 2021 -- 5577.jpg
  557. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xiamen Brg 20200808.jpg
  558. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow-bellied sapsucker in CP (40484).jpg
  559. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zaaddozen van een Alstroemeria aurea 26-07-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg
  560. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zaden van een Allium (sierui) die rijpen. 27-06-2021. (d.j.b) 01.jpg
  561. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zoroastrian Fire Temple, Yazd 03.jpg
  562. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Οία 1121.jpg
  563. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Болото-смайлик.jpg
  564. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Вигляд на Розточчя згори.jpg
  565. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Вид на Судак с мыса Алчак.jpg
  566. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Дивовижне каміння Південного Бугу.jpg
  567. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Закат на озере Баскунчак.jpg
  568. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Зимний Таганай.jpg
  569. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Метелик на кульбабі.jpg
  570. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Песчинки-1. Желтый строительный песок.jpg
  571. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Радуга над вулканическими конусами.jpg
  572. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Св. Никола Маврово.jpg
  573. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Сорус папоротника Polypodium aureum 2.jpg
  574. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:מנזר השתקנים השוכן בלטרון.jpg
  575. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:تصویر سراسرنما از بام کاروانسرای دیرگچین استان قم، معماری برجای مانده از دوره ساسانی.jpg
  576. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:서울 선릉과 정릉 선릉(성종대왕릉) 동측무석인 측면 미술 2005년(출처 국립문화재연구소).jpg
  577. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:巡道工出品 Photo by Xundaogong 胜利桥发车 - panoramio.jpg
  578. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:西安世园会长安塔.jpg
  579. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Anadara diluvii
  580. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Carlisle Cathedral
  581. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Carpocoris purpureipennis fifth instar nymph
  582. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Major Mitchell's Cockatoo
  583. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Mimachlamys varia (Variegated Scallop)
  584. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/SARS-CoV-2
  585. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Viviparus georgianus shells

2. FP that C. nominated but from other authors

6 FP From Other Authors

FP From Other Authors
  1. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:1_lake_louise_pano_2019.jpg
  2. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Arnoldstein_Radendorf_Wallfahrtskirche_Mara_Siebenbrünn_25052020_9091.jpg
  3. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Eburna_lienardii_01.jpg
  4. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Porphyrobaphe_iostoma_bilabratus_01.JPG
  5. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sally_Lightfoot_Crab_2019.jpg
  6. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Vogelmelk_(Ornithogalum)._d.j.b_02.jpg

I propose we keep them. - Benh (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Yann (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, too. No reason to penalize them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

9 Failed Nominations from Other Authors

Only for the records.

Failed Noms From Other Authors
  1. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Dülmen,_Börnste,_Teiche_in_der_Heubachniederung,_Baum_--_2020_--_3500-4.jpg
  2. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ersfjord_and_the_mountain_range_on_the_north_side_with_Okshornan.jpg
  3. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:FA-18F_Super_Hornet_Brisbane_Festival_2019_Practice_Run_-_AndrewMercer_-_DSC00155.jpg
  4. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Freienfeld,_kapel_2019-08-03_11.47.jpg
  5. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:JOR-2017-Wadi_Rum_06.jpg
  6. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mars_place_at_Altay_Mountain,_Russia.jpg
  7. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pennsylvania_Memorial_vaulting_PA1.jpg
  8. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Rainbow_Bridge,_Tokyo,_South_view_from_Odaiba_20190419_1.jpg
  9. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Zeiss_Batis_Sonnar_F1.8_85.jpg

3. Reverting his self FP

13 Sucessfull self nominations

  1. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Adoration_of_the_Christ_child_with_the_young_St._John_the_baptist,St._Romuald,angels,the_hands_of_God_the_Father_and_the_Holy_Ghost_as_a_dove_-_Filippo_Lippi.jpg ✓ Done
  2. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Portrait_of_a_Man_with_a_Medal_of_Cosimo_the_Elder_-_Sandro_Botticelli.jpg ✓ Done
  3. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Fortress_of_Guaita_-_First_Tower_(San_Marino).jpg ✓ Done
  4. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Michelangelo's_David_-_right_view_2.jpg ✓ Done
  5. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bacchus_by_Caravaggio_1.jpg ✓ Done
  6. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Martyrdom_of_St_Lucia_-_Luca_Giordano.jpg (oh my god, awful) ✓ Done
  7. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Titian_-_Pope_Paul_III_with_his_Grandsons_Alessandro_the_young_and_Ottavio_Farnese_-_WGA22985.jpg ✓ Done
  8. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Salome_with_the_Baptist's_head_-_Charles_Mellin.jpg ✓ Done
  9. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Lake_of_Fusine.jpg ✓ Done
  10. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Second_Tower_in_San_Marino_and_Paragliding.jpg ✓ Done
  11. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Madonna_and_Child_and_Two_Angels_(Botticelli).jpg ✓ Done
  12. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ancient_Roman_amphoras_in_Pompeii.jpg ✓ Done
  13. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:San_Vitale_(Ravenna)_-_Dome_interior.jpg ✓ Done

@Aristeas, A.Savin, and Basile Morin: , Maybe you could use that list to split the work? When you are done, just add the {{done}} template and your name? Unless you have better way to dispatch the load of course :) Thanks! - Benh (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Benh! If nothing speaks against it, I will handle the last four entries, no. 10 to 13, from “Second Tower” to “San Vitale”. --Aristeas (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
To me it goes without saying :) The sooner we clean the mess, the sooner you can focus back on FP themselves. - Benh (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done with pictures #10 to #13. – Regarding the use of these photos in articles etc.: #12 and #13 are only used in 1 or 2 articles and have not been added there by C., so IMHO no changes are necessary. Photo #10 (San Marino) has been added to many articles; however most of these articles did use really poor photos (this or that one) of the tower before, therefore I feel uncomfortable to undo these changes and have reverted only the cases in which the previously used photo was OK. For photo #11, the state of affairs seems to be similar (I am currently checking the articles). --Aristeas (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Many many thanks!!! - Benh (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome! You and A.Savin are the ones who did/do most of the work, I am just trying to help a little bit. --Aristeas (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Benh, Aristeas, and a special thanks to A.Savin who did my part of the job I was going to handle this morning. I'm really grateful this sock-puppet Commonists was stopped, and the scam revealed. Sincere congratulations -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed! I would suggest that all the sock's QIs, or at least the ones he nominated of his own photos, also be demoted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

23 Failed Self Noms

For the records only:

Failed Self Noms
  1. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Eleanor_of_Toledo_with_her_son_Giovanni_de'_Medici_by_Agnolo_Bronzino.jpg
  2. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Elisabetta_Gonzaga_-_Raphael.jpg
  3. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Flower_of_Fuchsia.jpg
  4. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Forum_(Pompeii)_and_the_Vesuvio.jpg
  5. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Madonna_and_Child_and_Two_Angels_(Lippi).jpg
  6. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Michelangelo's_David_2021_-_1.jpg
  7. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mount_Vesuvius_with_fog_and_sea.jpg
  8. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Panorama_of_the_Cesta_Tower_in_San_Marino.jpg
  9. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pietro_Bembo_-_Titian_-_Museo_di_Capodimonte_(Naples).jpg
  10. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pink_flowers_of_Senecio_Cruentus.jpg
  11. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ponte_Vecchio_from_Ponte_Santa_Trinita_Blue_hour.jpg
  12. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pope_Paul_III_(Titian_-_National_Museum_of_Capodimonte).jpg
  13. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Portrait_of_a_Young_Boy_-_Perugino.jpg
  14. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Santa_Maria_degli_Angeli_a_Pizzofalcone_(Naples)_-_Dome_Interior.jpg
  15. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Santa_Maria_degli_Angeli_a_Pizzofalcone_(Naples)_-_Interior.jpg
  16. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Santa_Maria_Novella_(Florence).jpg
  17. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Second_Tower_in_San_Marino_and_Paragliding_2.jpg
  18. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Small_hill_with_snow_in_Vosges.jpg
  19. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sony_FE_24-240mm_F3.5-6.3_OSS_-Front_view.jpg
  20. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:St_Cecilia_with_the_Harpsichord.jpg
  21. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:The_Birth_of_Venus_(Botticelli)_1.jpg
  22. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Tondo_Doni_2021.jpg
  23. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Zeiss_Batis_Sonnar_F1.8_85.jpg


4. Deciding what to do with the litigious / close calls

Last time the noms that failed when Livio's votes were removed, were simply re-nominated. Authors of course had the option of not wanting a re-nom. Maybe best to do the same this time. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I would propose to limit this to the cases which really failed when Livio’s/C.’s votes were removed, i.e. cases in which there is no longer at least a 2/3 pro majority when Livio’s/C.’s votes were removed. It makes too much unnecessary work to discuss also all the cases which were close calls, but still pass with at least a 2/3 majority. --Aristeas (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
As for my nominations that have failed because of C.'s oppose and would have been promoted if C. didn't vote, I don't wish a re-nomination on that basis. Regards --A.Savin 14:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I identified many noms of your pictures where it is quite obvious his vote was biased and had strong influence on the results. I would propose to renominate, but that will be up to you guys to decide of course. I would hate to think his moves made you "lose" - Benh (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Still these noms are all close calls and most other participants I trust enough to assume they have own opinion and don't rely blindly on C. or whoever. And unlike Livio I don't play games. --A.Savin 15:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
For everything Commonists didn't nominate, I think we should either (a) do nothing for all of them, including the inconsequential votes, or (b) strike all of them and promote/demote as needed. In either case, anyone who wants to renominate may do so. My preference, as expressed above, is for (a), but now that would require a mass revert of the edits Benh has already made. I also apparently have a conflict of interest that I didn't know about then, as one of my photos would be demoted. Either way is fine, but I think we need to be consistent. How confusing to have some counts accurate, but others not. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to see their votes struck and the promotion status revised. Those who lose an FP should be informed if they want to renominate, if they are not already aware. I note that two photographers who were most picked on are also least inclined towards renomination, and I think their view should be respected. Rhododendrites, Livio didn't just get blocked because he socked to vote twice on his noms and therefore the punishment should be restricted to losing his noms once again. Livio's behaviour and voting pattern harmed those who had opposed his photos, and we see that pattern repeated. So I think it is cleanest if he is permitted as close to zero influence on our collection of featured pictures as possible. So I'm opposed to retaining his votes on other noms, and he should lose all is own FPs. -- Colin (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Aha. Ok, if it's likely that his votes were influenced by revenge/feuds, that's a good argument for my (b) above. My primary concern is for consistency. Strike everything, recalculate, promote/demote as need be, notify the people affected, then leave it up to them (or other nominators) and be done with it. No need for treating any group of votes differently from any others. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, Here are the litigious cases I have found. Some are subjective, but I'll let you decide what to do. - Benh (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Supports Leading to Promotion

  1. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black-crowned night heron (61438).jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van een vlier (Sambucus serenade). 14-04-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  3. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bodion (Symphodus roissali) construyendo su nido, Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 13.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  4. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bothrops itapetiningaea.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  5. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower in pink, Paris - Oct 1, 2021.jpg but picture deleted ✓ Done by Benh, thanks! --Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  6. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Ears seen from the Viewpoint Beach.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC) … and re-nominated to show my good intentions. --Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  7. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Val Lietres - Drei Könige Gherdeina.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  8. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:שקיעה סתווית מעל מבצר עתלית.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
His vote needs to be crossed out in all these cases, and they can be renominated if anyone wants to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Opposes Leading to Non Promotion

  1. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cows snoozing in Heden, Lysekil.jpg (DNR) ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:E-burg asv2019-05 img68 PrKosmonavtov metro station.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  3. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ensemble of the Solovetsky monastery in the fog.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  4. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Front of Pontiac Bonneville 1965, XZZ700 in Vrångebäck.jpg (DNR) ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  5. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Manene Tradisi Ganti Baju Mayat di Tana Toraja.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  6. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PK Truck on N-5 near Thatta asv2020-02 img1.jpg ✓ Done Renominated. Yann (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  7. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polystichum setiferum-20210427-RM-165358.jpg ✓ Done Renominated. --Ermell (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  8. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sea Girt Lighthouse October 2020.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  9. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thuringia Schmalkalden asv2020-07 img18 Schloss Wilhelmsburg.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You have a point, I shall move that to "opposes swaying outcome". - Benh (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Votes Leading to Withdrawal In My View

  1. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Café No.123 on Frederiksberg, Denmark - edited.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dark red aronia leaves on a rainy day in Tuntorp.jpg (DNR) ✓ Done by Benh, thanks! --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  3. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:E-burg asv2019-05 img41 Opera and Ballet House.jpg ✓ Done by Benh, thanks! --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Opposes Likely Swaying the Outcome and Close Calls

  1. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooklyn-Manhattan-Williamsburg-Bridges at Sunset 2021-06-15 19-31.jpg (and what a comment) ✓ Done Yes, that was one of the most awkward FP comments ever. --Aristeas (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PK Manora near Karachi asv2020-02 img3.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  3. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SL Kandy asv2020-01 img39 Sacred Tooth Temple.jpg ✓ Done --Aristeas (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't Know How to Handle

  1. Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin.jpg ✓ Done
    There is no consensus for delisting, with or without C. --A.Savin 01:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    Vote crossed. - Benh (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Some after thoughts

Some things I have found while cleaning his mess:

  1. Commonist/Livio targeted W.Carter, A.Savin and Diliff (I mean "why promoting gorgeous religious interiors when we can have crappy ones instead?"). Zero supports to Diliff!
  2. First and most edits were on QI and FP. QI is desperate case and is too hard to fix and, given how it works, that label has no real value in my view anyways. No worth the hassle.
  3. He was careful to start slowly this time because he previously got caught very easily by W.Carter and Colin (which probably explains the revenges votes in 1). So he only nominated other authors' photos to begin.
  4. He quickly enough switched to self noms and never looked back.
  5. He gave clues that should have rang bells (languages, very "Livio" English mistakes, aggressive behaviour, and even some greek)
  6. He seems to be antivaxx a Covid19 denier [5] [6]. You'll make of that what you want ;)
  7. Ironically, it was the really crappy quality of his photos that got my attention
  8. Oh, just after getting banned, he insulted me on Flickr, snarking at me about how my photos get little likes. Says a lot about his motivations.
  9. We will reveal how we caught him only to very trusty users who will ask privately.

I'm glad we caught that piece of shit and that he got banned blocked. Now time for my break. - Benh (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all your hard work Benh, but is he really banned? I thought he was just indefinitely blocked. I think there is a difference. Anyway, regarding my noms, please don't re-nominate any of them. Let them stay failed/withdrawn/whatever. I have no desire to get dragged back to FPC. --Cart (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    There is difference. I'll definitely place a Meta request for global ban in the next days/weeks, unless someone is faster. He should be banned. If Rodhullandemu is banned and Livio "only" blocked, then definitely something is rotten in the state of... Wikimedia... --A.Savin 00:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    My bad, I wasn't even aware there was a difference between "banned" and "blocked" (even though @A.Savin explained above). Was in a rush to finish I guess. Thank you for your help and advices (and for everything done before generally speaking). - Benh (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I repeat the thanks for those who did the boring job of cleanup. They are globally locked here. I don't know all the procedure for a global ban. Would that be the kind WMF do? If so, I'm not sure they fall into that category or that it would make any difference. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    While there are numerous users "office banned" by the WMF (some for perfectly warranted reasons, for some others you only can wonder why), my approach in this case would be to reach a community consensus for Livio's ban. Regards --A.Savin 19:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure A.Savin knows the rules, but I'll post them here for everyone: m:Global bans. I believe they currently have a m:Global locks. -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, call me stupid, but how would a global ban translate in real life, compared to a global lock? Those pages don't make that very clear to me. - Benh (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
OK this time, I read A.Savin's explanations. So a global ban only means we wouldn't spend hours and days discussing whether to reverts the changes or not. We would just revert. But that is assuming the fraud is caught... and reverting everything afterwards would still be troublesome, and we would run into the same issues with close calls FP candidates. Is it really worth doing it? - Benh (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I admit that's a previously unfamiliar situation for me, but at least we would then be allowed (and perfectly encouraged) to delete all their uploads. Currently we aren't IMO. --A.Savin 00:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not express an opinion about a potential ban of that user, and of course it's very disturbing when people use fake accounts to vote, beyond the fact that it gives work to check everything. And by the way thanks to every one who made the necessary verifications. However we can read: "Any contributions made by a banned individual, directly or indirectly, may be reverted or removed as part of ban implementation.", and reading in that sentence coming from a global policy, therefore which applies to us, a "perfect encouragement" is a personal interpretation. And in the sentence "to delete all their uploads" I guess you talk about potential future uploads, because I'm unable to read in the WMF policy that we can delete all the contributions made before the ban, otherwise that would mean that we can delete the 549,632 contributions made by Rodhullandemu. It would be of course very silly to do such a thing and fortunately there is no suggestions, even less encouragements, to do such a thing in the WMF policy. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer In my view, the ban only means that if the user comes back with another sock, then the additional edits with that sock can be wiped out without notice and consensus. That shouldn't affect any previous contribs prior to the ban. Or am I misunderstanding? - Benh (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It was what I understood but after thinking I can not avoid to have a little doubt, their sentence is not very clear. I hope they don't suggest that we have the possibility to delete all the contributions made by a banned user even the ones made before the ban. Because if I keep the exemple of Rodhullandemu, if one of their lynchers comming from EN Wikipedia decide to delete or to revert all their contibution here that's mean that we can not do very much otherwise it will be equal to reinstall the actions of a banned user, and therefore objectionable. If it is the case I was not aware I again missed the opportunity to stay in my place and ignore such stupidity ... Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Yes that would affect contribs made after the ban. Sorry if this wasn't clear anyways. --A.Savin 11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
We all agrees, very fine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Benh. I'm very trusted user and I want to know. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant privately. We don't want the sucker to know how we got him. - Benh (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment It caught my attention the comment by Benh above about the crappy quality of his photos. That is not what I recall, when I was more engaged with FPC a couple of years ago. Going through the list of Livioandronico's list of FPs, I realize they are not crap at all. Without questioning the conclusion that Commonists and Livioandronico2013 are the same user, why such a difference in quality (if such difference indeed exists)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    Of course those of his pictures made it to FP status are better than the rest. Sincerely hope obvious crap is not promoted here. --A.Savin 11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Alvesgaspar Look at the failed noms. Just this one for instance. How can you get something this awful in such favorable conditions with such a camera? And when trying to fix oversharpening, he manages to underexpose it in the process. That guy just sucks at processing photos, and given inconsistencies he's shown over and over, my guess is that he trials and errors and doesn't know what he does. But even the FP themselves, I can't believe some made it successfully through the process... That candidate (who btw probably has the longest name ever) is crippled with noises/artifacts. I thought I wasn't wearing my glasses when looking closely at this one. And this... really? Look at the noisy dark areas. I thought the bar was supposed to go up over the years, and I think it has when I sometimes come and have a look. But Livio still sits on that bar and always provide us with his gems. It's so crappy I would say he has his own signature. Enough to get my attention at a glance. That's how bad he is. And I would add several of us had doubts upong stumbling across these awful pics. - Benh (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe Benh is just trying to attract extra revenge votes to make the next sock easier to catch. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  14:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    Don't reveal my plans... and don't ever make me revert 600 edits ;) - Benh (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Close?

I suggest this section be closed and archived. Let's not waste any more time on this editor. -- Colin (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

+1. --A.Savin 16:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Just, maybe you'd want to deal with the pending cases before - Benh (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Benh, I thought it had all been dealt with and his vote struck from all nominations and the result modified if required. For those you think it influenced badly and still lost when his vote removed, we can alert the nominator if they don't already know. Is there any disagreement about that approach? -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Colin to me whatever you decide is fine. As I said, I only fixed things when they didn't alter the result because I don't really want to get in the way (I have enough). My goal was to list everything here so regulars can make an informed decision. Maybe renominating them, at a once a week pace to not overwhelm contributors? - Benh (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that's a strange set of FPCs to focus on but up to you I guess. Benh, Rhododendrites, A.Savin, Yann I think we are all agreed to strike their votes for all the nominations. For those that fail, it is up to nominators to re-nominate if they want to. For those that should have passed, a couple of people (Cart, A.Savin) have indicated they don't want the image to be automatically promoted, but otherwise I would be happy to see an automatic promotion made as though Commonist had not voted. @Александр Байдуков, Danu Widjajanto, Ermell, and King of Hearts: do you want your photos (in the section Opposes Leading to Non Promotion) automatically promoted or would you prefer to renominate them or do you wish to leave them unpromoted? -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll go with the flow, i.e. I personally don't mind an automatic promotion, but if the most of the others affected prefer otherwise I don't want special treatment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that we should now automatically promote the "Opposes Leading to Non Promotion" and automatically demote the "Supports Leading to Promotion". We should be careful: doing the latter, we kind of punish good-faith nominators. Many of them are not even aware of this discussion. So I'm in favor of leaving as is. Our purpose is to prevent further sock abuse. We have delisted all Commonist's FP's and that should suffice. I don't think Livio cares much about nominations of not his own photos; even though some oppose votes may have been revenge votes. Regards --A.Savin 03:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't regard it as "punish" at all. This is just like when someone didn't add up the votes accurately and we discover a picture was incorrectly promoted. As you often say, this isn't an ego-reward game but a way of deciding what images are among our finest. Those few who lose an FP have a clear opportunity to renominate if they wish. They are aware of this discussion, as I pinged the very few who are not already taking part in it. Rhododendrites emphasised consistency. If we think Commonists votes shouldn't count then they shouldn't count, regardless of how that affects the nomination. For example, if he voted today with a new sock account User:LivioReturns, say, then you'd remove it without question. I don't see how it is different that we remove late because it took a while to spot the sock -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Completely agreed. The way to make sure this isn't a joke is to eliminate all his votes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
+1 I'm sure that there are several sucks waiting to be revealed --Wilfredor (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Now, how to proceed?

In several sections the question has been discussed how we should proceed now – i.e., what to do with the remaining litigious/close calls. Another question is, of course, who should do it, because Benh has already done an incredible job here and A.Savin has already spent much time with this nasty issue (many thanks to both of you!). To finish this whole Commonists affair, I would offer to do the remaining steps, if this is OK for all of you (I am not an admin etc., just an ordinary user). But I must first ask again whether there is a sufficient majority consensus about the results of our discussion or not, and, of course, whether I understand it correctly or not. Would you agree with the following?

  • 1. The majority wants that C.’ votes should not count at all, therefore we have to strike all of these votes and to handle all the affected close calls. Correct?
  • 2. For all FPs in the “Supports Leading to Promotion” section, this means that I would strike C.’ vote and add the new updated result, i.e. “not featured”, at the bottom of the nomination pages. (Of course, I'm not going to make any friends with that! ;–) Then there are two possibilities:
  • (2a) I would also remove these pictures from the FP categories and the galleries. And I would inform the creator and/or nominator of each picture about this change. Then everybody is encouraged to re-nominate these pictures.
  • (2b) Alternative: I could also do this in steps of two pictures each time, and immediately re-nominate each picture myself for an immediate new round of voting. But this means much additional work for all of us (and especially for me ;–), so I would do (2b) only if you want me to do so, else I would prefer (2a). --Aristeas (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 3. Most pictures in the “Opposes Leading to Non Promotion” section have already been treated in some way: Some of them have been re-nominated, for other ones the creators have already opted out from an “automatic” promotion. Therefore I would do two things: (i) On the nomination page of each of these pictures, I would cross out C.’ vote and add a hint about this discussion. (ii) I would re-nominate the remaining pictures for voting again about them. This affects only 3 images, so the extra-work for all of us is IMHO manageable. (If the nominator of one of these 3 pictures would prefer an “automatic” promotion, I just ask them to tell me about that, then I would handle that picture accordingly.) Update: According to Colin’s suggestion (see below), I will change the status to “featured” for all pictures from this section for which the authors/nominators have not opted out from an “automatic” promotion. This applies only to 3 pictures, so it is not a big thing.
  • 4. For the pictures in the “Votes Leading to Withdrawal In My View” section, I would only cross out C.’ vote, but would not do anything else, because both creators have already opted out from an “automatic” re-nomination of these photos.
  • 5. For the pictures in the “Opposes Likely Swaying the Outcome and Close Calls” section, I would only cross out C.’ vote, but would not do anything else. Of course everybody is free to re-nominate these photos.

So the question is: Would you agree with these points, and would you prefer (2a) or (2b)? Or did I misunderstand something? (I certainly don't want to put myself out there, I just want this affair to finally end and someone has to do the rest of the work.) Best, --Aristeas (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support Agree with all and 2(a) over 2(b). Many thanks for the initiative! - Benh (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I was meaning to get round to this but haven't. I think your analysis and preferences are fine. Wrt 3 I think those who really don't want the image re-nominated have said so, and I don't see anyone objecting to auto-promotion for the others. It is much less work to do that, particularly as then the revised nomination votes and result will coordinate. For those who asked for it to not be promoted or re-nominated, the {{Withdraw}} template could be used to explain that the voting should produce a promotion but it isn't. -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answers and approval! :–) I thought I would wait a few days to give everyone a chance to comment. But since the result is now very unanimous, I will make the changes gradually over the next few days, as described above. Thank you all very much! --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Aristeas, thanks very much for your work on this. -- Colin (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome, Colin! Most of the work has already been done by Benh and A.Savin, I just finalize it. --Aristeas (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • They did not "take it upon themselves", they volonteered to fix a mess made by a sock puppet, in a manner that was hammered out by community consensus the previous time this sock business happened. If they had done anything that wasn't ok with the community, I can assure you that opposes and "stop this"-comments, would have rained down on them long before today. They have done a dreary and time-consuming job, and they deserve nothing but thanks from the rest of us. The affected files will/can be renominated just like the last time. --Cart (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can assure you that most members of the community actually have lives and don't check this page obsessively. And especially not around the Christmas holidays. I don't know what kind of interactions have you all had with Livio, and frankly, I don't care. But it is blatantly obvious from this page that Benh has been driven by some sort of personal vendetta. Most of Livio's self-noms easily passed the process. To summarily delist them all for no reason other than punishment is nothing but overzealous formalism. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Dear Cosmonaut, I can understand that you are upset because of the delisting of your photo Golden Ears seen from the Viewpoint Beach.jpg. As I have already told you I am sorry that I had to do that; and please remember that I have voted in support of that photo myself. No problem, I will re-nominate your photo. – Regarding the point that people have lives, well, you may be surprised but this applies also to others ;–). After the general discussion we have intentionally waited for a week or more before proceeding with the photos for which the removal of C.’ votes makes a difference. Please note that nobody was eager to do that; I have finally took pity on myself and accepted the task just because it was necessary to finalize the task. And instead of doing it straight away, I have added this new section to the discussion and waited again for some days before actually doing it. --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Supplement: I was about to re-nominate your photo, but after re-consideration I realized that this could upset other FP regulars who had to re-nominate their photos themselves or have refrained from re-nominating their Livio-damaged photos. Therefore I ask you to do the re-nomination yourself please. I affirm that I will vote in support of it, just as I did the first time. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Aristeas, I don't think you should be shy to re-nominate a photo if you think it deserves to be promoted, especially if it can help to soothe the feelings of affected users. Last time, anyone with a free FPC slot and an interest to help in community work, did the re-nominations. Noms have already been made by non-involved users this time too.
Cosmonaut, last time Livio's socks turned up, I was one of the users who cleaned up the mess, so I know the work involved and it's why I take an issue with you saying things like that about this mop-up crew. There are no personal "vendettas" involved, other than a perfectly understandable dislike of internet trolls. I sympathize with Benh on this point. (FYI: Livio used several accounts to get extra supports on his FPC noms and revenge vote on those who opposed him. I find it hard to believe that you don't care about such behavior.) --Cart (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Cart, The Cosmonaut: I have re-nominated this photo. --Aristeas (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Aristeas: while I do appreciate you re-nominating my photo, I thought I had made it very clear that this is not about my photo, which barely passed anyway, but rather about 13 FPs by Commonists that passed much easier.
Cart, are you seriously suggesting that calling somebody a "piece of shit" and then invoking bizarre and utterly irrelevant "anti-vaxxer" / "covid-denier" claims does not demonstrate an unacceptable level of personal involvement? And yes, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in some stale wiki-dramas. I'm much more concerned with mass delisting of featured content using arbitrary criteria. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@The Cosmonaut. I'm human, and yes I was quite pissed off after undoing 600 votes (and the investigation before). Other than my tone, I believe the process was fair and we asked everyone their opinions and input. Most won't bother because 1. Xmas holidays, 2. boring tasks. I can assure you that I, too, would have loved to do something else. But I just wanted to finish something I had started. Evan though it is actually @Aristeas handling the final touchs (and thanks a LOT to him for that). If you weren't here when asked to voice your opinion, you have no right to complain. - Benh (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Benh, I want to thank you and everyone else who was involved in this lengthy, disagreeable process. The Cosmonaut, I'm sorry but you're off base. Livio is a really nasty fellow (or at least was on FPC; who knows what he's like in person) and has to be discouraged from using yet another sockpuppet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, when has punitive delisting of content become an official policy of discouraging sockpuppeting? Oh, right, it hasn't. So, let's stick to the mutually agreed process for now. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Benh, exactly what makes you think you have the authority to lecture me about my rights? The issue comes down to this: aside from voting machinations affecting the outcome, the only way to delist content is to take it to a vote. For some reason, the five of you decided that this is too trivial to bother with. Perhaps you've at least made an effort to reach out to all the users involved in the 13 successful noms? Alas, no. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Actions are taken by consensus on wikis. We have consensus here. I suggest you simply nominate the photos that were delisted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No the five of us didn't decide. Only the five of us cared. If you don't care, don't complain. It's been ongoing for some weeks so I think everyone has had her/his chance to express her/his opinion. If you read everything, you'll notice the only actions I took without "really asking" is crossing the votes which didn't change the outcome of the vote (well I asked, but let's make it short). Now for the 13 noms, which I only brought here btw, 1. he was banned for suckpuppetry. All his contribs shouldn't be relevant in the first place. 2. I asked. and I have other things to do than pinging everyone there, I think I've done enough. 4. At some point we have to move on because, well we have other things to do. 4. We did pretty much like last time this happened. In all, I think we did in good faith. But yes there will always be someone complaining. Lips move easier than hands. - Benh (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. And as response on your comment on "official policy": on Commons, we use policies and we use Common sense. So if something isn't codified by a policy, that still doesn't prevent you to act according to Common sense. That's exactly what Benh and Aristeas did. Nothing wrong about it. Livio is unwelcome, and Livio's pictures Wikipedia doesn't need. Regards --A.Savin 11:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The Cosmonaut, Livio's account is globally locked across Wikimedia sites, and he is explicitly blocked on Commons and on English and German Wikipedia. Partly for his offensive behaviour but also for his using multiple accounts to cheat. Is he simply not allowed to edit or vote here. Creating a sock account to evade a block doesn't magically mean he's permitted to edit and vote, or that we are stuck having to live with whatever he does. To accept that, well, what is the point in a block? Just create a new account and carry on? No, block evasion is a serious offence and dishonest activity towards the community. This is a wiki and there are few actual rules beyond community discussion and consensus. The Cosmonaut, I get you are upset about this but I don't think arguing with everyone about it is going to help. We aren't going to reinstate his FPs. -- Colin (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we done with this task?

I don’t want to interfer with the discussion at the end of the previous subsection, therefore a new subsection: As far as I can see we are done with this task now. Thanks to everybody who has helped, especially Benh and A.Savin! Does anybody see any remaining issues, e.g. some FP nominations in which we still have to strike out votes, etc.? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • To me we can archive this. We have more than enough cluttered that page (sorry for that!). But you are the one handling the last tasks, so i'd say you decide :) - Benh (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks clean now, thank you very much. The only remaining task I see would be to remove the cheating votes when Livioandronico2013 and the sockpuppet Σπάρτακος voted together on the same nominations (example), because it is so strange to meet such erroneous scores linked to current FPs. But the list is huge and the modifications would be very repetitive, thus I think nobody wants to look after that. At least not now. Nevertheless, the current mission is now ✓ completed, in my view. Well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, thank you all! I am manually archiving this discussion to make sure it still lands on archive page 23; this page already contains the first discussion about the Commonists story and IMHO both discussions should be united on one archive page to avoid misunderstandings. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_23&oldid=623273394"