Open main menu

Civility barnstar 2.svg This page may contain some profanity. If you are PC Principal you probably shouldn't edit here. Try going here instead. 🖕


Adminpedia-image.png

Some YouTube channels with Creative Commons content that Commons isn't using much from:

Why don't you take some screenshots, import whole videos with video2commons, etc? Don't forget to tag your uploads with {{Licensereview}}! If you need help, just ask me! (or the folks at the helpdesk or village pump)

Contents

claiming things as ownEdit

I personally do not like that people claim things as own, if they have a unspecific source (like just flickr), a missing permission; ok it is incomplete but not wrong, and that can be IMHO easier verified/checked. But sadly I have the feeling that missing source/permission, will lead faster to a deletion than claiming own.

I think the option >>This file is my own work<< and >>This file is not my own work<< should not be destinglished in Special:UploadWizard. If someone who does not understand anything about licensing, sees this options might choose >>This file is my own work<<, since it is easier, and the user might did smaller changes (cropping, changeing brightness,...) and therfore chooses >>This file is my own work<< out of simplicity.

I would remove the option >>This file is my own work<< and if it is own they should write >>Own<< or >>Created with Inkscape<< or maybe addittionaly offer some standard texts like {{Self-photographed}} or {{Created with Inkscape}} in the source-field. As far as I know Created-with-templates are currently not in the source-tag, since they are not a source, but also create-with-Templates can indicate that a file is self-created. In the >>Author(s)<< field they can write there own real name or User-name, or whatsoever.

I think it is better if a field is kept empty, and someone will notice this problem, than nobody notice a own-claim.

I think we can't really resent somone from claiming own, because licensing is for an average not-Wikimedia something completly unknown. (I tried to explain Licensing to some non-wikimedias, and noticed that they know "nothing". They do not understand copy-right (of the photo, aswell of the object), they do not know about personal-rights/trademark-rights,... Some might only know that there exists some streaming-sites, which are illegal, but I assume some won't know that they are not allowed to use a random picture they found in google, since google is a trustworthy search.) And then they get overwhelm by the options of Special:UploadWizard, and just choose the easiest one, without knowing that they can be sued.

What do you think about removing this option >>This file is my own work<< (at least for new users)? And if you think this might be intelligent, where should I report it? (phab:?; meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019?)

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: I generally agree (though for experienced users some option has to remain to claim own work easily), however, I suspect WMF won't agree. An even bigger problem are cross-wiki uploads (generally over half of them are copyvio), it has been suggested to simply shut down that fucking shit entirely (it causes Commons way too much work, it's just a waste) but WMF simply refuses.
Changes to the UploadWizard that WMF disagrees with are probably just not possible. Maybe you should bug Jimbo about it. Seriously, I don't know. You have my support in this though. For what it's worth. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I did not know Commons:Cross-wiki_media_upload_tool till now.
If WMF decides against the comunity, then WMF should 1)take the resposibility and 2)take the costs of the work.
If it causes Voluteers too much work, you might should write a phab:-Ticket (and make a userbox), even if it get deprecated, there is one place to collect supporters.
If the community thinks we do not want Commons:Cross-wiki_media_upload_tool and is too much work and WMF does not react, then the community should try to ignore those cross-wiki-uploads. If nobody check them, nobody delete them, WMF has to take resposibility about it. When the number of sues because of copyright-violations at wikimedia increase because of cross-wiki-uploads, then WMF will have to react.
I support to deactivate Commons:Cross-wiki_media_upload_tool, but I do not really care about it that much, because I did not know them.
I only get angry that they have time to implement such GUI-Upload, but meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Archive/Option_to_embed_SVGs_as_SVGs >>is too big for the Community Tech team to take on<<
Removing the own-possibility will lead to one click less (not click onw/not own any more). (The default parameter could be set to source={{Own}} and author=Special:MyPage. Default parameter is allready included if I upload something with own, you can specify your name and it per default takes what you used last time, first time it is empty, and the uses Special:MyPage instead.)
Who is Jimbo? I can't find him at Special:Contributions/Jimbo~commonswiki, Special:Contributions/Jimbo nor https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/Jimbo/ .
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer:

"Who is Jimbo?"

  Here's Jimbo, and his talk page.
WMF doesn't take the responsiblity for checking cross-wiki uploads, and because cross-wiki uploads essentially are a thing on other wikis (cross-wiki uploads from Commons are possible but rare), we can't vote them away. Wikipedias could probably vote them away locally, but they have no reason to because the shit lands on our plate, not theirs.
"When the number of sues because of copyright-violations at wikimedia increase because of cross-wiki-uploads, then WMF will have to react."
If we stop policing those uploads, it won't matter. WMF has to comply with the DMCA, thanks to the safe harbor provision they'll never get sued. DMCA takedowns are quite rare, only 4 this year. While many cross-wiki uploads are copyright violations, very few copyright holders could actually be bothered to file a DMCA takedown request. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scott D Miller.jpgEdit

Yes, I see your tag was a 7-day PROD. Can I retract my DR? I apologize for my mistake. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: you can generally use {{Withdraw}}, I'll close it manually this time. I'm not very familiar with w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations, but files with "no permission" generally get deleted after 7 days. If discussion is needed, a DR would be opened. Sometimes the admin starts a DR after those 7 days if they are unsure. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not heavily involved with files on WP, but they only want low res fair-use stored there. Anything that has the appearance of non-Commons worthy (like this) would get nuked very quickly. If it looks legit PD or something obviously free, it gets tagged for moving to Commons. they do have a similar Template:Di-no permission but I don't recall seeing it use. At least that's the gist I have gotten (and I've only been active for 12+years). Thanks for handling this for me. I'll be more careful in the future. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: my account is also roughly 12 years old. Wikipedia also keeps PD-USonly files at full resolution. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I did not know that. I see them now that I searched for them. Is that because of different attitudes of administrators? Because to me it seems to be a pretty nebulous distinction whether it's on a Commons or Wikipedia server when it's all on the Internet. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Commons requires all files to be free in both the source country and the US, to maximize reusability. This is based on the assumption that most re-users will be from the source country. There is a movement that wants to remove the PD-US requirement, but that'll take quite some time before that would even come to a vote. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is obvious. I am just wondering if there can truly be a legal distinction between a file on Commons and a file on Wikipedia. I don't suppose a US-only file which is still under copyright in, say Italy, can't be viewed from there. Is there any distinction in the experience of the person browsing the internet? I know, there's the part about the user downloading and using it for their own purposes. Unless the Italian user is blocked from seeing English Wikipedia there's really no difference. It's just semantics. It really ought to be one of the top agendas for the WTO and United Nations to get everyone streamlined. They did it for maritime law, why not the internet. (Oh, and they better not ask Disney for advice if they ever get around to being serious). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Commons could legally host PD-USonly content. I'm not sure when and where the requirement for PD in both the source country and the US was decided upon. (I'll try to figure that out) While legally Commons could host fair use content, per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy it's not allowed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I get it, but as you point out it's just WMF proclamations or (at best) project self-determined rules. Commons is a little unique because there's only one. there's no en:Com or ja:Com, for example. But does anyone deep down really believe that en.wiki and ja.wiki are stored in separate places? And what does PD-US-only help if en.wiki is supposed to be for all English speaking countries? They don't have the same laws. (And let's forget about the blatant copyvio problems of small projects with little to no oversight.) None of these labels, languages, or even domain names mean anything with regards to where the files are physically (assuming digital files are a physical thing to begin with). It doesn't make much sense. I think the only reason the whole file storing system is allowed to stay up is becauee there is an effective and active group who prevent --SVTCobra (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I agree it's odd that a UK logo like w:en:File:Vodafone 2017 logo.svg can exist on English Wikipedia. (which also serves the UK) But that's kind of Wikipedia's problem. On Commons we discussed this. It's unlikely we would allow both files that are only PD in their source country and PD-USonly. Commons being an international project, we'd rather allow files that are only PD in their source country. So a German photo that is PD in Germany can be hosted here and used on dewiki. This would also allow enwiki to use it, at least technically, because by policy they could prevent it if they wish. Like dewiki does, dewiki doesn't allow images that are licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}.
Jawiki could adopt PD-USonly btw.. arwiki, fawiki and some others appear to have already done that. As for the physical location of the servers: yes, there is an active group that prevents changing that, and that group is the WMF. The US provides a safe harbor provision and very little censorship. Changing the server location has been considered, and it doesn't provide any benefit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, should I have treated these Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:FernandoCX differently? I mean, would tagging them {{No permission}} have been less of a burden on the project? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: "no permission" would have been valid in this case, but when in doubt use a DR. Handling a DR is not really more work. The only thing that causes more work is when the same file gets tagged with both "no permission/source/license" and a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, but they would have been long gone with {{No permission}}, right? I mean it's been over two weeks with the DR. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: yes, DRs have a backlog. Usage of "no permission" doesn't really help with that though as it takes about the same amount of admin time. It effectively prioritizes the case over others. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. I made my first No Permission submission for this File:RB 8793 - Shervin Lainez.jpg image. It is the front page image of http://www.rubblebucket.com/ and Shervin Lainez is a professional photographer. Are there other steps I need to take? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: this appears to be fine. In such cases, it is worth wondering if the user is actually the copyright holder. They are claiming to be Rubblebucket. (see the author field) If that's believable, a DR is sometimes more suitable as it gives them more time to send in permission and explain the situation. ("no permission" would still be allowed though) In this case however, it's not really believable as they also claim to be Roll Call Records for File:RCblack-web.png. So "no permission" is fine here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: looking at their enwiki contributions, this is probably a contributor who gets paid by Roll Call Records. They may be able to provide permission, but I wouldn't hold my breath. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. You have become my go-to resource here. Bet you wish you never talked to me. Anyway, today's question is whether I am totally off base with this Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012TreefortBrunette.jpg. I think it is a child and it doesn't illustrate the music festival at all. (The reactions have been interesting). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Categorized hundreds of files using Hotcat? Bet you wish I told you about Cat-a-lot before. I doubt this is a child (hard to tell if she's over 18 or not) and it's not a compromising photo or anything, unlike The growing problem of obesity.jpg was. As part of a series that captures the atmosphere of the event, I would keep it. I see your argument though. Thing is, if you consistently remove photos like these from series, it also changes the perception. Like such photos are never taken. For this reason, I also disagree with mass deletion of selfies. (which sadly continues anyway) Selfies exist, they are in fact quite popular, but if you look at Commons you'd think it's mostly astronauts and celebrities who take them. Considering the DR backlog, I personally don't bother nominating anything for deletion that doesn't have really serious issues, like a photo that is completely out of focus or copyvio. But that's just my opinion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Taking selfie with referee.jpgEdit

 
File:Taking selfie with referee.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The work is protected
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Mhhossein talk 05:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: this wasn't made for Tasnim? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Taking selfie with referee.jpgEdit

 
File:Taking selfie with referee.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

— Racconish💬 06:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Same file as the Copyvionote above. Not my upload, and if this is copyvio it's far from obvious. It has a license review, even. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It has a license review, even...but the reviewer himself nominated it later. So what?--Mhhossein talk 10:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I always comment on my DRs. Usually they're for files I have overwritten. I don't want anyone to look at my talk page archives and think "oh noes, a serial copyiolator!" - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I see Alexis. That's great you care about such things, and no, I don't think your page would give others a negative impression. --Mhhossein talk 04:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Nightshooter caseEdit

Hi Alexis, there is neither need nor justification for personal insults or loosing civilty, even I one finds a behaviour of somebody egregious or a like. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I was going to edit it, but I see you already had. If I had said "Marco and Larry are not nice persons", would that also have been problematic? Because that's what it came down to. I also think all copyright trolls are bastards, but that's just my opinion, far from limited to Marco and Larry. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
"not nice" would likely not have triggered criticism/action. Nevertheless, it's still ad hominem. Why not just criticize, even harshly, their behaviour? --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: yes, that would have been better. "bastards" was more of a shortcut to do that. When someone does something shitty, colloquially one can say "what a bastard". That doesn't mean the person as a whole is a bastard, in fact they may be very nice in person. It only pertains to the shitty behavior in question. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
As Túrelio pointed it, it is advisable to limit yourself to criticizing other users contributions and not their person. Saying somebody is a bastard is not appropriate. — Racconish💬 14:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Alexis, you may find it helpful to read the well-known essay How to disagree. Here's his conclusion:

"But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way. If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it."

While the essay focuses on disagreeing rather than just expressing your opinion, the same rules apply. If one frequently operates at the bottom of the hierarchy, one comes across as mean, angry, ignorant and uncivil, which tends to put people off wanting to engage or cooperate, and just distracts from the topic at hand. In the referred discussion, I think everyone was united in viewing copyright trolling as an immoral way to behave. Your personal attacks distracted from people making their arguments about what to do about the images or the account, and put people off participating who might otherwise. -- Colin (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Converting images and copying description-pageEdit

Hi I think you processed several {{FakeSVG}}-extractions.

I have no problems to extract JPG/PNG from PDFs/SVGs automatically (if it only conatain one image).

But the work is to

  1. copy the old descriptionpage and add the FakePDF/FakeSVG-source
  2. wait till it is uploaded
  3. add at the original source that it is replaced
  4. replace all occurrences in wikiversum

Can you recommend me how to do it efficient?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: It's a complete pain in the butt. If the files are uploaded with the exact same filenames (but different extension), the description page can be copied. (upload the files with whatever description, it would be replaced anyway) This is a very ugly process that I'd rather do myself, because it's easy to screw up. Some similar tricks allow adding a superseded or similar note at the original source. Replacing all occurences can be done by CommonsDelinker.
When I say "ugly", it's only minimally less ugly than my book reader. That shouldn't even be able to exist. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I did the extraction with PDF Image Extraction Wizard
  1. I uploaded the extracted files from to: https://owncloud.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/s/iTpmWPnhNfXAuIm
  2. I uploaded the extracted files from to: https://owncloud.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/s/iTpmWPnhNfXAuIm
I will delete the files from owncloud, after it is done, due to copyright-reasons.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 06:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent deletion requests from PaunchStevensonEdit

About Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Greg,_Scott_Thomson,_and_Lanza_at_the_Chiller_Theatre_Expo_2017.jpg and the related spree - I guess it's OK that you edited out the various fans, but it really wasn't necessary. Thousands of our images of celebrities are celebrities posing with fans. The old revisions certainly shouldn't be removed from the image history by being placed in Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions; they're perfectly acceptable. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: okay, I guess the category wasn't necessary. Legally we could probably keep them, I agree. PaunchStevenson was targeting very specifically Greg and Lanza. In one DR he even said only the fan on the right (Lanza) didn't give permission while Greg was also in the picture. So I assume PaunchStevenson is either the photographer (Rob DiCaterino), Greg, Lanza or someone related. Considering those fans are generally out of our scope anyway and this plausible complaint having been made, I went ahead and removed them. But indeed, legally we probably wouldn't have to do anything.
And yes, I made sure to ping them 15 times.   - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

very usefulEdit

in Preferences - in Gadgets - further down the list MarkAdmins: Mark users with additional rights. I would say too few use that for their own safety... JarrahTree (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I enabled it. Obviously not enabled by default. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WarningEdit

Do not interfere with admin action at COM:ANU. Jcb (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The pot is calling the kettle black. @4nn1l2: what do you think? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think 4nn1l2 just did not see the previous few edits at COM:ANU. I don't think they agree with the first revert by Kai3952 or that they want to encourage such action. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think 4nn1l2 can speak for themselves. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I think such things are not worth our time! Secondly, I think the inclusion of the Kai3952's message would help with demonstrating their problematic/trollish behaviour in the future, just as Commons:Requests_for_rights/Denied/Autopatrolled/2018#Kai3952 helped us today to close the thread soon, and stop them from wasting our time. Thirdly, I think User:Kai3952 should be warned to stop such behaviour (thanks to Jcb for doing that), but they should not be reverted because that is exactly what they want: drawing our attention. We should not feed them; we should ignore them. Finally, I think the status quo is good enough to be left unchanged. It's time we forgot this incident. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: While Kai3952 is very much forgettable, I think it's a bit of an issue that Jcb makes incorrect assumptions about your motives, acts on that, reverts me when I correct this and warns me for correcting him. But what else is new, Rodrigo.Argenton was blocked for a week when he tried to correct Jcb. So we might as well forget I guess, this is just normal.. Which is really damn sad. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not important if Jcb makes assumptions about my edits as long as those assumptions are not made in bad faith. I think Jcb made a good-faith effort to stop the non-contructive behaviour of Kai3952.
Regarding the warning they gave you, I'm less sympathetic. I still believe both of you should avoid each other. I support the nullification of the warning.
Regarding the block of User:Rodrigo.Argenton, I am not going to intervene. Our previous discussion did not go well, so I am actually not interested in the topic. Furthermore, I am busy now. Sorry. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I agree the assumption and even acting upon that are in itself not a problem. It was the whole string of events. If his assumption had been correct, there would be more of a justification for the warning here. I generally don't follow Jcb, but if I see him doing something that I believe isn't right, I can't just let it slide "because he's Jcb". Too many people here do that already. If something like this were to happen again, I'll notify the user who got reverted (in this case that would be you) on their talk page so they can re-revert Jcb themselves if they wish. Can I consider this warning nullified, or should I do something to make that happen?
Regarding Rodrigo.Argenton, I know he's not a saint and nobody has to intervene if they don't want to. But if a bank robber manages to escape but gets jailed later because they got wrongly convicted of assault, I don't believe that's justice served. Karma perhaps, but not justice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Role of adminsEdit

I start a subheadline since it is related, but seperated
@Jcb: according to Commons:Administrators#Community_role:

"Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Some admins may become more influential, not due to their position as such but from the personal trust they may have gained from the community."

I would argue/assume that in many cases even on COM:ANU it is more question of trust/experience than on the status of (not) beeing an admin.
On COM:ANU, I would guess that User:Alexis Jazz is more expreienced than I am, therefore I would generally value his opinion (in some fields) more than mine.
Would you see Alexis' Edit on ANU differnetly if he would be an admin?
I am just curious. (PS. This Question is independent on the content of the discussion on COM:ANU.)
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have accepted such en edit from an admin either, but to be honest, I don't think any of our current admins would do such a thing. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. Neither of you should have edit warred over the content.
  2. Admins are holders of special buttons, not special opinions.
  3. As Amir rightly says, the best thing here is for everyone to quietly move on. Nothing involved here is consequential enough to be worth spending our time doing this rather than pretty much anything else, including being quietly off-wiki enjoying our family and friends. GMGtalk 22:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This example showed me that I don't know how to interpret the guidelines, because the guidelines felt partly contradicting to my experience, that's the reason of my questions. (I think I should have known them before getting an admin, therfore I'm trying to catch up. Or in a more positive way: Even admins schould still be interested in learning and expanding their knowledge.)
@GreenMeansGo:
I did not know (or forgot) that >>Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep<<.
Does it mean everybody (who has "enought" experience) is allowed (even as IP?) to decide on COM:ANU requests such as: Special:Diff/357219812, because if I check Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_78 I only see Admins archiving it. I assume everything is ok, aslong nobody doubts the decision.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: DRs may be closed by anyone, but ANU threads may not. Davey2010 closed a few in 2018, this led to some discussion and the result was that non-admins generally shouldn't close threads on noticeboards for admins. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Part of the intervening factor there is that most threads don't need closed at all. That's kindof a hold-over from en.wiki, where the culture is a bit different, but where there is still a backlash over the past year and half (or so) against the need to formally close everything everywhere.
As is the right answer in most projects, apply common sense liberally, then apply two coats, and let things lay where they are. If anyone takes issue with it because of special rules, then bop them on the head and turn them round. GMGtalk 00:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I come from the de.wikipedia, I think they might even have more rules, or apply them more strict, than on en.wikipeida. I think they are the only one who have a tool that checks if you are allowed to vote (at a specific minute). But as said by User:GreenMeansGo, I think it is best to just have guidelines and apply common sense, also it sometimes can lead that Users have to agree each time on an individual compromise.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 05:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 05:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

XoawEdit

Hi. Given this edit, please share with me info about the person who made it. Email is fine.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm afraid you'll run straight to the noticeboards to request an indefblock. This user was indefblocked, but the blocks don't stop them. Playing whack-a-mole with this user does not benefit Commons. Be very careful and double-check when giving license reviews to their uploads. Check if YouTube channels they take screenshots from are legit. Assume they produce no own work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Without evidence, your claim appears to have been a personal attack.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: if I give the evidence, they'll be blocked and it's just another mole whacked. If there's a way for me to provide the evidence without that happening, I could do that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be best if the evidence could be used to justify a RFCU that includes sleepers, potentially resulting in IP blocks. Also, any evidence I reviewed one of their licenses in error would help me.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sol-lol has been through CU multiple times. It just doesn't matter, they always come back. I see you went ahead and as a result, Xoaw is now indefblocked. Now Sol-lol will register a new account, the name of which we don't know yet and we will be wasting time explaining everything to Sol-lol all over again as they pretend not to know and not check their uploads as well as we should because we don't know yet it's Sol-lol. Sol-lol is playing games, and we just lost. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Half an eye ...Edit

Hi Alexis ... I've been keeping half an eye on your campaign (if I may call it such) to ease restrictions on de-admin Sysops. Is that an accurate description? I speak to you from a project where I'd be almost impossible to remove by current users. (As far as I know, no one has had any reasons to attempt it, but they'd probably fail without other admins support the likes of which would be unprecedented.) I have had users on my home-wiki dislike me, even counting days where I could have been de-admin for inactivity. But I tell you what, I don't think any project needs fewer Admins. We probably need more Admins. It can help the backlogs (which I have begun to learn are astonishingly long) and other problems. Sure, it may mean a few bad apples get sysop rights for a while, but I doubt it. It'd still take a long time to build trust here. Increasing the number of sysops has the potential of increasing drama, but I think there is more of it going around for this reason than would be for any other reason. Thoughts? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: You're stepping into a huge pool of quicksand.. You won't have a few bad apples for "a while". You'll have them for years. And they will demotivate other community members. To the point where those community members may no longer wish to apply for adminship, or resign as admin. There are better solutions to deal with backlogs, like General Maintainers. While users seem to generally reasonably favor the idea, admins (who aren't even affected! they can't apply unless they resign first!) are against it. My guess, deep down they feel threatened by the idea. Or they are really out of touch with the needs and desires of non-admins. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I know I have spent far too little time here, which is why I wouldn't dare propose anything on an official page. However, you seem resigned to history repeating itself. I did look at your GM proposal and I don't know how easy it would be to implement such a system with a monthly limit for actions. (I am thinking along the lines of what King of Hearts said). Unlike Wikinews, Commons has not become less active and possibly the opposite (are there upload stats easily available?). The number of Commons:Administrators/Archive/Successful_requests_for_adminship#2019 clearly is going down each year even as the project expands and copyright law enforcement gets more stringent. I realize these numbers don't have to match, but with my experience with editors and admins going inactive, there is a problem here. I'd like to compare to Wikipedia, but with the WP:FRAM related resignations it throws off the stats. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: a monthly limit wouldn't be the solution per se either. Any technical limitation wouldn't make much sense. It would be difficult to implement and just hamper people. However, it would be healthy to apply it to all admins. (and GMs if they came to be) Currently there is a small number of admins who tend to do the majority of the work. This both causes them to be overworked and attract too much power because they make themselves "unmissable". But simply limiting the number of actions they perform wouldn't be accepted right now, exactly because of the backlogs. http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/adminstats/?project=commons.wikimedia.org shows current admin activity:
  1. Jcb: 9309 actions (18.5%)
  2. Túrelio: 6379 actions (12.7%)
  3. JuTa: 5387 (10.7%)
  4. Steinsplitter: 2499 (5.0%)
  5. Yann: 2147 (4.3%)
  6. Gbawden: 1995 (4.0%)
  7. P199:1809 (3.6%)
  8. Achim55: 1582 (3.1%)
  9. Racconish: 1484 (3.0%)
  10. Taivo: 1467 (2.9%)
  11. Ellin Beltz: 1036 (2.0%)
50282 actions total over the last 31 days.
  1. The top 3 admins together performed 21075 actions (41.9%)
  2. The top 5 performed 25721 actions (51.2%)
  3. The top 10 performed 34058 actions. (67.7%)
  4. The top 15 performed 38614 actions. (76.8%)
  5. The top 20 performed 41551 actions. (82.6%)
  6. The top 30 performed 45091 actions. (89.7%)
  7. The top 40 performed 46948 actions. (93.4%)
  8. The top 50 performed 48069 actions. (95.6%)
Clearly, 3 admins are doing a disproportional amount of the work. Two of them aren't involved in conflicts overly much. We don't have many viable applications for adminship. Admins aren't removed much either, other than by inactivity. So the admin pool tends to be a bit static, or at least, has a solid core that doesn't change. It's just bad news overall: if Jcb, Túrelio and JuTa would retire, resign or otherwise stop administrating within a short period (you lost more than 3 admins on enwiki, didn't you?), we'd lose 41.9% capacity. Granted some admins/users would pick up the mop at that point, though depending on what sort of event triggers it, more admins may resign.
The fact that a project as big and influential as Commons basically hinges on hardly a classroom full of people is scary as shit. It weakens the project. How interesting would it be for someone to try and bribe a top 10 admin? A stock photo company could bribe an admin to find reasons to delete content that could be used as a stock photo. A political party could try and bribe one to be strict when deleting a certain kind of content but turn a blind eye for other material. How could we know it's not already happening? It's undetectable. You know what else is scary as shit? It sometimes feels like I am one of the few who even sees this, and the most active one to try and change it. And I'm getting nowhere. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Statistics, more scary. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Alexis for the help regarding the copyrighted images that i ownEdit

You really helped with your information, your reply was the only one that explained how to do a thing that was useful. 🔥 Appreciate you! Musiccollective97 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
For linking me to Tom Riddle on Commons:Village pump/Copyright in this edit. Keep it up! Voldemort (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Voldemort: I suppose I'm not the first to do that? Sorry if it bugged you. I thought it was appropriate (with the smiley of course), considering OTRS permission is very much about trust. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
yay popcorn - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Algemene onderhoudersEdit

Rare vraag maar waarom kan een propositie waar de meerderheid van de "stemmen" (argumenten) voor zijn gesloten (voor kleine schermen) worden als "afgewezen"? Moet er een minimale percentage van argumenten voor het voorstel zijn voordat het wordt aangenomen (zoals met administrators)? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Er zijn geen regels voor. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Dus de sluitende administrator heeft "een superstem"? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Als je het zo stelt.. Ja, eigenlijk wel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Alexis Jazz".