Commons:Village pump/Proposals

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/P • COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/09.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

• One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
• Have you read the FAQ?
  
  

 

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 5 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

A new desk or task force for contacting rightsholders asking them to release under WMC licenses?

What does this community think about a “help desk” or volunteer team (I imagine something like Wikipedia’s Resource Exchange) dedicated to taking requests to contact the owners of specific media works to ask them to release the work under a WMC license, and facilitating that release?

So, someone posts a video of a never-before-filmed beetle molting on Instagram. Someone on Commons makes a post at the help desk referring to that video, with a link. A volunteer reaches out to the videographer, explaining that the video is of great encyclopedic value, and encouraging the release of the video under an open license. If the owner is willing, the volunteer can help them release it, either through the VRT process or by making a declaration on the original platform of posting (as simple as commenting under one’s own social media post).

There’s so much valuable media shared online, and every time I have reached out to a poster to ask if they’d be willing to release, they have responded with great enthusiasm and done so. I think that a desk to streamline this and process requests from volunteers could lead to a lot of amazing encyclopedic material getting added to Commons. Eager to hear the community’s thoughts. Zanahary (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: Are you volunteering to fill that role?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I would love to do that! I have reached out a few times to people for their photos and videos—both scientists and ordinary online posters—to facilitate their release via VRT and publicly-declared CC licenses, and I’d be very happy to be a part of a more systematized effort to help free media online. Zanahary (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

See also outreach:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Although I feel like it should be more of something like an informal Wikiproject/group then something like the Volunteer Response Team. But having a central place for people to chat about and coordinate contacting rightsholders to see if they will freely license their works is a pretty good idea. I think there's something similar for lobbying governments to create better FOP laws. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support Commons:WikiProject Permission requests already exists, though it has been a bit moribund. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support And we should also establish best practices and scripts (not JavaScript scripts but pre-written words to copy and paste) for this purpose. I've gotten some great work off of Reddit (which I no longer use) and Flickr by asking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support This is really needed. Often, only the awareness of free license is missing, and raising awareness can lead to new opportunities --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad people like this idea. I've initiated a draft for the desk, based on the defunct WikiProject Permission requests here. I encourage others to edit and workshop it, directly and via this discussion. @Adamant1 @Jmabel @Koavf @PantheraLeo1359531 User:Chaotic Enby, I know you're a wizard—if this idea interests you at all, please take a crack! Zanahary (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support, love the idea! And another wizard I can help with, sounds fun! Chaotic Enby (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hooray! I really know nothing about coding and wizardry, so please (a message to you and everyone): run wild. My dream is that this is linked in the community portal. Zanahary (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Just completed it at User:Chaotic Enby/Request desk.js – to test it, you can install my script and the wizard should then display on your page.

Ideally, it should be made into a MediaWiki namespace script so it can be called through the URL (and not require installing). This way, we can add a default button to User:Zanahary/Request desk that reloads the page while activating the JS through a URL parameter. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: if this affects what we say at Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload), where we reference Commons:WikiProject Permission requests, could you please edit accordingly? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Since the new request desk is still in userspace, it doesn't make sense to add a link to it right now, but I'll do it once the discussion is closed and all is "officially" moved into place! Thanks for the reminder. Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support - though i think it should mostly be a wiki-project type of -thing. Lx 121 (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

& comment - if we are doing this, we should give some thought on how to prioritise both sources to ask, & materials to seek permission for. :) Lx 121 (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Another thought: it would be good if, in cases of publicly declared free licensing, requested materials could be uploaded either normally (with a link to the post or comment by the author indicating release) or via the VRT process, so that the uploaded could verify for the VRT without doxxing their social media account (by publicly sharing a link to a post under which they have commented inquiring about releasing under a CC license). Zanahary (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't we already have this? A desk for contacting rightsholders and email template resources? What would be different? I know the former is pretty dead, but that leads to the question: why would this succeed where that failed? IMO the most valuable thing we could do is to create a centralized, named "team" that's vetted and can introduce themselves as "Hi, I'm from the Wikimedia License Requests Team" rather than "Hey, I'm a random person from Wikipedia". That would require some thought as to who we would want on that front line, and I wonder about our ability to maintain an active volunteer base of people willing to take responsibility for not jsut requests but follow-up questions and the upload process. Really, most requests can be as simple as a boilerplate message to send the rights holder and a boilerplate release for them to submit to VRT, in which case I'd say efforts are best spent revamping instructions for volunteers. It's just in those rare cases where you have to make a good sales pitch to overcome objections or answer technical licensing questions that you need some advanced knowledge/skills. I could see a noticeboard being useful to get help with those questions, but don't know why a VP wouldn't work well enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a reboot of WikiProject Permission Requests that is more heavily featured (qua desk rather than WikiProject) rather than tucked away, would have a much easier time building momentum. I really like your idea of creating a centralized team. Zanahary (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support: The more avenues that may lead to more high-quality media, the better. Might even bring a few more good people to the project. Don't see any harm in trying. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support --JackFromWisconsin (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support but as Rhododendrites pointed out, seems like we already have Commons:WikiProject Permission requests. Some1 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong oppose If one wants a file to be on Commons, they are free to obtain permission themselves. No additional team is needed for that, and no need exists for a new repository of ideas that never will be worked on. If I'm mistaken, will the list of supporters be the list of volunteers for the new team? How much capacity do they have, and why isn't that better spent on existing backlogs? --Krd 16:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I think one problem is that some institutions may not know about Commons or the advantages of free licenses (or that they even exist), and some may not know how to work on Commons (too complicated etc., had already similar cases). Many of us here are experts in the topics "Commons" and "IT", but many in general are not. I think we have to remember this --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure. The other side of the medal is that we need to protect the qualified users from being saturated by routinne tasks offloaded to them by those not unable but unwillig to do it themselves. Krd 05:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support -- Ooligan (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support but doubt it would work out well and with a certain condition: users can already reach out to ask rightsholders to give them explicit permission to upload the media or to upload the media by themselves or to change the license so that they can upload the media – so this is somewhat redundant or not nearly as impactful as you may possibly assume and also the existence and recommendation of this task force may make it appear as if users shouldn't directly ask rightsholders themselves. So the limitation of my support for this is that it's clearly communicated wherever the project is linked and/or at the top of the taskforce page that users can just do all that themselves (which often would be more efficient and effective because for example the taskforce may often not see the value the given files would add right away or have no interest/relation to the specific topic). It could be impactful nevertheless because few users actually do that or look for and collect media that may be valuable to have on Commons to contact rightsholders en-masse/systematically/often. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Implementation

Right, time to worry about how to do this now. Proposing the following:

1. Archive all old requests at Commons:WikiProject Permission requests and move it to Commons:Permission requests for more visibility (also consistent with File requests)
2. Mention it at the Main Page after everything else is done as the following: change "To fulfill the free license requirements, please read our Reuse guide. You can also request a file." to "To fulfill the free license requirements, please read our Reuse guide. You can also request a file or request permission for a file already on the internet. Also advertise at VP, the usual.
3. Put some advice to volunteers at Commons:Permission requests e.g. don't forward emails yourself, ask them to forward to VRT. This should be done with consultance with VRT agents on Commons so the two systems can work together.
4. Make some requirements to join. The most obvious is license reviwers get it free and other people can go through the manual application processs.

Thoughts? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary, Jeff G., Adamant1, Koavf, PantheraLeo1359531, Jmabel, Chaotic Enby, Lx 121, Rhododendrites, Cl3phact0, JackFromWisconsin, Some1, and Krd —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's no issues with implementing it based on your bullet points as far as I'm concerned. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. The old project was moribund enough that there is nothing to lose. Do look for links to that and update them, though. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks neat. I edited User:Chaotic Enby/Request desk.js to target the new title, it would be great if an IA could move it to the MediaWiki namespace so it can be activated by URL. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Where do we make a request for that? Zanahary (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thumbs up emoji. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the ping. Some1 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. JackFromWisconsin (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds fantastic. Zanahary (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and archived the old requests and started something at COM:Permission requests. Zanahary (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This is ready for the main page! Zanahary (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Mass message

How should we publicise the desk so we have volunteers? Should I setup a mass-message to notify existing license reviewers, or is this too much? @Zanahary, Jeff G., Adamant1, Koavf, PantheraLeo1359531, Jmabel, Chaotic Enby, Lx 121, Rhododendrites, Cl3phact0, JackFromWisconsin, Some1, and Krd —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think a mass message or the site banner are perfectly appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Both of those are good ideas. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think mass-message is okay. Awareness for this topic is important :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Mass message has my support. JackFromWisconsin (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Mass, yes. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else that a mass message would work! Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Related idea/suggestion

I support this initiative in principle, and am optimistic that it might lead to positive outcomes. However, one barrier for some users may be breaking the implicit "fourth well" of anonymity by using one's private (or professional) email address to communicate (essentially "on behalf of" Wikimedia Commons) with rights holders, etc. There are many people or organisations that one might wish to contact, but not necessarily be inclined to do so – at risk of opening what could conceivably be a Pandora's box of unknown unknowns. With this in mind, I'm wondering if there might be a way for editors who wish help with this initiative to do so without necessarily using their own email address? One idea would be to create a tool that allows this communication to take place via the Commons platform itself (i.e., similarly to what happens here on this Talk page). Essentially, a "Send message" tool that would serve as the point of contact, and then, ideally, collate the email exchange as a quasi-Talk page thread. If there are unsurmountable technical complexities to that, it could be as simple as a pre-approved message from "xyz@wikimedia.commons" that invites people to visit a specific Commons Talk page to open a discussion. In addition to preserving anonymity, this method would also make the communication open and visible to other editors. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think the process via this new desk needs to be more open than the normal VRT clearance process, which takes place through normal email addresses. But @wikimedia email addresses would be awesome! Zanahary (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about collating the email exchange as a talk page thread – from the point of view of the rights holder receiving the email, there is no expectation of the communication being publicly visible on Commons, and that could be seen as a breach of privacy. I do also like the idea of having @wikimedia email addresses for volunteers, if that is technically possible, although I don't think that wikimedia.commons would work since .commons isn't a TLD. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The core idea is simply to give project participants the means to contact rights holders on behalf of the project (rather than using their IRL identity). If this is something that is desirable, then the question is how could it be accomplished from a technical standpoint. The "xyz@..." example was only meant to illustrate a concept, not as an actual TLD. (As such, .commons was a poor choice of syntax to express this concept.) Sorry to introduce unnecessary confusion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we would have to at least ask legal if we were allowed to do that - they don't like it when people conflate VRT for the actual WMF, for example (which is why VRT can't ask people directly). —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Using the domain names for mails is only possible for chapters. Just get the mail addresses from a chapter. GPSLeo (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

If VRT can't ask people directly, how does that differ from what this new initiative proposes doing? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer policy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus that patrollers and license reviewers meet the criteria to request the Temporary account IP viewer right and that the right can be applied for at COM:RFR and would have similar criteria to the patroller right. Abzeronow (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Starting the week of September 22 temporary accounts will be enabled on Commons (phab:T340001). Access to the IP behind temporary accounts will then be limited to admins and users in the new "temporary account IP viewer" user group. Because of this we need a policy about what is required to get this right. The WMF has the following global minimum requirements: Six months old account and 300 local edits. The right is automatically revoked after one year of inactivity.

I would suggest the following local policy: Every license reviewer or patroller can request the right on COM:RFR. New license reviewers and patrollers should add to their request if they also need the temporary account IP viewer right.

License reviewers and patrollers are trustworthy and always clearly beyond the global minimum requirements. Users without patrol right mostly do not need to view the IP behind temporary accounts. If they need to and they are trustworthy for temporary account IP viewer right they can also get the patrol right at the same time. GPSLeo (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support Needing a six month old account and 300 local edits seems like a pretty low bar on their own. Having people request the right seems a lot more reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Yann (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support assuming the default request templates are modified to reflect this. (and I'm assuming admins get it by default?) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

It is part of admin rights by default. GPSLeo (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support, looks sensible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

What would a license reviewer use IP addresses for in general? Or is the proposal more like they are deemed to have basic trust and the only thing they need to show is a clear use case for them individually, in order to obtain the rights (meaning the granting is not automatic)? whym (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is because they are trustworthy. License reviewers have the same technical rights as patrollers and therefore do not need to request patroller rights. Granting redundant patroller rights to them only to get temporary account IP viewer rights would not make sense. GPSLeo (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It's still a bit unclear to me. When a license reviewer requests, should a bureaucrat give the tool no question asked according to this proposal? Or should they ask what they will use the tool for (assuming that is not made explicit in the said request) and see if the answer is satisfactory? In my understanding, deciding to grant any advanced tool is based on trust and needs. whym (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Am I the only who not seeing a reason anyone below administrator would need this?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   13:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There are almost certainly legitimate use cases for non-admins that are involved in vandalism fighting. Mind you, I'm not really convinced that temporary accounts are anything more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; if you want to keep your IP private, make an account. I'm not sure how temporary accounts solve any problem that IP users cause other than protecting their privacy, and there's been a solution to that since day one. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@999real and @The Squirrel Conspiracy: The WMF seems to feel that the temporary addresses fill a need, and I, for one, would like to be able to see through them for vandalism fighting. Stewards are already blocking them, for instance the LTA at ~2025-41548-6.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't like this approach at all. Although I can understand it, it only makes things more difficult Bedivere (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

What's the status of VRT volunteers? Can they already automatically see the IP addresses? If not, do they count into the groups that can request rights? – b_jonas 04:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Why would VRT volunteers need to see IP addresses? (Genuine question - I can't think of a reason, but it's been a long time since I was active with VRT). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The German WP support team often deals with block review requests (forwarding them to the local admin noticeboard), I imagine that there could be use cases for the right to see IP addresses in that context, also for Commons. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

VRT members on the Commons related queues should have patrol or license review rights anyways. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I think we should avoid additional user groups as far as possible. I'd suggest to remove the new user group and incorporate the new right directly into the suggested groups, i.e. sysop, patroller and license reviewer. If one needs to request the right, they can become patroller. --Krd 05:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The WMF does not allow merging with patroller rights. GPSLeo (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. :-( Krd 13:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Weak oppose i believe we should have strict rules about this. IP is one of the personal information. as such, people shouldnt get this right easy. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support Everyone has always been able to see IP addresses, and trusted patrollers and license reviewers are deemed trusted for a reason, so giving them access to temporary account IPs is entirely reasonable. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Is there any reason not to give it to these two groups automatically? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There are many users in these groups who are not active anymore as there are no inactivity rules for these groups. GPSLeo (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

We need to make a decision about this soon to have time to implement the process and grant the right to those who need it. GPSLeo (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Ooligan (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support the proposal by GPSLeo. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 02:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Question: What if someone well experienced wants to have this tool without being a patroller nor a license reviewer, according to this proposal? Will they be told that they simply can't, and be a patroller or a license reviewer first? What if they could become a license reviewer, but not interested? Being able to view IP addresses doesn't seem highly related to doing license reviews. --whym (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

They should just request patroller and IP viewer rights at the same time. GPSLeo (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

If so, should it be possible to resign as patroller in that case (without losing the IP tool), arguing because they don't plan to patrol at all? Or should this bundling proposal mean that it's not possible and they would need to resign both? whym (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I can not imagine any anti vandalism work where patrol rights are not needed. They are technically not needed but not marking cleaned pages as patrolled is bad as it does not remove them from the backlog lists resulting in double work. Viewing the IP behind temporary account for personal research or just for fun is not allowed. GPSLeo (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

How about license reviewer? I believe they primarily sign up for doing file reviews, not anti-vandalism work. For example, should being active in license review be a justification to keep IP viewing rights? (I assume your answer would be no, based on your last comment above. Mine would be, too.) This proposal would be much easier for me to support, if the LR part is dropped, or if it just says the trust level required is about the same for patroller/LR/TAIP, and nothing more (with the implication that patrollers and license reviewers would pass the trust part, and that someone's needs for each tool would be individually assessed, as usual, separately from assessing trust). whym (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

License reviewers are basically the same as patrollers only with one additional non technical right. We require more trust in them as for patrollers. So every license reviewer who needs the temp IP viewer right should be able request it without requesting redundant paroller right. GPSLeo (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support it would be better if we merge this with the license reviewer right. I would've also agreed on patrol, but it would be of no avail as GPSLeo said above that WMF won't allow merger with patrol rights. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Shaan Sengupta: You meant this? -> "The WMF does not allow merging with patroller rights. GPSLeo (IA/A) (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)" I understood it meaning that the WMF mandates that "patrol" and "temporary account IP viewer" must remain separate user groups. But it doesn't disallow that we, the Commons community, decide that patrollers can get "temporary account IP viewer" in a straightforward way. Merging is IMHO to be understood as addition of the right to an extant user group, not as having a personal union of two rights on the same user. In fact, patrollers are much more likely to dabble in temp account affairs than license reviewers, as patrol is basically an anti-vandalism tool. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Grand-Duc (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Grand-Duc yup, I meant that comment only. As much as I can understand, the WMF doesn't allow merging temporary account IP viewer with patrol. In no way I am against granting that right to the patrollers. All I meant was we can merge it with LR, just like LR has patrol, it can have temporary account IP viewer too. That would make every LR have it and as far as existing patrollers are considered, they can request it to be added to their rights (or maybe if it can be granted straightaway, I'm all in) and users making new requests can mention if they want this one too or maybe we make a policy to grant the two together. I am not against either of the choices. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Per the Temporary Accounts FAQ, WMF doesn’t allow merging the right with any existing group (excluding admins, bureaucrats etc.), so it’s not just with patrollers. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for telling this to me. So there we go. Its just support. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

 Info, per phab:T340001, the deployment date for Commons has postponed to the week of October 6. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal concretization

Every holder of the user right(s) license review and/or patrol who has been active in the last 90 days before the key date of 2025-09-15 will be granted the right to view the IP behind temporary accounts. For anybody else, it can be requested when needed, that includes new members of the aforementioned user groups. It won't be granted automatically.

 

I tried to include and to address any ideas and concerns from above.

• There's an evident majority for using LR and patrol as marker of trusted users.
• The concern about inactive patrollers and reviewers shall be addressed with the activity requirement and the key date (one week before the actual activation).

Is this deemed acceptable? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment What's the actual meaning of active? Do, I need to review the edits and mark as patrolled/license review the file and mark this file version as patrolled. Or adding a category in a file/working with structured data also counted as active. Thanks for your consideration. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The classical activity marker is editing. So, anything that shows up in Special:Contributions is fine (patrolling of course too). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I would not grant the right automatically. We could send a mass message (because of simplicity to everyone in these groups independent of activity) and setup a page where they can confirm that they want the right. GPSLeo (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

+1. That sounds like the correct way to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

yeah, and we should start doing it now, so that when the accounts roll out, jeff G. and myself aren't on the back foot at com:FILTERT All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this- I don't wanna be accused again of stuff for a right that I don't even want and that I didn't even know existed- and I know there are some who feel the same way about being able to see the ips of any account, even if it's just of temporary ones. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Alternative concretization

The deadline for deciding this is getting very close, so I apologize for formalizing a different proposal, but I think GPSLeo (who did not formalize his proposal) has this right. Alternative proposal for how this should be granted to non-admins:

• As above, limited to people who have been granted patroller or license reviewer. In the future, they can request IP viewer concurrently with either of these.
• For now, does require a separate request for the right. The right is granted separately from patroller or license reviewer and is not automatically granted to all who request it.
• Review the situation at the end of the calendar year. If, in fact, we never find the right being denied to anyone who asks for it, we might want to choose to make it automatic. Similarly, if we never find the right being denied to license reviewers, but do find it denied to some patrollers, make it automatic for license reviewers.

Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"validity" in the disclaimer

I proposed at Commons talk:General disclaimer to replace "validity" with "accuracy" in the disclaimer. Please discuss there. whym (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

But like, why? Dronebogus (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you asking why I proposed? I said the reason in the linked talk page. If you are not convinced of it, I suggest discussing there, in order not to split the discussion into two places. whym (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Interaction bans

There is an ongoing discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems about a proposed interaction ban, which we will not repeat here. There was a side detail mentioned in it: that there would be no Commons' policy being enforced, and that it would be simply the en-wiki policy being used as if it applied here as well. And it seems that this was not the first IBAN in Commons.

I wrote a page, Commons:Interaction ban, to avoid confusions and have a local policy on the issue. It says basically the same things as en:Wikipedia:Banning policy, except for the stuff related to other bans and the Arbitration Comitee (which I don't think are a thing around here), and specific links to policies or discussion venues. Please check if the page triming is correct, or if there's something that should be clarified or changed from that project. Also, what about uploads from someone with an interaction ban? Should be it allowed to tag for speedy deletion or deletion discussion, or an IBAN should prevent that? And of course, we should discuss if we should have a local policy to begin with, or if using the en.wiki one by default is fine as it is. Cambalachero (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Tagging something for deletion should not be a violation of an Iban. Reverting a user’s edits in good faith should not be considered a serious violation of an Iban, but should ideally be avoided. Editing the same page/file as another user, even if they made that page or uploaded that file, should not be a violation of an interaction ban (this hasn’t come up recently but some people on Wikipedia treat this as a violation of de facto interaction bans and similar, which to me is a serious overreach of policy stemming from an entrenched ownership culture that should be explicitly discouraged on Commons). Dronebogus (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Tagging something for deletion should infact be considered an iban- that's how it all started in the first point. Good faith is too subjective. Editing the same file is not a violation as long as one doesn't revert the other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it’s how it started doesn’t mean we have to keep applying it that way. Adamant1 makes a good case for why including deletion as an Iban violation is a bad idea. Interaction bans are meant to stop people from “interacting” in the sense of talking to each other, not in the sense of simply knowing each other exist and occasionally bump into one another while going about their business. Dronebogus (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If you nominate someone's file for deletion, you are in fact gonna interact- like that would actually be a disusssion. It's also kinda irrelavant- he is leaving per his latest edit. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm constantly telling people that they aren't obligated to participate in a DR just because I nominated their file for deletion. So it doesn't necessarily have to lead to interaction. There's no reason the person who's file is nominated for deletion can't just stay out of it or at least make a single comment that has nothing to with the nominator and leave it at that. Know one is forced to vote in a DR for their own files though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it's unlikely people won't want to argue against a deletion of something they put effort in.

A single comment would still be an interaction- it would be hard to declare what is and isn't a "small comment" for the purposes of intetaction. And also, the kind of people who fall into ibans aren't the kind of people who do not argue. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Make an exception for them to write one message that doesn't have anything to do with the nominator or it violates the iban then. Problem solved. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, that would solve the replying person's side- but that would still leave open the scenaio where the nominator nominates a very large number of the other person's files- like one person might try to overwhelm and provoke the other by nominating lots of files. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but stuff like that is already an issue regardless of if the users are banned from interacting with each other or not. Like if Rod was to vandalize Dronebogus' user page or something, there's already a reason to sanction him for it regardless of the iban. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I was talking more of an edge case? Like both users have uploaded tons of files- so there must be a lot of files with dubious copyright- and usually nominators hold back from nominating someone over and over again in a short span of time, especially because most DRs are mostly found through categories and therefore are more user randomied. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what is the point of an interaction ban if we are going to begin making exceptions for such "good faith" but perfectly avoidable situations you mention? An interaction ban means no interaction, and that's it. Bedivere (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm totally with Bedivere here. If you are banned from interacting with someone, stay the hell away from their stuff. I can imagine allowing that someone might accidentally edit some category or policy page that 20 people have touched and it turns out the other one has also been there, but a picture they uploaded? Trust that if it is important, someone else will get there eventually.

The closest I can imagine to an exception is if you are (for example) mass-nominating the entire contents of a category for deletion as images of a copyrighted work, and you might incidentally sweep up an image or two of theirs, well, mistakes happen. No one can be expected to click through to see the history of each of 50+ images that all obviously have the same problem. But if you know it's an area in which they work heavily? Probably stay the hell away from that entire area. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of “turf war” attitude popular on Enwiki I don’t want exported over here. People don’t own pages, let alone entire topic areas, and people frequently butt heads because they edit in the same area. Who has to “stay the hell away from” who in those cases? Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Same area doesn't count. Both need to "stay the hell away from" each other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

let alone entire topic areas staying out of the area entirely might not be necessary, but it might be wise to take a more cautious approach, like, actually checking the history of all 50 images that you want to nominate (unless it qualifies for urgent matters like speedy deletion). Nakonana (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I've accidently nominated images for deletion that I didn't mean to before because they all looked the same. So I thought I had checked the previous ones I actually hadn't. Dronebogus actually got me blocked for supposedly intentionally nominating in use files for deletion when that was what happened. So it's something I don't think it's something there should be any consequences for. Otherwise there's to much room for people to just concern troll about even though the user might have actually checked the images and just made an honest mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I do think that there should be some leeway here. But the ultimate goal would still be to stay as far away from one another as possible, even if that means to take some extra effort into making that work as good as possible. But yeah, mistakes can easily happen with tools like VFC.

I'd also say that adding / removing categories in good faith on a file/category that the other party created should be fine.

I'd say it's mostly deletion requests, reverts, and direct interactions in discussions that make things escalate, so the IBAN should focus on those. Nakonana (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. That sounds reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support the adoption of Wikipedia policy. Suggestions above don't make any sense and the interaction ban would lose all its meaning. If this policy has to exist to enforce something here, then it should be serious. Yacàwotçã (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

   Adding that if there's any problem with the other user's edits, this can easily be handled by another, uninvolved user. Commons is big enough for that. Yacàwotçã (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't like Dronebogus either. But seriously, why aren't you globally banned for socking and harassment at this point? It literally boggles my mind how much some users can get away with on here compared to others. What an absolute dumpster fire. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't edit my comments. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1 you forget comparing themself to a Jew during the holocaust, because admins dared to suggest a 2-way iban. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely NOTHING to do with the Holocaust. Don't try to distort my comment with such a reprehensible pov pushing ever again. I have nonetheless clarified what I meant. Best regards Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course, jews wearing yellow stars and being treated as second class citizens has nothing to do with the holocaust. And yes, you clarified- but that does not mean making that analogy was not a reprehensible thing. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Recently there was a proposal (or at least a discussion) to do an IBAN between me and Yann. One of the reason's I didn't (and still don't) support it is because it's not super intuitive to see who's done what where or to account for that when making edits like it is on Wikipedia. I of course wouldn't want to see Yann blocked just because he did a routine, non-controversial deletion of a file I happened to edit. Perhaps there would be leeway for edits like that. I really don't know. but I don't think so given how much concern trolling goes on with this project.

Anyway, I'd say the same for tagging something for deletion per Dronebogus. I'm not a fan of him personally and I could really care less if he's purged from the project but then at the same time, people can't be expected to check every last file they nominate for deletion to see who's edited it before doing so. There isn't even a reasonable way to do it with the VisualFileChange tool. So those things would have to be worked out before any kind of policy for IBANs is imposed. I don't really see how they can be though. Really, you might as well just indef someone instead of doing an interaction ban since they would only be able to superficial edits to their own files at that point. It would certainly make an administrators job unworkable if they had an interaction ban with any even remotely active user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

• Support: It's nice to see a discrete Commons policy develop for this. IBANs offer a non-block mechanism to address behavior issues. I see the reason for concern regarding possible overlaps in editing someone's uploads, but IBANs shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as "never see the other person on your watchlist". If the issue is so significant as to warrant a more absolutist approach, that should be recorded in the individual IBAN's parameters. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that the mechanisms to nominate media for deletion don't allow people to look at who edited or uploaded the files. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Really? IIRC, all pages about a file have 2 "File history" that shows who uploaded it, and who uploaded new versions. Cambalachero (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: People don't nominate files for deletion using the pages when they do it with VisualFileChange tool. Like if someone nominates a category of images for deletion using the tool, it's just a list of files. It's not at all intuitive to open single pages to check their histories. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think my amendment as mentioned below would fix that issue. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support in case it wasn’t clear, with the changes I suggested in my first comment. Dronebogus (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

We have many different not technically enforced sanctions. I do not see why we should make a policy only for one special type sanction. GPSLeo (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: Dronebogus and Yacàwotçã are the two users with an ongoing discussion about being interaction-banned, and their comments here may be influenced by it. On second thought, we may close this discussion for the time being and restart it after that discussion has ended, to avoid overlap. Cambalachero (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cambalachero  Support with a change that if a user accidently performs iban-violating edits using a tool, then it would not count as a violation if they revert it manually or by the undo button just after- it would be hard to avoid interactions while using a tool, but I think policing their edits right after is something users can manage. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an issue with that myself as the main person who's opposing this but there should be leeway for someone to let them know about it and then revert the edit. Since there's to much room for honest, good faithed mistakes to go unnoticed by the user who did them on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I think that we should have a note in our policy that says "if you have an IBAN from another project, don't try to use commons to circumvent that IBAN". (this has happened where we have had to enforce an en-wiki ArbCom Iban on commons.) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That seems irrelevant- and also- why? Commons is not under en-wiki jurisdiction- why should Commons care? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Because we've had users come to Commons to harrass people who they have IBans with on other projects. (noonicarus and WMrapids for example) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That still does not mean we should enforce other wikis' decision- if someone was being disruptive, just block them on Commons. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

We aren't inforcing the Iban, discouraging people from using commons to circumvent another IBAN, because if they do, it's a block on commons that won't help them get the IBan removed. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Your original made it sound more like "We will enforce other wiki's decisions here" instead of "using Commons to circumvent other wiki's bans is not good- so don't do that". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, could have been better written. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Technically, IBANs from other Wikipedias do not apply here, so they would not be circumventing anything. However, we may point that if there is a conflict between two users that is being carried over from another project where it caused a local IBAN, that would be taken into account as context and precedent when discussing the users' conduct. The projects have autonomy, but we are not stupid. Cambalachero (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support in principle, but  Weak oppose as written. Editing patterns on Commons are just too different from those on Wikipedia. It is far more common for users here to perform actions on large groups of files or categories here. Along the lines of what DoctorWhoFan91 says, I'd want to see some exceptions/acknowledgements for these differences before supporting. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose just another tool for bureaucratic meddling. RoyZuo (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I spent a while going back and forth on this, and ultimately reached the conclusion that if there's a behavioral issue significant enough that we're seriously considering an IBAN, the better solution is a block. IBAN discussions come up incredibly rarely, and when they do, they always involve people that have been brought to the admin noticeboards for various other conduct issues before. In fact, Commons is often the landing spot for people that were booted off of other projects for conduct issues, in part because we're way to lenient on recurring behavioral issues. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Are Exey Panteleev's "Geekography" images in COM:SCOPE?

Are photographs in Exey Panteleev's "Geekography" project (NSFW) in COM:SCOPE?

• Yes
• Only if COM:INUSE applies
• Only if COM:INUSE or other conditions apply (please specify)
• No

Background

Geekography is a project whereby Panteleev depicts technological concepts via nude models (with various compositional, prop, lighting, graphical, etc. components to depict the concept with varying degrees of cleverness). According to the text on the category page, the project received some press attention, with the project or individual photos winning a Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod award, included in three years' American International Color Awards, and covered by publications like The Next Web, GQ Italy, Liberation, Mail.ru, Reflex, SHO Art Magazine, and Hacker Magazine. Panteleev continued the project after this recognition, to the point that we have more than 600 such photographs on Commons.

There have been dozens of deletion requests about these images. In some cases objections focused on their inclusion in the main technology category tree (e.g. a nude photo inspired by "computer mouse" in the category for computer mice), which have themselves been discussed separately here and concern a different question from what this RfC asks.

The DRs largely focus on (a) whether the images are in COM:SCOPE, and (b) the extent to which awards and press received by a photographic project affect whether files are in COM:SCOPE. Most DRs have resulted in keeping the files, but some have also led to deletions. These DRs and splintered discussions have become particularly tendentious, leading to conflict that has spilled over to noticeboards on multiple occasions. I am proposing an RfC because the reasons for keeping/deleting do not vary much from one DR to the next, the images themselves do not vary much in educational value (or lack thereof), and disputes over the images have led to a disproportionate amount of conflict.

This RfC does not aim to preclude all further DRs, but instead aims to determine a broad consensus about whether these images are in scope or to identify the conditions in which they can be determined to be in scope. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Abstain as proposer. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

* Only if the file can be said to have actual artistic value. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• • To be clear, you want Wikimedians to judge artistic value and base deletions on that? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

    I know there will be edge cases, but it's the best way here- atleast the file will be judged based on itself and not 600 other files.

    And also to be clear, I'm not saying the basis should be if it's good or bad art- but that it's an attempt at art and not just "shock for shock's sake"- it's not art to write "cite" or "delete" or a game logo on a naked woman. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

    I'm abstaining overall and don't have a strong opinion beyond resolving this conflict, but "strong oppose" on making Wikimedians the arbiters of what's real art. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

    Per COM:Nudity#New uploads we already are arbiters of what's a good cock or vulva and what's not- why not art when it's full of naked women too? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per my comment in the section below. Also INUSE should apply to Commons as well and as I've said I plan on creating a gallery here Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  If someone created a gallery on Commons containing all the new dick pics that grace Commons every day, would you also count that as INUSE and ask for those to be kept? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Do you need 600 images for your gallery? Nakonana (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Even by conservative estimates, there are probably 80 files that would remain (my estimates would say around 150). But acc to Rod's arguments, I'm not sure they would be satisfied with anything less than 600. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Only if INUSE applies or they won an award. Penises are notable. We don’t need 600 mostly identical pictures of penises. Therefore we delete them. Why is “Geekography” (a far less notable topic than the human reproductive system) any different? Dronebogus (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  What he said. Notability isn't inherited. Some of the photos in this collection received some media attention in the early 2010s; we can keep the photos that were part of the collection at that time in recognition of that attention. (I happen to think that most of that attention was more in light of the project's shock value than its artistic value, but that's neither here nor there.) But the hundreds(?) of additional photos which have been taken in the subsequent decade haven't been similarly recognized; they don't become notable just because they're the continuation of a project which got some attention in the past. Omphalographer (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Only if INUSE applies or they won an award --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. I've taken a look at quite a few of the files. These are definitely artistic photography where the models are nude. Some of them very cleverly illustrate computer coding. The photographer has also won awards for their work. We can certainly classify them so people don't stumble upon them looking for SFW images. Abzeronow (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes While I don't personally care for them, they are in scope. The fact that many of them are in use would suggest that they are considered "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I understand why people want to delete them as an embarrassment to the project but perhaps the real - and much more difficult - solution is tightening up the scoping rules. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, @Counterfeit Purses: why they in scope? Some of them are in use, sure, but those have been in use for a long time and some of them won awards and received contemporary press coverage; why do we need 600 more taken years later that received no attention and will probably never see any educational use on Wikipedia or otherwise? Dronebogus (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  They are in scope because they meet the criteria that are defined in COM:SCOPE, just like any other file here that is considered to be in scope. There's nothing special about these images nor does there need to be. They don't need to be award-winning, by a notable photographer, or have received press coverage. None of those criteria would be suggested in a discussion about deleting random Commons image. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  They don't meet the criteria- "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose(The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"). Literally the only reason people are arguing they are in scope is because it informs people of Exey- but they aren't all in scope in that regard- because only some of Exey's work is something that a WMF project would educate about. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  You and Dronebogus are welcome to argue with anyone else on this point. I'm not interested in saying any more about it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  If you say they are in scope, then there must be a logical pathway of that thought- it can't just be because people go round and round in circles saying so because someone said so and on and on in a circle. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  What did I just say? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. Notable. (I've previously noted that I find them annoying, taking a concept which might have been somewhat clever for a small carefully selected group of images but riffing on it ad nauseam. I'll add that I also object to the rather obvious continued sexual objectification. That said, that does not make them out of scope; it makes it something targeted at a core audience of which I am not a member. I therefore evaluate it much as I would for the works of an editorial cartoonist whose views I disagree with - even if I don't care for them, if the creator &/or their work has achieved a certain level of notoriety, and they are free licensed, they are in scope for Commons.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• De facto yes even though I may not like that. We've had at least a dozen DRs on them, probably more, and while there may be questions about whether some particular crop of an image is usable or not, I haven't seen any where the conclusion is that they are out of scope. This is a lot of what drove me to handle these as a special case in drafting Commons:Principle of least astonishment: how to accept that they are in scope without "polluting" otherwise useful categories. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, as the artist grew notable due to his works. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Some of his work, not all- just because 10-25% of someone's work is keepable doesn't mean all of it is. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, I think also that artist is notable and thus the work would be also. Also, the photographs what I have seen are toying with sexual objectification, but in the end they are pretty harmless. --Zache (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean “toying” with sexual objectification? That’s literally all they are! And it’s not harmless if it actively degrades the reputation of the project and promotes sexist stereotypes about both Wikimedia and the world of computer science (namely that they’re chauvinistic sausage parties) Dronebogus (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Creator's notability/scope does not mean all their files across time also have notability/scope. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. The point of COM:EDUSE is to prevent spam and clutter and misuse, not to exert editorial control. The value of Commons is that you can go to a category and choose from a broad selection of photos. The Panteleev categories would be excessive if we had dozens of retakes and hundreds of thousands of total files. But no: we have less than a thousand photos from Panteleev, and basically no repeats. We have countless categories featuring orders of magnitude more photos, with many repeats, from photographers far less noteworthy (see Category:Photographs by Flickr photographer). It's absurd that <1,000 photos from a creator with this much press coverage would be considered excessive.

I participated in the recent DRs. The nominal reason at the top of the page always focused on SCOPE or EDUSE, but in the longer discussions, it became apparent that the real motivation for some was about the moral value of the photos. For example, see comments such as So we’re finally admitting this is mainly to get gooners to pay attention to computer science by putting it on naked women’s asses? and There is also the issue (which we fall over ourselves to not talk about, lest we be seen as prudish) that these are a pretty crass objectification of women's bodies. Women are not there as a canvas to explain geek trivia to a bunch of incels, because it's the only way to motivate them to look at a screen. (both from this discussion).

There have been a million mentions of COM:NOTCENSORED, but I don't know that it has been internalized by everyone. It's not about whether you're being a prude; it's about being able to freely discuss any topic. You could use these photos to teach about technology in a distasteful way, sure, but you could also use them to teach about misogyny in the tech space. Hosting the images on Commons is not an endorsement; we host many images depicting subjects far worse than distasteful nudes. Keeping an image on Commons is merely acknowledging that it could be useful for an educational purpose, whether that education be positive or negative about the image. –IagoQnsi (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, if I might repeat- there are 800 files. Yes, some people use ideological reasons to try to get the file deleted, and some use ideological reasons to try to keep it- doesn't mean we have to ignore those with a valid !vote. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per Jmabel and Commons:Principle of least astonishment. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per my arguments at this DR (copy-pasting for convenience's sake):

"Quality is an important factor when scope is determined, and these are high quality professional nude photographs of women that show a wide range of artistic and technical variation (different models, poses, props, lighting setups, etc.) Scope doesn't require images to be in use, but images being in use is usually a strong indicator for something being in scope. The fact that about 1/8th of the series apparently is already in use indicates that the project as a whole has established relevance, particularly when the images are diverse in composition, subject, and technical execution. However, if people feel strongly that the series should be trimmed, I think it might help expedite matters to decide for each individual photo if there is another photograph on Commons like it (same pose, for example) that is superior in every meaningful way."

--ReneeWrites (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• No They are fine enough photos, but basically junk as educational material. I have no clue why anyone thinks that these should remain: it's not the case that every photo that is notable belongs here (even if appropriately licensed) nor every photo taken by a notable person belongs here nor that every photo of a notable subject belongs here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• No per my previous vote: No educational value as nudes (COM:NUDE is the relevant policy: nudes are not automatically out of scope, but being a nude alone doesn't justify inclusion), and no educational value to illustrate the relevant computer science concepts. A small percentage (3.38%, or 28 of them) are in use, and those can be discussed case-by-case on their artistic merits.
  I will add that Commons:Principle of least astonishment, while providing a reason for them not to be in the main categories, doesn't address the scope issue, but only where they should be categorized if they are, in fact, in scope. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, you don't understand, COM:CENSOR means you can't delete naked women off Commons. A file being INUSE extends to a person creating a project page on other wikis to be horny about the images too, of course. And obviously, middle aged men can only understand unicode and other concepts like cite and delete when there is a women being objectified in doing so. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per Jmabel and Information of New Orleans. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes -- LevandeMänniska (talk), 10:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, per Jmabel, IagoQnsi, and Information of New Orleans. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. Per Commons policies and all previous ad nauseam discussions on several foruns, deletion requests and similar pages. Tm (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. I totally agreed with keeping them out of categories where most users wouldn't expect to see nudes, on the basis of COM:Principle of least astonishment, but I don't see any good reason to delete them, and keeping only the ones that are in use would encourage users to remove them from articles and then try to get them deleted. In addition, his photography project is weird and kind of interesting, to a point. It would be much more productive for us to concentrate on eliminating copyvio and random, poor-quality nudes by random users. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• No, per Chaotic Enby and Omphalographer. No real educational use and notability isn't inherited. Nosferattus (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• No/Only if COM:INUSE applies – Per Nosferattus – No real educational use and notability isn't inherited. More specifically, COM:EDUSE says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and these images clearly fail that and are not useful even in a broader sense. If one was to illustrate (an aspect of) the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments from those who want to keep these files or which here think all of them are for some reason within scope. On top, they are also badly titled, framed, and described and not relevant to or useful to or an actual depiction of the(se) subject(s) and unexpectedly pollute search results but this is not the main point here. COM:CENSOR does not imply all photos of nude people or porn or otherwise controversial files must be kept so that is not an argument and again I think keep voters either don't specify arguments or those are easily refuted. INUSE always applies for files that are legal and aren't to be deleted by any Commons policy but only a small percentage of those files are used and most of these in one Russian wikinews article which uses an excessive number of those files and would need to be discussed separately. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Prototyperspective: notability isn't inherited. Are you stating that as a general rule for Commons? If so, I strongly disagree. Virtually no one's signature is inherently notable; it's notable because of whose signature it is. Doodles aren't notable in their own right; doodles by a head of state are. Etc. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

    This statement was relating to this case and cases like it, i.e. not all photos of a photographer of minor arguable notability are notable if the former is deemed 'notable'. Signatures by heads of state easily meet EDUSE. Commons:Notability is basically a redirect to Commons:Project scope which says nothing about notability so notability simply isn't inherited but instead the files need to meet what's described in this page where the key part is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". If you want to upload a terabyte of photos of lowquality doodles by a head of state then it may still be worth discussing whether this really belongs on WMC albeit probably less so than these files being discussed here. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes Scope may be inherited- Commons collects artists' bodies of work, not only items currently in use. Deleting individual files because they are unused would be like a museum throwing out paintings that are not on display. The "Geekography" series is a coherent, sourced artistic project with press and awards, and prior DRs overwhelmingly favoured keeping similar uploads. Taste or redundancy are matters for categorization and metadata, not deletion, since Commons is COM:NOTCENSORED. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  We aren’t throwing out one-of-a-kind paintings. We’re not even throwing anything out. Deletion is illusory, otherwise undeletion wouldn’t be a thing. It’s more like locking something in a storage center only curators (sysops) have the key to. And like I said, these are not one of a kind— they’re freely available on Flickr and anywhere else they might have been posted because that’s how creative commons works. Dronebogus (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, they are in scope. The artistic value may be questionable, but we aren't judges of art. I also agree with Ikan Kekek's comment (keep them out of categories where most users wouldn't expect to see nudes); keeping only COM:INUSE (which of course would apply anyway) images could lead to people trying to add OR to remove them from other projects all the time. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Kind of a funny side thing, but it's interesting how everyone who's saying the images should be kept going off about the images have artist value but we aren't judges art as if Commons:Project scope says anything about it or anyone who thinks the images should be deleted have said anything about the images not being artistic. It's hard to believe the people who keep bringing it don't know that. They clearly can't actually argue if the images should be kept based on their educational value though. Anyway, it's a good example of why these types of proposals (if not proposals in general) are totally worthless. One user misconstrues things from the start and then everyone who agrees with them but can't make an actual argument just keeps repeating, while acting like it's the other sides talking point, until that's what the whole conversation is about. "Are Exey Panteleev's "Geekography" images in COM:SCOPE?" But hey, let's not actually answer it and spend weeks handwaving about how we aren't judges art instead. Great way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The educational value is that they are a weird approach to nudity and technology, combining the two. You probably don't agree, but you have to admit, we don't have other nudes that are like those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: People make the same argument for keeping every garbage AI generated image on here. So I don't really care if they are a weird approach to nudity and technology. Everything is, or was at some point, a weird approach to something else. There has to be more then that for it to be educational though. This isn't a repository of novel, but at least IMO with these specific images extremely derivative, crap. Otherwise there's no difference between Commons and every other image hosting website out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen the same argument being made about AI images, but if it has, that doesn't mean it's not a valid argument. As I said, you don't have to agree with the argument, but that's the argument. What other nudes do you think these photos are derivative of? Also, a remark about this: "So I don't really care if they are a weird approach to nudity and technology. Everything is, or was at some point, a weird approach to something else." You don't have to care, but the fact of something being the first whatever is or at least absolutely can be significant. First video posted to YouTube, earliest sound recordings, etc., etc. I'm not trying to convince you to value this series of photos, but there are plausible arguments for educational value, and I think that's all that's needed not to delete them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, arguments are arguments. You got me there. Anyway, I'd say it's invalid as far as the premise of this discussion is if the photographs are COM:SCOPE and the guideline says absolutely nothing what-so-ever about weird or novel photographs being inherently educational. 100% if someone says "does this follow the guideline" and people respond by saying something that has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with it then their arguments are invalid. That's just the way it works. But hey, let's all waste everyone's time talking about what toppings we like our pizzas and how I say it isn't relevant "because arguments are arguments." Right.

The fact of something being the first whatever is or at least absolutely can be significant. By derivative I mean unoriginal. There's absolutely thing novel or original about draw or writing words on women's bodies. The idea that this is the first time anyone has done it or that has any significance what-so-ever in the history of body art is hysterically ridiculous. The guys a minor bleep on the genre and these photographs are no better then grade school level reddit memes. "thehehe I wrote the word Google on a Boob hahahaha!!!! Look at how original I am lol!!!" Come on. It's literally grade school level, 4chan troll nonsense. "Oh my god, words on a women's butt!! It's revolutionary. The guys literally the modern Monet!" --Adamant1 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I respect your artistic appraisal of the photos. I'm not arguing that they are great art, but I'm an inclusionist, so I prefer not to hide anything properly licensed that could plausibly be useful to someone. And I suppose we've taken this argument as far as it can go? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

that could plausibly be useful to someone now, unlike before, you're getting closer to the actual WMC policies, namely COM:EDUSE...except that you don't explain how these hundreds of files would plausibly be useful to someone or even more narrowly all of those hundreds of files and useful in an educational-kind of way. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

As a thought experiment: If Exey Panteleev painted his art on, say, tree trunks or on rocks, would we have this discussion? If not, why? Gestumblindi (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: we probably would, but it would be less heated. Someone just above the edge of notability as an artist free-licenses a massive number of somewhat humorous works, tangentially connected to in-scope topics, and someone else (that matters: this is not self-promotion) wants to put them all on Commons. Recipe for a contentious DR, or several. Then for Panteleev's photos we throw in issues of nudity (so there are trickier categorization issues--which I think we've now resolved, but it took years--as well as the inevitable NOTCENSORED arguments) plus at least perceived misogyny, guaranteed to amp up the contention. In particular, it doesn't just amp it up from those who want to censor on grounds of either nudity or misogyny, but also from some knee-jerk defenders of anything involving nudity and more likely than not at least someone who consciously or unconsciously likes the misogyny. - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• From what I have seen in the DRs, they do tend to become ideological grounds instead of a discussion of the files- basically on discussions of prudeness and censorship and a lot more stuff.
  I would say while the project is in scope, that does not mean that is inheritable by every file, and hence the file should actually say something rather than just being random stuff on some naked women (not an exaggeration- some of these files are literally just random game logos or jargon written on some nude women). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  The ideological grounds you refer to, if they exist, also come from those who nominate the images for deletion. There are thousands of images of nude women on Commons, but if one of them happens to have an HTML tag drawn on the body, it must automatically be nominated for deletion because "the project is not notable". I have created an article on Wikipedia, I plan on expanding it, turning it into a good article and, why not, developing a gallery here on Commons to connect the projects in a way that should be better explored by editors. Commons should function as a repository of freely licensed images, not as a regulator of what is or is not acceptable. The only concerns so far have been those of scope, which no longer apply now that the artist has a Wikipedia page backed by solid sources. And the argument that the project is notable but its photos are not makes no sense whatsoever. If an exhibition (of works in the public domain) is notable, then I would expect all the works to be uploaded here, not only those that Commons jurors approve of based on personal and subjective criteria. Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  That's really not true- it always comes from everyone (including very significantly you). You do realise COM:Nudity#New uploads means most naked bodies actually get deleted?

  Not to sound pointy, but if you can do that, then someone can make a gallery of every new cock that graces Commons every day and say it can't be deleted because it's INUSE.

  Scope isn't inheritable like that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Except that would be a useful gallery linked in another project, specifically in the article of the artist himself. If a reader can see the artworks of the artists they're reading about through Wikimedia projects, why force them to go to Flickr or another site?

  The deleted images you refer to are usually low-quality ones, usually poorly taken dick pictures, which totally aren't the case for a professional photographer like Panteleev. Take this example; some may consider it artistic and even favorite the image, but if there was a, let's say, Flickr logo on her back, then it would be "out of scope" because... well because yes!!! Makes no sense whatsoever. Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Not every single thing related to a person or subject is notable or worthy of including in an article. Plenty of things get left out of many articles. Including for artists. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say the photographs of a notable professional photographer are definitely in scope just as the books of a notable writer are in scope. He is notable because of his photographs, not because he gave an interview, people want to see his photographs. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just because Stephen King is notable that doesn't every random thing he scribbles on a napkin after wiping his face with it during dinner is educational. I'm sure you get the difference between "X is notable" and "whatever created by X is educational." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I've never referred to the several non-published photographs Panteleev presumably takes during the photoshoots (he confirms it somewhere, I've read it while creating his article). I'm talking about the published photographs, analogous to Stephen Kings's published books, whose notability no one dares to deny. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, a falsehood- books don't get called notable just because their writer was. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You're not getting the point. A notable writer is notable precisely because of their books. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but books aren't notable because their writer is. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure they are, for the purposes of Commons (or Wikibooks via Commons). I don't know how you could argue otherwise. The most obscure writing by someone like Mark Twain is blindingly obviously in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Exey Panteleev is no Mark Twain. Dronebogus (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody said he was. I'd suggest conceding the point being discussed in the subthread or moving on, but that's up to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't actually keep every book of every writer on Commons, only ones which are notable (assuming, of course, everything being talked about is not under copyright). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Actually we do and you should know Fæ uploaded all of them from Internet Archive years ago, those that were in the public domain. Yes, all of them, quite literally. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Other stuff exists- they shouldn't have done that, just as you shoudn't do that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Plenty of people have complained about Fae's uploads and nominated them for deletion. So that's not the example you seem to think it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not care for this discussion if Yacàwotçã is just gonna utter repeated falsehoods to make an incorrect point. I'm just gonna nom the files in that cat in batches where they meet the criteria, wait for them to be deleted, just like the files nominated with the right criteria were, and wait to see the reaction to what happens when they make galleries and pages on wiki projects with nothing but naked women. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

All English-language books that fit en:s:WS:WWI are potential fodder for starting a page there. The English Wikisource includes every book published more than 95 years ago; while there's legal reasons for picking 95 years, it's also a useful line. Works that are 95 years old aren't being scanned or uploaded or worked on by their authors. That they still exist and that someone uploads them is evidence that they aren't just vanity.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Define notable. Yes, Steven King's scribbling on a napkin should be kept here if we can. Steven King has articles on 110 Wikipedias; in comparison, w:Zhu Xi, who is on the list of List of 1000 articles every Wikipedia should have, is only in 109 Wikipedias. On LibraryThing, there are more copies of his books held than any other single author, except for J. K. Rowling.

Compare to Exey Panteleev, who has a single Wikipedia page, on the Portuguese Wikipedia. To find his Wikipedia page, I tried sticking "Panteleev" in DuckDuckGo; turns out "Pavel Panteleev" and "Martin Panteleev" dominate the first page of results. Martin Panteleev has a Wikipedia page in Bulgarian, and a Pavel Panteleev has a Wikipedia page in Russian, though most results seem to be for Pavel V Panteleev (Q60973756), who doesn't have a Wikipedia page.

If we host a work, it's technically published, but I see no evidence that an independent publisher published them; the new works are trading merely on his notability as an artist, which is far from such that every work he releases is notable enough for Commons as an example of his work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

We aren't a webhost- we do not collect artist's art here- just what could be educational.

No, we keep "exceptional" dick pics, not non-poor ones. That pic would only be in scope if it is part of some film or something else- Commons isn't gonna keep a file bcs some men wanna see naked women. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

COM:WEBHOST, although not explicitly, refers primarily to personal files: "Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection", it doesn't refers to the artworks of a random notable professional Russian photographer, who are uploaded here because they could be used in his article on different Wikipedias (yes, in the plural). Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It refers to files in scope- which these files do not obtain inherently.

You know what, try uploading 600 photos of naked women to a wikipedia page- sounds like a fast way to being blocked honestly. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

In the plural? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q75163697 lists one Wikipedia page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Which, as a reminder, was created by the above user. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

And was created on 31 August - it's not a long-standing article. Omphalographer (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That same photograph you linked is also currently being discussed for deletion, so it is clear that the issue is not about the logos themselves. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m going to ping as many active users who participated in recent (past 5 years) DRs on Geekography as I can, since they probably should have been notified when this began. We’re not going to get an accurate assessment of the community’s opinions if nobody knows this RfC is going on. @Prototyperspective: @Vysotsky: @Adsci8: @Tuvalkin: @Andy Dingley: @Tm: @ReneeWrites: @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: @Pigsonthewing: @Jerimee: @Yann: @Enyavar: @Chaotic Enby: @Chris.sherlock2: @-insert valid name here-: @Thegoofhere: @Ikan Kekek: @SergioFLS: @Adam Black: @Nosferattus: @Prosfilaes: @Jameslwoodward: @NMaia: @SHB2000: @Brianjd: @LevandeMänniska: @LPfi: @BlinxTheKitty: @Dbeef: @Nv8200pa: Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

(This isn’t a canvassing attempt; I pinged everyone regardless of vote) Dronebogus (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the ping. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

On first glance, these seem fine. Are some folks unhappy with them? Jerimee (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Just preemptively preparing for the inevitable accusation. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• My arguments always been that the photographs from the original project are educational and therefore in scope but that doesn't mean every single thing the guy creates going forward inherently is. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Could you link to a concrete list of which photographs are part of the original project, and where that's documented? It looks like the press comes from a range of a few years -- are those all about one set of photographs that didn't change in those years? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the original project was between 2011 and 2013. So I assume any photographs taken after that weren't a part of it. Like there's some from his Flickr account that are more recent. I wouldn't include those as part of the original series that's notable since they were taken 10 years later. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Source? Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Source for what exactly? I can't prove a negative that the photographs taken by him in 2023 weren't discussed in GQ or wherever (obviously). But if you look at his biography that's linked to at the top of this all the coverage and whatnot for the project seem to be from 2011 to 2013. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

(I didn't ask, but I would have): source for the claim that there was a concrete "original project" that you can discern from "the rest" -- something more concrete than "probably after that press". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, look at this way. We know there was a "Project Geekography" that he started in 2011 and got some press coverage for at the time. The question would be if everything he does after that is a part of it. If I look at recent images by him on his Flickr account there's nothing about "Project Geekography." So I assume they are just random photographs that he took in the meanwhile. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The Flickr about talks about Geekography going for "more than a decade". And indeed, it's the same person doing the same formula with the same style. So to be clear, you're just guessing at an "original project" delineation for the purpose of DR, and not basing it on documentation from the photographer or some other source? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I assume Adamant means the files that were published before Exey got all those attention and awards and stuff.

Obviously, their argument would be very much incorrect in a world where an artist getting attention means everything they do is notable, which seems to be the world which at least Rod lives in. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO these hyperboles don't help. It is a simple enough and understandable enough argument to just say "Calling all art in a notable art project in scope is complicated when the art project is open-ended and spans hundreds of files". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The main page for the Flickr account mentions the project. I was talking about the descriptions of individual photographs like this one though, which there's no evidence of having anything to do with the whole "geography thing." Like Tom Baker's personal websites mentions that he played Doctor Who. That doesn't mean random photographs on there of his cats playing on a fence in his back yard are educational or where taken on the set of the show. I don't really see what's complicated or hyperbole about that. "Tom Baker played the Doctor in the 70s so a picture of his cat on a fence from 2025 is educational" is a meaningless non-argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have been trying to say that- scope isn't inheritable- just because some people found Exey's work to be cool doesn't mean every attempt of his counts as keepable, no matter when it was taken. Some images of the project are keepable, many are very much not. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

what's complicated is Rod wants to push his point- like he does not even care/like about the files- he is defending them because other people have issues with it. (

to quote- I have no fondness for Exey Panteleev (though encyclopedically notable) and actually find his photographs rather dull; what I do object to is censorship, and I find the Streisand effect interesting. That, as far as I can recall, is what motivated me to start uploading his images in the first place—as a way to counter what I see as the unreasonable puritanism of a few individuals who occasionally open deletion requests for his work.)

Note that he says he does not push ideological arguments. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The whole things just circular arguments all the way down. Rod should be indefed for trolling and his uploaded as part of this deleted as such. That would be the end of it. Not that I blame Rhododendrites for started the discussion but it would clearly be a non-issue at this point if Rod hadn't of uploaded the images just to be pointy. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's not start that, given that you can't start it, and no one else wants to give their time to collect all the evidence that would be required for that.

The files would still not be deleted, and we would still all need to argue about them, so it's also irrelevant (would make the DRs more full of truths and less toxic though). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: I don't even know who's taking issue with the images being deleted outside of Rob at this point. Like you could have a DR for the files where 10 people vote to delete them as OOS, Rob does some grandstanding about censorship and previous DRs and Blah Blah Blah Blah. Then whoever closes it is like "yep, I'm going with that guy!" and keeps the images. So I don't know. The whole thing is totally ridiculous. But the discussions would be a little more balanced and guideline based if Rob wasn't involved. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Rod. People definitely are, given the opposes in DRs. I mean, the admins aren't just going with 1 guy (or atleast most aren't)- many people are going against deletion (not with correct logic still). Also, btw, seems like he is leaving Commons, given his recent edit. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Him and Tm with the walls of text mainly from what I've seen. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Admins recently have just been outright supervoting (IMO don’t sue me) in regard to Geekography. This is why I finally decided enough was enough and started nominating them for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I said some admins- I remember the supervotes too.

No offense, but the statements of those noms weren't great. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Just my opinion of course, but now that Rod indefed themselves the images should be re-nominated for deletion with the explicit understanding that Tm's wall of nonsense and supervoting are both invalid reasons to keep the files. That seems like the only legitimate way to deal with the whole thing though. I'm not going to do it myself, but I'd also suggest someone do a proposal to ban supervoting when the DR involves questions of educational value since that's something the wider community (not individual admins) should have the right to decide. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Rhododendrites (11×); Yacàwotçã (15×); DoctorWhoFan91 (28×); Adamant1 (31×)] - maybe those of us ^(me too, to be clear) dominating this discussion (and/or past discussions of the subject) can take a beat, not go 30 indents deep with replies, and just wait for some uninvolved participation before scheming about how to take advantage of an opponent leaving the project. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Really :( --Adamant1 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, mostly restraining myself now- and we weren't scheming, just talking about how atleast way less toxicity in the discussion. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that user:Abzeronow just proved my point by blatantly supervote closing a bunch of Geekography DRs with a clear delete consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Apparently discussions based on policy go out of the window when men see naked women being objectified- then somehow writing something on a woman illustrates the concept. It really is a madwoman's task to try to talk policy in DRs- why the fuck am I even trying! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: and @Dronebogus: See the proposal below this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Now User:The Squirrel Conspiracy is supervoting. All four admins who have voted here need to abstain from any further action in this topic area and let a more neutral arbitrator decide. Dronebogus (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Is that really complicated on a site that has essentially unlimited space for images, and furthermore, one in which "deletion" saves no image space? It seems simple enough to segregate his photos into their own category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I keep saying that if you need to segregate them, they are more trouble than they’re worth. Dronebogus (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to segregate them because they are at least mostly technology-themed nudes and therefore could include technology-related categories. If you want to say they're more trouble than they're worth, I'd push back with continuing to have long discussions about whether to delete them is more trouble than it's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This discussion isn’t going to stop further DRs, many in good faith. Deleting most of the files would. Dronebogus (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if they are all deleted, there cannot be more deletion requests for them, but aren't some of them COM:INUSE, in any case? Also, if we use that logic, any file that's been repeatedly nominated for deletion should be deleted. I don't think you'd agree with adopting that practice. I'll note that there's another possible end to this discussion that would limit the amount of time arguing about them: adopting a policy of summarily closing all future deletion requests of this material as keeps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know of any other situation on Commons where an arbitrary category of files is decided to be completely immune from scope-related DRs. You’d think Exey Panteleev was paying people to keep his files on Commons given the lengths users I otherwise respect are going to not only justify their being hosted on Commons but also silence any opposing views once and for all. Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a caricature of Muhammad that has been nominated for deletion at least 6 times for being offensive to Muslims and has been repeatedly and quite quickly kept. It's COM:INUSE but wouldn't be deleted for offensiveness, in any case. And if there are no new deletion reasons being offered, views have been fully aired. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know what that has to do with anything, frankly, unless there’s a policy that says “all caricatures of Muhammad are automatically in scope and may not be deleted”. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Nor is there a policy that all pictures of nude women are automatically in scope, and I think others will see how the example I gave is partly analogous to possible approaches to continued repetitive deletion requests relating to the body of work being addressed in this thread, but you always decline to credit or really even consider any of my arguments or analogies in this thread, as anyone can see. I consider that your views have been fully aired, and I have nothing to add for my part and certainly never had any illusions that I could convince you in this thread that it would be a better use of time on this site to stop arguing about this body of work. I think this debate played out years ago, but if it didn't, it now has completely played out. And like it or not, admins will make a decision about how to proceed. Or will make no decision, and this debate will continue wasting time indefinitely. (And I hope you don't try to accuse me of not assuming good faith on your part because I'm sick of this debate. You definitely think this site and its users would benefit from deleting all or as many of these images as possible, so you have a good-faith motive for your position, as do those who disagree with you, but that doesn't mean continued arguments with people claiming that nothing in other people's arguments has to do with anything, etc., etc. are the least bit useful.) Over and out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I wanna ask one basic question to those saying yes- does this mean that you think that scope should be inheritable- that just because Exey had some "thought"-provoking pics, the other pics are also fine, no matter how low effort, say like literally just writing a word or a logo on a naked woman? And as an extension, images which were taken after the coverage happened, so even further away by association?

And if yes, do people think that if a person were to say add a good dick pic to Commons one time- then COM:Nudity#New uploads shouldn't apply to any of their other uploads, no matter how awful or indistinct the quality? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow given that you closed some of the DRs today- can you answer this question? What separates vulvas by Exey(or other nude photographers), and vulvas by anyone else. (Is it male gratification?) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Panteleev is a notable photographer, we have tons of photos from other notable photographers and nobody is saying those notable photographers have a scope problem. I'm not focused on the genitalia, rather how props are framed, and how the model is posed, and what the artistic intent of the photograph is. I'm an amateur photographer, and I've been photographing for about 30 years now. Maybe I could have been more clear in my close, but there hasn't been any consensus in the discussions to delete, just back and forth with "I don't like it" and "Commons is not censored." Abzeronow (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I have seen people say that about photographers on Commons- obviously, it's rare, as few people have had all/most of their works uploaded to Commons.

People vote on ideological reasons, I did say that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

There's certain levels and layers. Everything Van Gogh touched is in scope, and I include if he left a fingerprint is a spilled drop of paint. Any of the artistic of literary work of Robert Hayward Barlow or Clark Ashton Smith is in scope, more strongly for the second than the first. Honestly, if Exey's work wasn't so objectifying and ongoing, I probably wouldn't stress about it, but it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Supervoting

I'm going to fork the conversation to specifically address DoctorWhoFan91 and Dronebogus's accusations that Abzeronow and my closes constituted supervoting.

1. The Exey Panteleev situation has been a clusterfuck for years. It's the perfect convergence of a bunch of factors that make for a messy discussion: people have strong views about pornography (and pornography on Commons); Exey is a borderline notable figure, and while some of his work has received recognition, he churns it out at such a high volume that applying that recognition to the entire body of work isn't straightforward; the high number of DRs over the years brings in the question of how much precedence from previous DRs has to factor into current ones; some of the DRs have been for a massive number of files, with files with different considerations all lumped together; and some of the regular participants have proven incapable of behaving, resulting in at least one block directly from conduct in an Exey DR and an IBAN proposal. Sifting through this mess to close DRs is difficult work.
2. There have been at least 85 DRs, of which at least 79 were kept and 6 were deleted. Almost all of the deletions were for copyright reasons. There is a clear precedence that at least some of the Exey Panteleev files are in scope, and a less clear but still justifiable consensus that all of them are, based on that history.
3. There were 20 or so DRs open since May. I closed almost all of them keep with the identical note, seen at the bottom of this DR, for example, and I think that close is justifiable based on the comments in the specific DRs and the preponderance of Exey DRs that formed a precedence. Abzeronow then closed the rest of the open ones, with a less clear but still perfectly serviceable close message. As with the ones I closed, I don't personally like the outcome, but I think it's the correct one from a policy standpoint.
4. DoctorWhoFan91 and Dronebogus immediately opened up new DRs, despite both of them knowing that this Village Pump discussion was already ongoing. At best, that can be viewed as jumping the gun; they should have waited for this discussion to progress, as it would have either given them a better case for refiling (and COM:DR specifically says that you should only refile if "you can add new information or clarification"), or a clear indication not to do so. At worst, that can be viewed as a cynical attempt at forum shopping and/or an attempt to capitalize on the fact that one of the chief defenders of these files just blocked themselves and won't be able to participate this time around. Considering Dronebogus's history, I find it very difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Considering DoctorWhoFan91's participation in the discussion above and the RodRabelo7/Yacàwotçã IBAN discussion, I'm find it very difficult to extend them the benefit of the doubt either. IMO, the refilings were disruptive, regardless of the editors' motivations.
5. As far as I'm concerned, any further Exey Panteleev DRs should be speedy kept closed as premature/forum shopping/disruptive until the discussion above closes. Once again, I personally think most of these files should be deleted. I've voted as such pretty consistently. Notionally, I should be "on DoctorWhoFan91 and Dronebogus's side" here. However, the endless relisting of Exey Panteleev files at DR is not productive, especially while this VP discussion is ongoing.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

If you should be on “our side” then why aren’t you? Nobody’s putting a gun to your head. Nobody actually seems to like these images. 90% aren’t in use and never will be. Why are we cargo-cultishly accepting them as being in scope because a few of them got some minor attention 10 years ago? Dronebogus (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Consensus for deletion needs to be pretty clear to reverse - at the time - around 60 keep discussions. It's wasn't. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to say that a lot are DRs by prudish ips, or people being, to use a relatively neutral word, dramatic in their nominations instead of calm- and the number of those DRs shouldn't count- but only the useful precedents set in those DRs. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I just want to say I wasn't the one who said you were supervoting. I did say that about abzeronow, because he in fact was- he should not have closed the DR while the scope discussion was going on here.

I apologise that I reacted almost equally as badly as Abzeronow in trying to circumvent this discussion- 45% of the blame lies with me, and so I'm for that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to say that though I think the abzeronow's close was really bad, I will not nom any more of Exey's files until this discussion closes.

And also that if someone else's conduct leads to ANU here, to not punish me by association- just bcs I think kinda similiar to some people here doesn't mean I condone their conduct. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity: would you mind updating your closure message on these DRs to clarify that the closure is procedural, not a recognition of consensus in the discussion? Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Not on the topic of supervoting, but since it was mentioned above: 90% aren’t in use and never will be. That is to say, they are about average for Commons. If we exclude images that were initially uploaded specifically to illustrate a Wikipedia article, 10% usage would be above average. We have tons of categories full of clearly in-scope images only a handful of which are ever likely to be used in Wikipedia or other sister projects. INUSE is a sufficient reason to keep an image (if legally OK), but it is far from necessary. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

But it’s easy to see how the million unused photos of grass or the Taj Mahal could one day find educational use. It’s impossible to see how these unused Geekography images will ever find educational use. We also don’t tolerate hundreds of redundant snapshots of penises, even though they are objectively far more educational, because Commons isn’t a glorified porn repository. Hosting hundreds of these sexist and explicitly objectifying softcore pornographic images (far more than literally any other topic in the field of human sexuality I suspect) actively damages Commons’ reputation. Dronebogus (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

My vote continues to be that these artistic images are generally keepable. My question is "what is supervoting?" in the first place. I could not find a Commons help page that explains this concept, so... is it new, made up just for this debate? --Enyavar (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar: Wikipedia:Supervote --Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand how you want to determine which nude images are "sexist and explicitly objectifying" as a way of censoring them. Commons hosts many really horrible images of genocide, war, disasters and so on. I don't think mere offensiveness (even if there were more of a consensus that all of his photos are offensive) is a sufficient reason to delete a category of unused images by someone of some notability whose strange project is not the same as random nude photos. Also, is it really that impossible to imagine how some of the unused images could be used, such as in an article about the photographer, an article about nude photography, or an article about technology-themed nudes? The use might not be on Wikipedia, and it might not be on a wiki, but it's hardly unimaginable. A repository of images could easily decide to exclude all nude photography or make their own definition of what porn is (and is not) and exclude it, but Commons has not and presumably will not, partly because of what projects it serves, so I'm really not seeing how your argument could result in a workable policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

“Photos of genocide exist” is w:wp:OTHERCRAP, and a really weak OTHERCRAP argument because nobody is arguing that we should ban offensive content— just offensive content that is not educationally useful enough to justify being offensive. We could hypothetically use graphic scat fetish pornography to illustrate coprophilia, which is a notable topic, but do we need to? Is it going to inform enough people to justify the sheer number of people driven away by it? Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a policy of censoring all of that stuff based on content or offensiveness, though I would not like to look at it. But I think whether the entire body of photographs by Panteleev is offensive is debatable, and you are clearly stating such a determination is part of your basis for supporting deletion. I've found some of the ones I've seen objectionable but others just kind of strange but not unusually bad for nude photos of women that are not merely artistic portraits, but in no case have I based my votes or arguments on my feelings about whether the photos were objectionable to me, and I don't see why it would be proper for me to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• An interesting question: would it be better to ask Wikimedians in general whether their projects would ever find these images useful? Because currently only Wikinews (which is in dire straits) and a handful of Wikipedias are using them. Commons may be a general educational repository, but it’s primarily a repository of educational resources for other Wikimedia projects. Normally it’s impractical to ask other projects whether they think these images are in scope, but this case is significant enough that an exception could be made. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

No, commons is not primarily a repository of educational resources for other Wikimedia projects. Its mission of supporting other Wikimedia projects and its mission of being a repository of freely reusable media of educational value have never particularly been prioritized relative to one another. Many people have their own opinions as to which mission is more important, but there is no consensus. The two missions coincide enough that they are rarely in conflict with one another. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

To me that’s denying the reality the first and foremost Commons serves Wikimedia, and secondarily provides a general repository of educational materials— simply by virtue of Wikimedia sites being able to directly transclude Commons files while other reusers have to download the files. That inherently privileges Wikimedia wikis over everyone else. I’m not saying that the goal of providing free educational content to everyone is somehow less important or noble, but Commons is built with serving its sister projects in mind. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that Commons' primary purpose is to serve other Wikimedia projects. Commons has two coequal aims: to be a repository of freely reusable media of educational value, and to support Wikimedia projects. Treating sister-project support as the primary aim privileges current transclusion convenience over the broader public mission of building a global free-media archive. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

At least from what I've seen most users don't even know their different websites. For all intents and purposes it's impossible to say Commons is a different project or doesn't mainly serve Wikipedia at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The ignorance or misconceptions of users don't create facts. Signed, admin/bureaucrat on Wikivoyage, which doesn't exist because freakin everything is Wikipedia to you...(and to state the obvious, that's a sarcastic remark, but one that makes a salient point). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I forget where it comes from originally but there's a phrase I think about sometimes "race isn't real but it's real in its consequences." I'd say the same thing applies here. Obviously their different sites, but the misconceptions about it certainly has consequences. 99% of this is politics and what's actually factual really doesn't matter that much to it. Anymore then it does in real life politics, with racial issues, or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Race is real as a social construct. However, on a hard science site, race would be treated as non-factual, no matter what ignorant people tried to say. But my problem with what you say is that you, yourself, insist on disrespecting and virtually denying the existence of all non-Wikipedia sites, and I take personal offense at that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: How exactly am I doing that by saying that other people don't usually know this is a different site from Wikipedia? I wouldn't say the people who don't are disrespecting or denying the existence of other sites besides Wikipedia, but I really don't see how I am just by saying that other people don't know what site their using. If anything, I'd blame it on the WMF for blurring the lines to much, not having this as it's own domain like with Wikidata, Etc. Etc. but we're getting off topic here. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

If that's not your intention, don't suggest that Commons is part of Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with Adamant1 that Commons is “basically just Wikipedia”, but I also agree with their assertion that saying Commons’s two primary goals are equal is letting idealism cloud reality. Wikimedia wikis are inherently going to be privileged over any other reusers because they’re part of what is basically a big interconnected super-wiki. This is reflected by policy— “in use” applies only to other Wikimedia sites, even though hypothetically any educational re-use anywhere should apply if they were really of equal importance. Therefore the highest level of importance is indeed benefiting our sister projects. Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Disallow administrators from supervoting when closing SCOPE related DRs

I think we all agree that it's important for administrators use a measure of neutrality when making decisions. At least we should. There's been many instances over the years where admins have closed SCOPE related deletion requests as keep or delete based on their own personal opinions, not the number of users who voted that way or even based on the strength of their arguments. I have yet to see an instance where doing so didn't either just cause needless drama, the files to be re-nominated for deletion, or both.

At the end of the day it should be on members of the community to decide what exactly is in scope and educational for our project. It's not, or at least shouldn't be, on individual admins to decide what is based on their personal opinions and regardless of how many users in the DR disagree with them. Doing so just pisses people off and discourages participation. So supervoting in SCOPE DRs should not be allowed. I don't expect there to be any consequences for it, but the DR where it's done should re-opened and/or re-closed by another, more neutral administrator.

Votes (Disallow administrators from supervoting when closing SCOPE related DRs)

• Abstain as proposer. Although I obviously support it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support banning supervoting in general. A DR should either be uncontested or have a clear consensus for an admin to act on it. That should be common sense. --Dronebogus (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support supervoting like that just makes a mockery of the process- why bother having a discussion/!vote if it all depends on what the closing admin thinks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC) Do whatever folks, but probably start by assuming good faith of each other
•  Oppose there are many cases where users vote who are not active community members. There are regularly cases with coordinated voting. GPSLeo (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  One can fight coordinated voting by questioning the coordinated voters. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Admins can ignore obvious cases of vote manipulation or “empty” votes with no argument. That could be written as a carveout. But a good-faith consensus cannot be overridden by a single admin’s opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  @GPSLeo: Coordinated voting already isn't allowed. So I wouldn't say an administrator who ignores it is "supervoting" anymore then I would if they ignore vandalism, obvious harassment, or anything else along those lines when closing a DR. That's not supervoting. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  This only moves the problem where to draw the line between legitimate expression of interest of a group and not legitimate coordinated voting. The majority of coordinated voting (mostly coming from a discussion on other wiki) on deletion requests does not violate any rule. GPSLeo (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Do admins even do anything to stop coordinated voting now? Because in my limited experience they don’t. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, if not done using sockpuppets or using inappropriate language there is no policy against this. We can only just ignore their votes and comments. I think this is the correct way to handle this. GPSLeo (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  It really depends. At least in my experience if an account is an SPA they usually factor that in to the close and ignore them. Or if it's a sock they will block it and not count the vote. But I don't think it actually effects this in any meaningful way. Otherwise the whole thing just becomes circular. "We can't have this policy because another policy doesn't exist" and so and so forth. You have to draw a line somewhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose People level accusations of supervoting when they don't like the outcome of the discussion, but I can't recall a single situation where someone leveled that accusation and the community went "yep, that close was a mistake". I'm sure it has happened, but the overwhelming majority of accusations - as is the case with the accusations leveled against Abzeronow and myself above - are spurious. I'll go into more detail about the the Exey Panteleev situation in that discussion thread, but for this discussion thread, I'll just say that trying to codify a policy around a highly subjective term typically leveled by people angry at the outcome of a messy discussion isn't going to solve any problems, it's just going to make messy situations more messy. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't recall a single situation where someone leveled that accusation and the community went "yep, that close was a mistake" @The Squirrel Conspiracy: That's because there is no meaningful "community" on here at this point because of issues like this one. Fully stop, there's literally zero point in contributing to a DR, let alone is there any in contesting the closer of one, if participants who reasonable arguments are just going to be ignored by whomever closes it. This stuff is always circular and self justifying though. Admins do things to turn people off from participating in deletion requests. So then the lack of participation becomes the justification for you guys to continuing to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose I get the point but I don't think it's supervoting, when most of the time it's admins making tough and complex decisions some people will not like because of their (perceived) negative outcome. --Bedivere (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I forgot to mention: questionable decisions can always be revised or even reversed. Closure or so called supervotes are not written in stone. Bedivere (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Bedivere Where does one ask an admin to re-open a closed discussion on Commonns? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  @DoctorWhoFan91: At least from what I've seen there isn't an official process to do it. So you usually have to ask the admin on their talk page. 99% of the time they will just talk in circles, refuse to do it, and just act like the user is being argumentative though. Kind of the same as some of the comments here claiming that the only reason anyone would care about supervoting is because they don't like the outcome or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ignoring other people’s opinions because you’re the one in a position of power isn’t a “tough [or] complex decision”. You’re treating non-admin Commons users like they’re children and you know what’s best for them even if they don’t like it. Dronebogus (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, other people's opinions can be wrong too. And as I said, responding to @DoctorWhoFan91 an admin can be reached on their talk page or you can just renominate the conflicting image for deletion again. Bedivere (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  At least from what I've seen asking the admin about it on their talk page it doesn't lead to anything except pointless arguing. There should really be more official processes and guidelines for this stuff outside of asking you guys to pretty please with a cherry on top to reverse your own crap actions. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  "an admin can be reached on their talk page"- while they say shit like "the images illustrate the concept well" and the concept is "unicode characters on naked women"?? Like I'm trying to assume good faith, but all it says to me is "men would find anything educating if it's on a naked woman."

  I did renom them, TSC had an issue with it and closed the discussion- so don't say there is a process for getting admins to listen while they do stuff like that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think the process should be “administrator recall”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I was thinking more "a place to discuss DR closes" and not "let's just be a spinoff of en.wp"(like calm down, mate). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Bedivere.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose I've disagreed with many closes, and I've run into some tone-deaf admins. That said, closing is not just counting votes but rather evaluating the stated positions; it is not a vote. Furthermore, outlawing supervoting would enable canvassing and ballot stuffing. Glrx (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose. If there's a specific close that is problematic, we can talk about that, but I see no evidence of a systemic problem. Frankly, I think allowing the Panteleev discussions to go on for any amount of time was generous, given how many previous DRs there had already been with the same arguments and same outcome. When a settled matter is brought back up over and over, that's not building consensus; that's just an endurance test. Genuine community consensus should not be overturned because the minority is more persistent. –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  If you actually took the time to go through the discussions instead of just saying per this person and this person, you would see that the arguments are usually different. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that the people who want the the Panteleev images to be deleted are just a persistent minority is patently false. The persistent minority is the two or three people who repeatedly steamroll any discussion even slightly related to the photographs with their handwaving nonsense. The majority on here have always wanted the images to be deleted though. Administrators just can't be bothered to not go with whomever makes the shortest, lamest non-argument in any given DR for some reason. But if you actually look through the discussions essentially everyone except for 1 or 2 users who repeatedly steamrolled the discussions wanted the images to be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose The Squirrel and Bedivere above said it all. Yann (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Wow, you mean administrators don't want any kind of basic standards for how they make decisions? Who could have figured. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support The lack of policy on supervoting means that admins are ultimately free to ignore the arguments of other users that they don't agree with, which goes against the idea of a consensus process, and, ultimately, of a wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

No, no, you don't understand- admins are trying to protect us from the evil canvassers by ignoring the opinions of everyone must themself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: I'm not going to do it myself because I'm sure whomever does would get blocked, but it would be hilarious if someone closed this as approved even if it's not and then went off about how administrator's only voted due to being canvassed lmao. But I really do wonder how people don't see the hypocrisy or precedent that's being set by opposing this. At that point @Dronebogus: might as well close the proposal to ban AI images of people as rejected even though he's essentially the only who voted against it. Why the hell not? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Glrx. --ReneeWrites (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose because I don't think sysops should take their own opinion into account when determining consensus or making decisions – and if they cannot, that raises questions on whether they're even suitable for sysop in the first place. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  @SHB2000: So you’re basically saying you agree with the proposal, but oppose it because you think sysops should just be expected to refrain from supervoting out of the goodness of their hearts? What’s wrong with just making it a rule then? Dronebogus (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose, I don’t understand the premise of the proposal here, but I disagree with closing a DR solely based on “number of votes” or “strength of arguments” in a DR (including SCOPE DRs). When an admin closes a DR, it should always be based on relevant copyright laws first, then Commons policies, then existing Commons consensus, then only finally consensus in the DR discussion. Sometimes I disagree with outcome of a DR, but I do trust the closing admin made the decision with careful consideration and with their experience and knowledge, not with their personal opinions. As SHB2000 mentioned above, if indeed an admin is closing DRs solely based on their personal opinion, then it is not a matter re-opening DRs, but a matter of whether they are suitable to be an admin. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  About your last line- yes, it's also about that person's suitability as admin, but I think people are trying to find an alternative that does not risk lowering the already low number of sysops. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Why not appoint new sysops who actually represent the community then? Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Closers have to make decisions based on policy, including scope. When there are close cases, they give what we hope is their best interpretation. Unfortunately, they can be wrong, and worse, correct decisions can be quietly overruled through speedy deletions later and then, if noticed, have to be appealed as Commons:Undeletion requests. But that's not a good reason to try to turn admins into robots. As for "appointing new sysops", more users would have to want to act in that role and go through a nomination process, but we all know that there are not enough admins to come anywhere near keeping up with all the deletion requests, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody’s trying to turn admins into robots. We just want admins that neutrally implement a valid community consensus. If they want to express an opinion, they can actually participate in the discussion like everybody else. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  "We just want admins that neutrally implement a valid community consensus." In other words, you just want deletion requests to be majority decisions. You don't need an admin for that, just a script that counts votes after a specified amount of time and closes a thread as a keep or deletion. But that would cut policy out of the decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, that’s strawmanning my position. I want a human sysop who can weigh voters’ arguments to an extent, but not one who is just going to disregard a majority consensus because they don’t like that consensus or implement a close based entirely on their singular personal opinion that has nothing to do with what anyone said in the DR. If admins are allowed to close literally however they like why have a DR at all? Dronebogus (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  So they can consider arguments. It doesn't obligate them to agree with the majority. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  Unless the majority consists simply of empty votes, obvious sock/meat puppets, or non-arguments there’s no reason to go against it. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Supervoting is not a thing on Commons. It seems quite obvious to me that admins should not override good faith consensus; nor should they decide affirmative on proposals they themselves proposed. This common practice needs to stop. --Enyavar (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Disallow administrators from supervoting when closing SCOPE related DRs)

• Flawed premise - There is no such thing as "supervoting" on Commons. That is a Wikipedia concept. For better and worse, we afford admins more leeway here to enforce policy, make decisions, reduce disruption, etc. Two things, though: first, it's hard to separate this from the context, which is (yet again) the Geekography images. I'll hold off commenting until the above proposal is resolved, since we're otherwise wasting time talking about an unusual case. Second, one thing I would support -- which you may or may not see as related, but has become a pet peeve of mine -- is to have some language somewhere that encourages admins to articulate reasons for a closing decision other than e.g. "per discussion" when the discussion is not self-evident. But that would be a different proposal, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  “There’s no such thing”? Why, because you say there isn’t? It’s literally going on right now with multiple admins closing DRs based on personal whims. Admins should have to respect community consensus; otherwise why even have a vote? Dronebogus (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  [sigh] No. Read the actual policies that apply here. Commons doesn't even have a "consensus" policy, and it's barely mentioned in most policies. That does wind up how we make a lot of decisions, but it's not the organizing principle that it is on Wikipedia. The deletion policy just says The file/page may be deleted on decision by an admin if there were good reasons given in the debate for doing so instead of "assessing consensus and making a decision". Point is, you're applying principles from Wikipedia to Commons. The bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith are starting to get out of hand with this stuff. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  The debate was actively going on- and abzeronow was involved in it. There were reasons being given in the DR and here on the village pump- abzeronow actively chose to ignore them.

  I hope I'm not doing the bludgeoning (I'm definitely not doing the bad faith thing). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  In my experience ‘bludgeoning” usually means “I think you’re talking too much and hope some admin agrees enough to threaten you into shutting up”. Dronebogus (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going away from this discussion- it feels like it's gonna turn into a mess, and I don't want to get punished by association for anyone else's edits. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good idea. Dronebogus (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  In retrospect I probably should have waited until the other proposal was finished to do this one since there is some overlap. Even though I think minimal and there's plenty of other examples. That said, I agree the timing could have been better. I just to have some free time and it was on my mind anyway. But that's still my bad for not waiting to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  The issue there was not just the "supervoting"(call it whatever you want on whatever project)- it's the fact that it was closed with the words "in scope" while the scope is very actively being argued- it's very much an admin imposing their own view- one which they won't even discuss btw- they just repeat the statement. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: "Supervoting" isn't something that Wikipedia came up with. It's been a concept in the corporate world for when certain shareholders, like founders or management, have significantly more voting power than other shareholders. It's certainly not something that's confined to the Geekography images on here either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. But you're using it in the way one would on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  So? W:Wp:CIR is an Enwiki concept but it still applies here. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Commons inherits a lot of it's policies, terms, and the like from Wikipedia even if they aren't explicitly laid out anywhere. So I don't really see what the problem with that. Call it supervoting or whatever, but there's still the general concept of administrators making non-neutral closes based on their own personal opinions that this is trying to address. So I don't think the exact semantics matter that much. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not going to vote in this discussion, but a close where there is no consensus to delete and no clear policy reason to delete is not a "supervote". There was a discussion in which I was thinking of deleting based on whether a particular crop was in scope but the discussion was also full of animosity between the nominator and the uploader and I felt the merits over policy was overshadowed by that. So I noted in the close that there would be no prejudice in reopening that discussion with a different nominator so the discussion could be solely focused on discussion of if the crop was in scope or not. Abzeronow (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Cool. I never said this has anything to do with the Exey Panteleev photographs in my original comment and I've been pretty clear since then that it's a wider problem. Apparently I can't make a proposal about a long standing issue just because you got in a row with a couple of users about some photographs that I never brought up and could really give a crap about though. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, I can accept that you were just trying to make a broader point based on a number of incidents, the timing made it seem like it was a continuation of the discussion above. Somebody had to close the DRs that had been open since May, and I didn't see consensus to delete. Abzeronow (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: That's fair. I doubt even necessarily even disagree with the way you closed the DR. Since there was already precedent to follow at that point. It's more just a general thing. The timing for the proposal was bad though. So it's natural for people to think they are connected. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Strange proposal. It's not really explained or defined what supervoting entails. How will someone asses if it is supervoting or not? The described behaviour ("individual admins to decide what is based on their personal opinions and regardless of how many users in the DR disagree with them") is in my opinion currently not allowed. See Commons:Administrators: "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". I very much agree with the quoted sentence --Isderion (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"Supervoting" just means closing a discussion based on the admins personal preferences instead of voters' opinions. It's not that complicated of a concept. You can say that's not currently allowed, and your correct to a degree, but there's no formal way to have a bad close reviewed outside of begging the admin to reconsider it. Which 99% of the time they aren't willing to do. Cool if people don't think dislowing supervoting is the answer to that, but then what's the solution since graveling to clearly unresponsive, tone deaf adminstrators when they make mistakes clearly isn't cutting it? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Very few things on Commons are actually a vote. For example, in a DR, if one person makes a solid argument that a work is copyrighted and not licensed, it doesn't matter how many people say, "but the file is really important." For another example, if a duly licensed file of a questionable map related to the current war is in use on the Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedia, our policy is that we might add {{Factual accuracy}}, but it shouldn't matter how many people prefer actual deletion unless the issue is first settled on the Wikipedia in question. Conversely, no admin is going to come out and say, "This is a judgement call and I can see that there is 80% agreement but I don't like it so I'm going the other way," so it is never going to be a clearcut supervote.
• I've seen a fair number of bad closes get overturned. What do we gain by the specific adoption of a rule around "supervotes"? How is a "supervote" functionally any different than any other bad close? - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how it is. Admins have to rule on policy. That's not a "supervote" to me, just a decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've seen a fair number of bad closes get overturned. @Jmabel: Have you? I haven't. I guess for me it's more about trying to avoid contentious decisions in the first place. Especially one's related to neutrality. Since there's been real issues lately with administrators doing involved editing and/or making decisions based on their own personal preferences. I don't think it matters so much with questions of copyright, as there's clearly no room for give there.

But I do think admins should stay as neutral as possible when it comes to determining the educational value of any given image or set of images on here. Since there's more room for interpreting SCOPE then exists for copyright. I don't think the small amount of admins who close DRs should be determining what's educational for everyone else though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• I oppose this specific proposal but think that it's a very valid issue worth discussing. A few thoughts on the proposal and the discussion above...
  - COM:CONSENSUS might be red but Consensus is still a major part of the project and of DRs. COM:Administrators links to the essay COM:Staying mellow so obviously Consensus has some level of policy support here. Yes, COM:Deletion requests makes it clear that administrators are empowered to make a decision based on copyright and policy against consensus of a discussion in the DR, but many of our DRs are not clear-cut copyright/policy decisions, and require some level of interpretation or preference. COM:Administrators says 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 which could be read a few ways, but to me this implies that they have additional power in DRs to use the tools, but not necessarily in making editorial decisions. We could probably have a long discussion on this topic and make the above quote a little more clear (in either direction).
  - en:WP:Supervote isn't banned on Wikipedia - it's an essay describing behaviours that arise from their discussion closure policies. We could have a similar essay here discussing the same topic with the nuances unique to Commons. The Wikipedia essay distinguishes between various variations of supervoting (generally a bad thing) and admin discretion (part of the role we entrust to admins); I'm sure the discussion here is intended to discuss the former and not the later. And if we try to avoid COM:WIKILAWYERING about whether every concept must have a policy (or even essay?) page on Commons for it to be discussed, I think it's easy to imagine the cases where a "supervote" could be problematic.
  - COM:Deletion requests says: The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of their ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle. It is not the task of the closing admin to engage in detailed legal or factual research in order to find a rationale to keep the file. Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept.
  ---^This specifically directs the closing admin to "say with reasonable certainty". What does it mean to say something with reasonable certainty - put it in bold type? Declare it like Michael Scott from en:The Office (American TV series) declared bankruptcy (with exclamation marks)? They should not only "say it with reasonable certainty", but explain their reasonable certainty (or lack thereof, leading to the precautionary principle).
  - If we were to have guidance in this area, I think it should advise (similar to Rhododendrites above): In general, administrators should close deletion requests based on weighing the arguments and interpretations raised in the discussion and their validity against Commons policy and copyright. Administrators may close deletion requests against discussion consensus based on policy and copyright, but when doing so they should clearly explain the policy or copyright rationale for their closure.
  ---^A closure against discussion consensus which does not have a clearly explained policy or copyright justification is likely to be relitigated by the discussion participants, which is a big waste of many volunteers' time.
  - I agree with Dronebogus below that the other half of this is the ability to constructively appeal closure, which today is not a problem when appealing deletions via COM:UDR, but not for appealing Keeps, where re-nominating 1) could be speedy closed and 2) might not get any additional input in order to assess whether the initial decision was correct.
  -Consigned (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  Excellent post. I agree with your proposed guidance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• With regard to "scope" what I think Wikimedia Commons needs is the inverse of precautionary principle. If there is a significant doubt about the "scopeness" of a particular file, it should be kept. Simple as that. If there are Wikimedia Commons users who claim somehow something is educative, please en:Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Strakhov (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Re: If there are Wikimedia Commons users who claim somehow something is educative… @Strakhov: despite a lot of respect for you, I disagree. There are users here who will defend practically all porn as somehow educational; there are users who will defend anything they agree with politically no matter how much it is simply non-notable user-made propaganda; there are users who will defend ridiculously extensive collections of family photographs of their own relatives; there are people who defend false and misleading maps, utterly imaginary user-fantasy flags, and all manner of AI slop. I could go on. If we bow to everyone's notion of what should be in scope we become a completely indiscriminate media collection, distinguished from (say) Flickr mainly by providing unlimited free hosting. - Jmabel ! talk 07:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Possible new proposal: implement a formal DR close appeal system?

This proposal is obviously never going to be approved, so instead of banning “supervoting” should there instead be a formal system for appealing bad “keep” closes? I know one exists for bad deletions, but the only way to appeal a keep closure is either re-nominating the file or directly confronting the admin responsible. As demonstrated recently admins can simply dismiss the former as system-gaming (or some other technical objection) and have no obligation to even respond to the latter let alone implement it. Therefore there functionally is no way for bad keep closures to be appealed effectively. --Dronebogus (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

A formal process for appealing DRs isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the tide is well against you in this case. If this is a proposal you want to pursue even beyond the present case, you may want to just take some time, gather evidence of a range of DRs you weren't involved with where an appeal system would've helped, and put together a concrete proposal for people to consider. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

There is already an appeal process for deleted files and pages. It is at COM:UDR. While it is certainly not perfect, creating a new process isn't the solution. I would support some changes to the current process: formal rules about closing UDR, better archiving system, etc. Yann (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: how would someone use UDR to appeal a DR that was closed as "keep"? - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

One would use DR for that, like it's done nearly every day. Krd 14:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it, the proposal was made precisely because people have been chastised for starting a new DR shortly after one was closed as "keep," so saying that they can do what they've been chastised for is at least not a complete answer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If they have new arguments, they can go that way and won't be chastised. If they don't have new arguments, they shouldn't get another decision. Project goal of Commons is to build a file repository, not to please everybody every time, and also not to build the best ruleset regardless of the required overhead. Krd 20:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: A large part of this has to do with situations where the administrator who closed the DR as keep made a bad call. There's absolutely zero reason what-so-ever that whomever re-nominates the files for deletion should have to make new arguments or risk being attacked for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

As I explained above, I very strongly support this idea, and agree with Rhododendrites that it should be worked on and submitted separately. -Consigned (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment @Dronebogus: It seems like there's support for the idea of implementing a formal DR close appeal system. Can someone (Dronebogus or anyone else) start a draft page or figure out the next steps to doing that? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in drafting it, but I have a few thoughts.

  • Anything I could support would require actively notifying on their user talk page the person [typically an admin] whose close is being challenged, and at least pinging everyone who had commented on the DR in question.
  • I'd suggest that there needs to be a lot of clarity about who can close the discussion on such a challenge (presumably never the person who starts the challenge, nor the prior closer).
  • I'd suggest that the drafter consider enumerating existing ways of overturning a DR.
  • Are there any circumstances where a DR resulted in a deletion and this new mechanism is to be used in preference to a UDR?
  • Is it required to attempt discussion with the closer before opening a formal challenge to a DR under this new mechanism?
  • Is there to be some limit on how many of these a single user can open in a given period of time, or about the same file, to prevent constant relitigation?
  • Is there a limit on who may use this mechanism? E.g. any user in good standing vs. at least auto-confirmed / just not topic-banned from doing so, etc.; possibly disallow the person who had started the DR in the first place.
  • I'd suggest that the drafter consider enumerating the proposed grounds for overturning a DR that this mechanism is intended to address. In particular, which of the following are and are not allowed?
    • Argument disputing the stated basis of closure, without any additional evidence.
    • Additional evidence not in the prior discussion (and is there any reason that wouldn't just be another regular DR).
    • "I just think this was wrongly decided" with nothing further to say.
    • Accusation of bias by closer.
    • Accusation of bias introduced via canvassing.
    • [doubtless there are others worth mentioning]

  Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  How much overlap would there be between this new mechanism and UDR? I don't spend much time at UDR but it seems to me like its purposes are 1) appealing a deletion that one disagrees with for whatever reason, 2) appealing a deletion based on new evidence, or 3) temporary undeletions e.g. to move to Wikipedia for Fair Use. Could 1 and 2 be done in the same place for both appealing deletions and appealing keeps? IMO the guidance you suggest should apply to both scenarios. Consigned (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • @Consigned: As I understand it, this is far more about appealing a "keep" than about appealing a deletion; as you note, we already have a solid mechanism for the latter. Also I could imagine it being a potential place do discuss future undeletion date, for which I believe we don't currently have a good forum. It is possible that it could be broader, including that it could be a broadening of UDR, supplanting the current UDR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing why any new procedure is needed in that situation. I remember starting a deletion request for a file that had previously been kept, giving as the reason code in the EXIF that demonstrated the file was previously uploaded on Facebook or Instagram. If the nominator provides a persuasive deletion reason, not just a restatement of a personal argument, it is likely to win the day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

    Or just be closed off hand by another administrator "per the previous discussion" or some nonsense. You think this whole thing is made up or that everyone who thinks it an issue just doesn't know how to make an argument? Come on. Know one would be wasting their time on this if it was that easy. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

    If it's purely an argument over scope, there's no new issue, and especially when files are COM:INUSE, a speedy close "per the previous discussion" is perfect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Ability to preview image metadata during the upload process?

Would it be possible to update Special:UploadWizard so that the file metadata could be previewed?

I just uploaded a file whose source page indicates it is under the MIT License, and only after the upload completed did the metadata show that it is actually non-free. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like there is a jQuery plugin available that would do the heavy lifting here: https://github.com/sanisoft/jQuery-fileExif - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The api also has a method to get the exif data of a "stashed" file that is uploaded but not yet "published". Bawolff (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Right, but I'd use that only as a fallback, because it is much later in the process. If people are running Javascript (almost everyone does) and we can do it client-side before even starting the upload (as we presumably already do with the visual preview), we probably should. - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You might have some differences though, as MediaWiki gets metadata from a variety of sources in addition to exif such as IPTC and XMP (Not to mention other file types). Bawolff (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This would also improve privacy. Is there a code issue on phabricator about this? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

OWID visualizations

We are gradually launching Our World in Data visualizations within MediaWiki. One can see a bunch of them on Basque Wikipedia as we continue to test and improve things.[1]

The gadget uses a data file like this. We do not want each language to have to create their own version of these data files so the request is can we host these here at Commons? And than have the gadget read the data file from Commons rather than locally. Note all the images used are stored here already.

They would look like this on Commons. I am not attached to the naming or the namespace this were to go in if accepted. Best

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons seems like a plausible host, but I'm still a bit confused. This is in the Basque Wikipedia but it's in English. How is localization to be done? What exactly would Commons be hosting? - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure so with respect to translation all one needs to do is translate the first "world heatmap" image using the SVG translate tool and that will roll through the rest of the interactive graph.[2] Here you can see a mostly translated one.[3] We are auto translating the country names using Wikidata on MDWiki and it will roll out in EU WP soon. Also bits of the gadget also require translation when it is initially installed. You will notice a language parameter in the template used to call an interactive graph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That answers my first question.

@Doc James: What exactly would Commons be hosting? - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Would be hosting the data templates like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:OWID/meat-supply-per-person Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems sane to me, but I doubt you will get votes here either way until this is more concrete. E.g.:

• Would this be a new namespace, or a new file type in the Data namespace?
• Would there be anything beyond the usual free-for-all in who is allowed to edit these? Is there a WikiProject willing to take the responsibility to watchlist them?
• Is there some sort of tool to validate these, or just "if they're broken, they're broken, and it's pretty obvious"?
• Is there anything Commons would have to do besides agree to host them?

Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

We can do them exactly like this if folks are good with it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:OWID/meat-supply-per-person

• In the template namespace (not exactly data files as basically a list of Commons images), but could put elsewhere if folks want
• Usual free for all edits, there is a .
• Yah we could build a validation tool eventually. Plan would be for these templates to be updated as more data becomes available on a yearly or so basis.
• Nothing more is required other than agreeing to host.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Would also want to start Commons:List of interactive graphs to contain a list of the available items. Could also do it with categories under Category:Our World in Data. Whichever people think is best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

If they are in the template namespace, how are they to be accessed by sister projects? - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The gadget will call them as "Commons:Template:OWID/meat-supply-per-person" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you invoke a template that way cross-wiki? I thought all you could do with a template on a different wiki is link to it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

We are loading the template into the gadget as a data file, so I think so. Our programmer is working on this as their next priority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

---

I feel like Doc James has clarified this sufficiently that it would be reasonable to vote on it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Doc James:

I'm still confused about the toplevel goal and how such templates will be used.

If your gadget is going to read and parse a template, then why not use Help:Tabular Data instead of a template? The gadget can figure out what to do with the files in the table. Easier to parse than a template.

Alternatively, you could put the graphs in a particular category. The gadget could use the MediaWiki API to retrieve all the files (e.g., countries) in that category and figure out what to do with them.

Glrx (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The top level goal is to bring these multilingual interactive graphs to Commons and Wikipedia in all languages that want them.

Okay will look at the Help:Tabular Data as an option with the tech folks we have working on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Glrx what we need are basically large lists of svgs on Commons. This is not exactly data so not sure the tabular data space is the best place? Still thinking the template space is better as it will also allow other items such as you see here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do you want to use SVG for simple graphics? For complex graphics using SVG might be necessary. For simple line charts and simple maps you should use mw:Help:Tabular data with mw:Extension:Chart for simple charts and mw:Help:Map data with mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer for maps. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The chart extension did not exist when we began development but i agree it would be a good idea for the country graphs. Will look into developing that. With respect to the heatmaps not sure how hard it would be converting the current svgs? Are there examples of heatmaps with mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think heatmaps or similar are currently not really possible. I think the only a bit more complex things possible are election result examples. GPSLeo (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe try to go with the chart extension for the country graphs and stick with the svgs for the heat maps... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Have requested activation of the underlying gadget here on Commons at Commons:Village_pump/Technical#Add_OWID_visualization_gadget_to_Commons Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Voting

•  Support - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Timeshifter (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Renvoy (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Bedivere (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC) Note: for users interested in this, there is this new WikiProject on English Wikipedia Wikipedia:WikiProject Data Visualization.

Sort edit requests by time

Template:Edit request

change {{PAGENAME}} to {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}, so that they are sorted by time in the categories.

so that users can first tackle the ones which have been waiting for a long time. RoyZuo (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, wouldn’t changing to {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} just sort the talk pages by whichever has the most recent edit, but not whichever has the template {{Edit request}} placed earliest? This is because every time the talk page is edited, the parameter {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} will also be updated. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The page having the least recent edit is definitely an old request.

Anyone is free to code up their complicated design to make it "perfect" as however they imagine. RoyZuo (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

True, but this isn't the case the other way around: old requests might be present on talk pages with much more recent edits, which means they will be ignored in that sorting. Jmabel's idea below, while heavier in terms of maintenance categories, would work better (and the creation/deletion of these categories can be handled by a bot). Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Another more lightweight option would be a subst wrapper for {{Edit request}} that adds the template and substs the current value of {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} as a parameter. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Might be better to do something along the lines of using "subst" to add a timestamp on creation, and make day-by-day maintenance categories (since order within a day doesn't matter much, this is not a matter where a few hours either way should be an issue). - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

As Tvpuppy said that wouldn't sort them by date uploaded (and neither date added to the category) so I'd oppose sorting by revisiontimestamp but support sorting by upload date if/once possible. It would be best if one could change the sorting on the category page to for example switch to the current sorting by file-title. Are there code issues for both of those things on phabricator?

phab:T329961 is a related issue but about the MediaSearch search results page, not the category page (btw via the incategory search operator one could nevertheless use this for a given category as a little-known workaround). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

1. say, which page in it is the least recently edited?
2. say, how long did it take for you to find out the answer to #1?

RoyZuo (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would one want to find out the most recent edited meta pages in a category or sort by last edited. It makes sense to sort by the time the latest unsolved edit request was made, for example to "first tackle the ones which have been waiting for a long time" as described in your initial post but I don't see any reason to sort edit requests by the time their meta page has last been edited. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Adopt Simple Wikipedia's Reciprocal ("One Strike") Blocking Policy

Simple English Wikipedia has a paragraph in their blocking policy that reads as follows:

In some cases, users who have been blocked indefinitely or banned on other Wikimedia Foundation projects move to Simple English Wikipedia. While most of these users will be integrated without problems, some are known as troublemakers. Administrators have the option to block such users. This is decided on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, a user who broke the rules on another project is not blocked unless they also break the rules on the Simple English Wikipedia. They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user. This is often called the "one-strike" rule. It is made to stop disruptive users, who have a history of making bad changes, from disrupting this project.

Like Simple English Wikipedia, Commons is a project people that have been blocked for conduct issues elsewhere come to as their new project. Some people learn from their mistakes on other projects and their time on Commons is uncontroversial or at least largely tolerable. Others come to Commons and cause the same issues they did on the project they were recently ejected from. For the latter group, I believe it would be beneficial for Commons to adopt an identical or similar one-strike policy. As such, I propose the following be added to the Commons blocking policy.

Users that are blocked, banned, or have editing restrictions (topic or interaction bans) on other Wikimedia Foundation projects often move to Commons. While some of these users contribute to Commons without problems, others repeat the issues that caused them to be sanctioned on their original projects. Such users can be blocked if they continue that behavior here even once, do not need the same amount of warning as a new user, and can be given longer blocks than would be given to a new user exhibiting the same behavior. This is often called the "one-strike" rule, and is designed to prevent users with a history of disruptive behavior from disrupting this project.

The intention of this is to give the admins stronger ground to stand on and a better tool kit to shut down users that export problems from other projects to Commons. If someone has an Armenia-Azerbaijan topic ban on a Wikipedia and starts revert warring a map of the disputed border here, we can just indef them, as they already had plenty of warning on Wikipedia and didn't take it to heart. Ditto with someone interaction banned on a Wikipedia that starts spurious DRs of the other IBAN member's uploads. Finally, if someone was community banned or indef blocked for repeated personal attacks on another project, we can set block lengths for their first offense here as if it was their third or fourth block here, as, again, they've had plenty of warning and haven't taken it to heart.

While this may seem harsh, dealing with repeat conduct issues has never been something Commons has been good at, and there are very few admins that even work in the area. We keep getting burned (and burned out) by such users. More is needed.

Votes (Adopt Simple Wikipedia's Reciprocal ("One Strike") Blocking Policy)

•  Support as proposer. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Seems reasonable. --Bedivere (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I am leaning weak support, as what happened on another wiki or website or in real life can be a factor in deciding if someone is going to be productive member or a problem, but codifying this seems a little much, particularly since it's still just up to an admin's judgement anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose not enough trust into the good governance structure of ALL 400+ other Wikimedia projects; also the threshold for indef blocks here on commons seems to me rather low already, so I don't see a reason to add to that. --Isderion (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose These are all things that should already be taken into account. It's a little worrisome if that's not presumed as a measure of common sense. GMG^talk 19:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Isderion. There's way to much room for admins on these projects to block people for whatever minor thing they want to. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to "one strike" block someone simply because Joe Schmo admin on a minor project decided to block someone over a minor issue. Admins don't need more cover (or excuses) to block users on here either. It's already ridiculously hard enough to get administrators to give valid, guideline based, reasons for blocks as it is. At the end of the day either a block is justifiable based on Commons' policies or it isn't. Otherwise, tighten the guidelines and take blocks more seriously, but this isn't a proper or fair way to deal with problematic users. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Especially since some other projects are poorly regulated and severly corrupt in their governance. Dronebogus (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose unless I have misunderstood. Appears simply redundant to me: says admins may do something admins already may do. If someone can point at a specific case where this would be different from current policy (allow admins to block someone they could not currently block) please do so. - Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Noonicarus and WMrapids would have both gotten blocks when they went to ANU about each other under this policy. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Don’t need a confusing rule to implement common-sense blocks. People who carry over bad behavior from other wikis should be blocked for their bad behavior HERE or globally banned EVERYWHERE. --Dronebogus (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: Users already blocked for abuse on one project that get blocked here for abuse are then technically eligible for global locking.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Isderion. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support. This proposal generally reflects the status quo, and I see no harm in codifying it; the wording is reasonable and nuanced while making it clear that cross-project disruption is not tolerated (at admin discretion). COM:BLOCK#When blocking already says Also consider the user's past behaviour and the severity of the disruption, and I've seen here that a history of disruption on other projects is sometimes taken into account when making blocking decisions. This proposal just makes it more clear that 1) blocks on other projects can be considered when blocking here (already happening) and 2) based on this, administrators can block based on a "first offense" on the Commons project depending on their assessment of past behaviour and the severity of the disruption (already happening). This proposal is clearly not an automatic one-strike rule, which I would oppose - blocks on other projects can be big and small, old and recent, fair and unfair, and we will continue to depend on administrators to use their judgement when deciding how to block here. It sounds like it works well at Simple Wikipedia based on Ferien's description below. Consigned (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Adopt Simple Wikipedia's Reciprocal ("One Strike") Blocking Policy)

• Just a note that I left a note in the simplewiki discord inviting community members there to share their thoughts on the rule and its application to Commons. I figured we could use some perspectives on how that rule typically plays out, if it has reduced disruption, if there are secondary issues that arise, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Hey, I'm a sysop on simplewiki so occasionally use this rule in my work. I've seen this thanks to a comment from Rhododendrites in the Discord channel, and I'm not too active in the Commons community so I'll leave a comment instead of an official vote. A large number of blocked enwiki contributors come over to simplewiki and actually integrate well into the community, but some don't and this rule generally works quite well for those who cause problems. I should also say that this rule used to technically only apply for banned users, but it sorta de-facto started applying to blocked users as well so it was changed in policy back in 2021. Something to also consider is that we try not to use this as a rule where they're blocked over minor things if they've been a long-term contributor to the wiki, and there should probably be a sort of allowance for this in Commons. --Ferien (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• I generally think this is a good idea. But we need to ensure that this rule is not used as an argument against blocking of users who behave bad but are not blocked on an other project. GPSLeo (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• What exactly does this change? We already can block users on this basis and, with obvious narrow-focus troublemakers I would say we routinely do. I feel like this is less a proposed policy change and more an expression of a desire that admins would do this more. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  It gives cover to the admins when they do issue these blocks. A lot of the users in question are very good at arguing their blocks, or at least very prolific at it, and this makes it easier and cleaner to shut those discussions down. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Users already get blocked for transferring drama over from other projects. Realistically what other justification for the block would an admin need in a case like that? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I get the point of Squirrel, which is just to clarify a situation that already occurs. Bedivere (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with clarifying the existing rules to say importing drama from other peojects can, and probably will, result in a block. I don't think there needs to be a whole new policy for that though. Just put a couple of sentences about it in the exiting policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  That was always the intention: I propose the following be added to the Commons blocking policy. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  @The Squirrel Conspiracy: No, your intention is to create a "one strike policy" where someone can be blocked for generally disruptive behavior because they were block on another project. What I'm saying is, the guideline should say that importing drama from another project isn't tolerated and that people can be blocked for doing it. That's different then say someone being blocked for some low level reason that has nothing to with why they were blocked on a different project purely because of the other block. The real issue here should be importing drama. Not someone getting blocked for something like swearing because some other project blocked them for vandalism when they don't specifically have an issue with cussing here. "Well, screw that it's the first time you've said the F word and you apologized. I'm going to block you anyway because you got in an edit war on some other project." That's not "importing drama." It's just you guys looking for an easy way to block someone without having to do it based on exiting policies or procedures. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• There was a similar proposal made by Faster than Thunder at Commons talk:Blocking policy#Section "Before blocking" citing English Wikivoyage. whym (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Adjust DR notice

Template:Idw

such that:

1. the 1st link from the top is the link to the actual DR (instead of Commons:Deletion requests now).
2. add some more visible signs that users should click that link and comment in the DR (instead of on their user talk pages). for example, something like

☞ <DR link> ☜

Reason: I notice that sometimes newbies reply under these talk page notices rather than going to the actual DR, so putting that link as the 1st should minimise this problem.

Here's a draft:

Some contents have been nominated for deletion at

☞ Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1 ☜

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

... RoyZuo (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it would help if you can make a draft on how the new layout could look like. GPSLeo (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support It's a good idea in theory. Although like GPSLeo I'd like to see an example of how the new layout would look but the current template could definitely be clearer. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Support moving from "its entry" to a bigger link as proposed; I'm open to any wording/formatting in case other options are discussed. -Consigned (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft

A page has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK SW 上環 Sheung Wan 皇后大道中 Queen's Road Centra… This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this gallery, 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

I have created a draft template at {{Idw/en/sandbox}}, following the draft suggested by RoyZuo above. Feel free to change it as the discussion continues. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I would support this, but I notice the language "If you created this gallery". Deletion requests most commonly apply to a single image. Should the language of the notice be tweaked further? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

That sentence was copied from the current template {{Idw/en}}, and the word “gallery” is just the default word used when it is viewed at the template page. When it is actually used, it will change according to the namespace of the nominated file. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Great! And  Support, accordingly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I would put the link in a button in mw-ui-progressive style to be even more visible: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1 GPSLeo (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the draft to include the button as you proposed, and I agree it is now more visible. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't expect the notification to be changed more then it has at this point but it would be cool if there something in it about how files aren't actually deleted and that the uploader can do an undeletion request. Since I don't know how many misunderstandings and/or confrontations I've gotten into because people don't know that their files aren't actually deleted and there's an appeal process. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Is the emoji still necessary? It seems redundant to the blue button. (And to be honest, it makes it a bit like a spam email.) Also, length can be an issue. File names can be too long for a button (or a link that looks like a button anyway). It would be nice to use an ellipsis when the button label is too long. whym (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, I don’t think the pointing emojis are necessary now since the button is very visible already, so I removed them from the button.

I also added a character limit for the DR title displayed on the button that will add an ellipsis for overlong titles. I’m not sure what will be a good limit, so at the moment I have set it to 50. You can see the changes in the example above. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

1. my design is using the underline and the fingers to induce a strong subconscious urge to click the link.
2. the button is more prominent, but it breaks the design. to retain that visual link, the phrase "linked request" should be boxed up in the same style. still, it's also not obvious to new users that the blue box/button is actually a link.
3. however, my personal preference is to avoid css styles as long as it's not necessary. the fingers were part of unicode 1.1 introduced in 1993, so they should work just like most letters for most users even if they have really outdated devices, or their software stripped the website of anything but raw text, or they cannot load anything but the text for whatever reason, etc.

RoyZuo (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If we are concerned to make it look good without CSS (I'm not sure we should be), we could include the fingers but have CSS hide them when it styles the button. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Add a "Use this file in an Infobox:" field for new users

There seems to be a common issue at WP of new editors incorrectly putting full markup for images into infoboxes, rather than just the file name. This causes the files to be displayed incorrectly. For example, compare:

• This edit, which used image = [[File:Street-Legal-Umbrella-Festival-Crown-and-Anchor-Kate-Hayward.jpg]],
• To this edit, which was corrected to use image = Street-Legal-Umbrella-Festival-Crown-and-Anchor-Kate-Hayward.jpg

The example above was brought up in this discussion at AFC on en.wp, and I immediately came across a couple of other drafts afterward that made the same mistake.

I think we are currently setting new users up to fail, as this is what users see after using the Upload Wizard:

Additionally, clicking the "Use this file on wiki" at the top of File:Example.jpg opens a pop up with the following:

Infoboxes are the first place new users place images in their drafts, but at neither of these stages is it clear that placing an image in an infobox only requires Example.jpg; instead, users are copying and pasting what the above tells them to use on a wiki.

The addition of an Infobox: field in both these places would benefit new users, and require less clean up from other editors. Nil NZ (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I think that makes the use this file popup more cluttered and confusing and will make people use the wrong syntax for embedding files outside infoboxes (eg because not everybody knows what an infobox is). Use of false syntax for infobox images is quite rare and easily usually quickly corrected. However, one could add some (?) info icon that when hovered over has the info on how to embed it in infoboxes (without the brackets) among possibly some other useful info. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment are all infoboxes on all sister projects now consistent about this? - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: No. Ones that rely tightly on English Wikipedia are, but for example on Spanish Wikipedia, the parameter is "imagen".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: sure, the parameter name is different, but they'd presumably still use "example.jpg".

What I was wondering is if there are Infobox templates on any sister project that want "File:example.jpg" or "Archivo:example.jpg" or "[[File:example.jpg|250]]" or whatever. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a good question, and one I hadn't thought through before making my above proposal. Per MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE on en.wp, just the image name is required thanks to the InfoboxImage module, which is in the list of modules at MediaWikiWiki:Manual:Importing Wikipedia infoboxes tutorial.

Doing a quick spot check shows that the Example.jpg format is used for infoboxes on the ES, PT, DE, FR, IT, JA, ZH and RU language Wikipedias; I haven't checked the smaller language ones, but assume it's the same. Nil NZ (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nil NZ: Thanks for that research.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Is current limitation of cross-wiki uploads sufficient?

We recently enabled the limitation of cross-wiki uploads to users who are autoconfirmed on Commons. This reduced the uploads of copyright violations and out of scope content using this tool a lot. I now had a look at the current uploads from users whose account is three days old. This shows that there are still more problematic than good uploads. I looked at the last 100 Uploads: 30 of these uploads are definitely fine, 21 are obvious copyvios, 21 are definitely out of scope including 6 self promotion photos with also unclear copyright. The other 28 are unclear with some requiring VRT confirmation on copyright or local evaluation if a that bad quality graphic should be in the article. I therefore want to discuss if we need to limit this tool even more to only autopatrolled users. As only 3 of the last 500 uploads using this tool were from autopatrolled users this would be a de facto ban of the tool. GPSLeo (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have perchance data about the geographic provenience of the still-problematic uploads? Are there any obvious socio-demographic trends visible, are there any language editions especially prone for copyvio uploads?

I fear the the WMF won't take it gladly if the tool gets de facto banned, so more fact-based granularity in restrictions would be needed, if possible. That said, I'm fine with a restriction to "autopatrolled" in order to effectively stymie first copyvios and then OOS media. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I will look if I can analyze the data in relation to this. The amount of uploads per project looks like a simple representation of the project size. I also noticed that uploads on non Wikipedia Wikis (Meta and Wikidata) were fine with all 14 from the last 500. GPSLeo (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I created a dataset from the last 30 days with the number of files uploaded per Wiki and the amount of these files they are already deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Autopatrolled on which wiki? On Commons? This might be too restrictive. For example, autopatrolled is given manually on Commons and I only got it when I had over 100,000 edits. If I remember correctly, I've even seen users with over 500,000 edits on here who still were not autopatrolled. Nakonana (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the datamining, GPSLeo. The dataset would IMHO support a further restricting of cross-wiki uploads to everything that is as bad or worse than the current all-Wiki average, meaning Incubator, AR, EN, ES, PL and RU, with FR data providing the cutoff. Then, we / you(?) do the same datamining in, let's say, 6 months (to catch possible avoidance movements). The other Wikis can currently keep the current status. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Restricting by rights on an other Wiki is technically not possible at the moment. GPSLeo (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't the restriction enforced by a filter? I thought that filtering for strings (like Cross-wiki upload from XY Wikipedia) would be possible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

There is global_user_editcount in abusefilter which could be used as proxy? --Zache (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This could be an option. Maybe with a requirement of 500 global edits? GPSLeo (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: No, I don't think it's sufficient. Granularly restricting by source wiki would work, if the filters could be configured that way. On the other side of the coin, all users who can cross-wiki upload here can also upload directly here if they want, bypassing any restriction passed here (source wiki or autopatrolled-here only); it's not a high barrier to public participation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The "other side" is not really a counter-argument, if you were thinking that way. I think that even low barriers are helpful, in the same train of thought as modified or blocked DNS records are widely employed for anti-piracy motions. They are not hard to bypass at all, but likely deter casual downloaders. So, if upload restrictions continue to be enforced, we'll also likely deter people who would possibly commit casual copyvios. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)