Open main menu

User:Incnis Mrsi/dismiss without prejudice

< User:Incnis Mrsi



Commons routinely receives Deletion requests from forbidden origins (see below). Some Commons users even encourage such requests, at least tacitly. Nominations of numerous low-quality or copyvio files allegedly helps to make Commons cleaner, but large numbers of such requests can be used by some "deletionists" for ends that are far from legitimate: namely, to wear down their "inclusionist" opponents, requiring them to defend files that obviously should not be deleted. Time can be wasted through miscommunication and human errors (see the Jessica case below), insignificant quibbles, and quarreling over procedure.


A forbidden origin is an account or IP (within some temporal interval) from which a person banned from the site operates. Identity is determined by community consensus (or check-user, in complex cases), based on known behavioral traits.

Persons banned from the site are currently those banned from Wikimedia and only them. This does not include dubious indefblocked accounts, blocked IPs, as well as common block evasion (even demonstrably certain block evasion).

Evaluation of a requestEdit

A request from a forbidden origin may (and should) be processed by sysops if it is “obvious”. This includes two cases:

  • Demonstrable copyvio. A source for the given media file can be inferred without much guesswork.
    This explicitly excludes media “looking suspicious” but without a definite source. Those should be renominated – see below.
  • Patent rubbish. Media where no educational use can be inferred from description, content, and file name.

No reaction (of the kind specified below) from legitimate Commons members on a specific deletion request within 7 days can be considered as endorsement for deletion under one of “obvious” clauses. In all other cases the request has to be dismissed without prejudice.

If a request was dismissed without prejudice, then the file(s) may be nominated again by any user in good standing in any time.

Forms of dismissalEdit

  1. Delete the request page (sysops only). Recommended if there are no clear or obvious arguments for deletion.
  2. Move the request out of Commons: space.
    • Note that this option is not well received by some Commons members now.
  3. Strike out the forbidden-origin text (using <del>…</del>) and write your own nomination. Any legitimate Commons user may (and is encouraged) to do so if they see a possible reason for deletion.

Placing {{Copyvio}} on the file page without any action on the request page isn’t technically a form of dismissal, but can eliminate the problem altogether. Recommended for blatant copyright violations.

Note that “deleted” resolution on userfied (or otherwise displaced) requests is not allowed before returning the request to the Commons:space.

Alternative approachesEdit

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/02 #ignore
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68 #whatever the nominator

The proposal of Yann, Christian Ferrer, and Green Giant looks reasonable—theoretically—but can’t be implemented.

First, any nomination is supposed to contain a rationale. May Commons delete a file due to what cause namely? Is it out of scope, or copyvio, or {{Low quality}}? Many files nominated by troll(s) under “out of SCOPE” are definitely notable (and some are copyvio indeed). Some imags could be in scope had they a better quality, so the question is not whether is the subject in scope, but whether is quality good enough for the file to be hosted on Commons. Wouldn’t be an attempt to address it on a request page a discussion with a banned person? Moreover, in normal circumstances the nominator bears some moral responsibility for his/her requests, not admins only. When the case is not obvious, the nominator is expected to argue for it, or to withdraw nomination. But for a banned person neither is practically possible.

Second, “the administrators have been elected and should be able to delete” but this doesn’t make them neither willing nor necessarily qualified to conduct even simple reviews reliably. Again, see mistake in an utterly obvious case below.

Case studiesEdit

All time stamps are in UTC.


  • May 26, 2008 – the image was uploaded to Wikibooks for use on a User: page.
  • August 19, 2017 – JackPotte transferred the file to Commons. The MediaWiki engine on Wikibooks still deemed that the User: page depends on a local file.
  • February 5, 2018, 04:50 – A well-known troll nominated the file for deletion, likely deeming it an easy prey due to presumed lack of use in Wikimedia projects.
  • February 5, 2018, 07:35 – Incnis Mrsi determined that the file is in use and edited {{delete}} out.
  • February 5, 2018, 07:37 – Incnis Mrsi userfyed the delreq page.
  • February 11, 2018, 01:35 – Jcb responded with page move war.
  • February 11, 2018, 11:11 – Josve05a renominated the file to permit discussion to move on.
  • February 11, 2018, 15:36 – Incnis Mrsi (a.k.a. <qq[IrcCity]>) reported on #wikimedia-commons that the image is in use on a user page.
  • February 11, 2018, 17:54 – Incnis Mrsi communicated the same fact to Josve05a privately.
  • February 11, 2018, 17:57 – Josve05a added respective note to the deletion request page.
  • February 12, 2018, 16:04 – Didym deleted the file over objections and “closed” the request. Commons Delinker damage to Wikibooks did not ensue due to aforementioned error in the database.
  • February 12, 2018, 19:12 – Incnis Mrsi called the incident “the shit” on #wikimedia-commons.
  • An exchange followed which may not be reproduced due to the chat policy.
  • February 12, 2018, 19:45 – Nick contested deletion on the request page.
  • February 12, 2018, 19:48 – Didym undeleted the file, claiming mistake.
  • February 12, 2018, 19:55 – Incnis Mrsi edited the Wikibooks page to make the image appear on it once more.
  • February 12, 2018, 19:59 – Incnis Mrsi noticed damage to the file: page and reported it to #wikimedia-commons.
  • February 12, 2018, 20:22 – Ankry fixed damage to the file: page.

In total, Incnis Mrsi expended no less than 30 minutes of personal time and four other Commons members were (positively) involved. Result: Category:Wikibookians and demise of the database glitch; essentially status quo.

Joxemai mulisko gaina 2016.JPGEdit

  • February 14, 2016 – Joxemai uploaded the image.
  • February 6, 2018, 04:54 – A well-known troll nominated the file for deletion, likely deeming it an easy prey due to lack of current use in Wikimedia projects.
  • February 6, 2018, 15:47 – Incnis Mrsi reverted actions by the banned person, request userfyed.
  • February 11, 2018, 01:35 – Jcb responded with page move war.
  • February 11, 2018, 11:11 – Josve05a renominated the file to permit discussion to move on.
  • February 11, 2018, 14:32 – Incnis Mrsi votes   Keep.
  • February 11, 2018, 14:46–15:13 – edit war in the file: page over “right of way”. Jcb forces his way with the “block” right.
  • February 11, 2018, 14:47 – Jcb questions Joxemai’s rights to the photo. A discussion ensues.
  • February 11, 2018, 19:18 – Incnis Mrsi contacts Joxemai via en.Wikipedia.
  • February 11, 2018, 20:42 – Donald Trung restores notifications on the local user_talk:Joxemai.
  • February 12, 2018, 00:54 – Tuvalkin fixes Jcb’s damage to the image’s categories.
  • February 12, 2018, 07:29 – Joxemai shows up on the delreq page and claims the use of timer.
  • February 12, 2018, 16:36 – Jcb makes a trial with Panasonic hoping to debunk Joxemai.

Result: ongoing.

Lal wilson J.jpgEdit

File:Lal wilson J.jpg
Here you could see Lal Wilson, a contributor to en.Wikipedia, unless certain loopholes in Commons policies

Result: Currently, forces of destruction take the field. But you can help to reverse them.