Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

I've been working through the results of abuse filter 298 and the overwhelming majority of uploads are not AI art. Working through the last 500 or so (from January 12 through today), my back of the envelope estimate is:

• 85% are non-AI images where the uploader is not the creator. These have been or will shortly be deleted as copyvios/no source/no permission.
• 5% are non-AI images where the uploader is the creator. These often have both PD-algo and another license until either they or a patroller fix the file page.
• 5% are non-AI images where the uploader is not the creator, but the file can be kept because of PD-textlogo, PD-old, etcetera.
• 5% are actually AI images.

Making matters worse, a lot of the AI images that are uploaded by new users aren't within scope. There is lots of debate about AI images and scope in DRs, but there's broad agreement that files with rendering issues so bad that the files can't be used on sister projects are generally out of scope, and a lot of the uploads are things like this clock with two Xs or this illustration of Shakespeare where none of the anatomy, architecture, or text makes sense.

On the one hand, Filter 298 is working exactly as intended, as patrollers are able to use it to neutralize a large amount of copyvios. On the other hand, I suspect that most of the time, people are just clicking the checkbox in the upload wizard because it's there and lets uploaders bypass having to answer other questions about the file's authorship. It being a prominent default option may be doing more harm than good.

Should we remove the AI checkbox from the upload wizard or delay where/change how AI can be selected as an option there? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's as clear-cut a case as there could possibly be. 95% incorrect, and much of that 5% useless. The AI checkbox should be removed from Upload Wizard entirely, or at least heavily restricted (30/500 would be my vote). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Did your "PD-aglo" mean "PD-algorithm" or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant PD-algorithm. I use PD-algo as a shorthand because I can't always remember how to spell "algorithm". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even as a shorthand, "PD-algo" would have been a lot clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought I was typing. As I said, I cannot seem to spell that word correctly. Fixed! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sannita (WMF): in case you are not following this page, probably a thread you will want to follow. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: still, if it is (as seems to be indicated above) an 85% accurate predictor of copyvios, it might be worth having. Sort of like the discovery of penicillin. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's functioning like a trap question in a survey. When we get an obviously false response to an easy question, that's a strong signal that the user may also be wrong about the other things they've said. Belbury (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've noticed this as well from patrolling Special:NewFiles with no consideration of edit filters--erroneous PD-algorithm claims have become very common. In case it's related, there has also been a noticeable increase in bogus {{PD-USGov}} claims--not the typical federal v. state conflation, but use with images that have no relationship to any government entity (e.g., movie posters, random Internet images, etc.) Whatever change was made to the UploadWizard should be reconsidered. Эlcobbola _talk 19:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an issue, but more general than only miss-tagging files. How do we prevent people from uploading copyright violations and out-of-scope images? It is much better that copyvios are uploaded without any license, than with a wrong license. Yann (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We still can't change the fact that people can't read, ignore multiple texts, and deliberately lie by checking the checkmark where they confirm they filled in the form correctly and aren't uploading copyrighted material. Previously the file would be uploaded as CC-BY-SA and would also end up in a big backlog. I think the UploadWizard is clear enough. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just to let you know that I followed very closely the discussion. We'll investigate and see if the formulation needs improving, or if people are deliberately choosing the wrong license for reasons that are not linked to wording. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked this user on en-wiki; their images are vandalism as well. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I do not think so. You can nominate uploads for regular deletion one by one, if you consider them vandalistic. Taivo (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiCompositeBot is malfunctioning. It's trying to find files those foes not contain copright info, but it looks at only templates and this results to wrong alarms for example look at the history of File:Letters SVG?2Esvg.png (please don't say something like "that's a bad filename", i explained the reason in the file page). I didn't put a copyright template to that page because i can't found a suitable template (the template that's added by the wizard is unsuitable). Until that bug is solved by the operator of the bot, please Special:Block/AntiCompositeBot. RuzDD (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The MediaWiki software (and bots) can only detect the presence of a license when it's a defined license template. For this reason, plaintext is not suitable for licensing. If you have not made substantial changes to a file, then you should simply copy the license from the original image.

I have deleted this particular file as an unneeded and unused duplicate. Unless there are on-wiki rendering issues with an SVG, we don't need a (almost unusably tiny) PNG copy generated from the SVG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion process is for which speedy deletion criteria or discussion @Pi.1415926535? RuzDD (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not duplicete: one of PNG while the other is SVG. RuzDD (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F8. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably there's an edit conflict happened and you could not see my second message @Pi.1415926535. RuzDD (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a specific on-wiki use case (such as the known text rendering bugs), there is rarely a need to create a PNG copy of an existing SVG file. The MediaWiki software generates PNG versions of all SVG files (which any external reuser can use). Your file had no valid on-wiki use, especially at such a small size that pixelation was obvious. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the text says "SVG" easily. MW engine cannot generate thumbnails smaller than 2kb in most cases. Most of icons are in much smaller resolutions. This file is not very important for me but i think that's weird.

Anyway, i think plain text licenses can be determined by robots. For example, if there's a phrase like "public domain" i think bots can consider the file as publicdomain. RuzDD (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. @RuzDD: A bot cannot readily tell the difference between "this file is in the public domain" and (for example) "this file derives from several sources, some of which are in the public domain" etc. There is no way it can be programmed to always pick up context.
2. You've repeatedly complained about how mediawiki renders PNG from SVG, and repeatedly been told there is a consensus to the contrary, and that if you want to change this you are going to have to change the consensus, not make ad hoc files on your own. I believe last time this came up you were told to take your case to Commons:Village pump/Technical. - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   1: You're right. 2: I understood now, thanks. RuzDD (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have a troll, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qantas Boeing 707 and Boeing 747-200 at Longreach's Qantas Founders Outback Museum.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I blocked the IP for one month for making nonsense DRs. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The modern artwork shown is a misinterpretation by the modern artist of an antelope as a predator. The correct images can be seen in this screendump from a recent study. The file is unfortunately used all over the place now as an example of prehistoric art, which amounts to disinformation. I have removed the link to the file from some articles, but really, this image should be removed as misleading. It may even be a subtle trolling of the wikipedia system. Ratel (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is up to local projects to solve factual disputes. I've changed the thumbnail description on en.wiki to "Modern artist's impression of a zoomorphic pictogram like those that would be in Apollo 11 Cave, Namibia", but the file is within COM:SCOPE so we're not going to remove it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am planning to visit the Museum that stores the original in April this year, and when I return I will upload my accurate photo/s of the item, and replace this fantasy item wherever I can on the various projects. Ratel (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{Factual accuracy}} template to the misleading modern drawing.

There's an actual photograph of the original at File:Poobah Ostrich Cave Drawing Photo.jpg but it doesn't appear to have any evidence of being freely licenced, so I've put that up for deletion. Belbury (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested deletion of a file in error. The file is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windermere_on_the_Mount_-_London,_ON_6-07-17_2-56-47_PM.jpg. I thought it was not in the public domain, but I see that the user who uploaded it was the creator. Please accept my apologies and do not delete this file. Thank you. Marygk86 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one was also in error, maybe more. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The DR that Marygk86 mentioned has been closed. Abzeronow (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one too. I didn't upload it, but most of the photos on Flickr by the Sisters of St. Joseph were public domain (some have since been removed). I'm not sure Marygk86 is completely aware of the deletion policy. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: , I've commented on both DRs you linked to. There's no urgent need to close them. Abzeronow (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: That editor opened their account three days ago and has been busy nominating for deletion valid files uploaded from the Sisters of St. Joseph Flicker account. I believe most or all these deletion nominations were in error. Should some remediation be applied, lest these wonderful photos be deleted in error? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: She's the archivist there; they inadvertently had put a bunch of "orphaned" files on Flickr, not understanding that if you don't know who took the photo, that doesn't mean you can publish it. Other people uploaded them to Commons based on this accidental Flickrwashing. Please take up any discusssion of this at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Congregation of Sisters of St. Joseph in Canada, where I've consolidated these requests. - Jmabel ! talk 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Congregation of Sisters of St. Joseph in Canada to bring all of these discussions together, and on Commons:Deletion requests/2024/02/10 and Commons:Deletion requests/2024/02/11 I've grouped the 100+ separate requests into collapsible areas. If someone else could close those 100+ separate requests as superseded by the centralized discussion, that would be good. Or if you think there is a better way to do it (redirection maybe?) that's fine, too I've now worked on this for several hours, it is Saturday evening, and I have plans in the material world.

I have not had time to place individual notices on each file page. Sorry. As I say, I've done hours of cleanup, but I'm out the door. - Jmabel ! talk 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed this editor's two contributions on the English-language Wikipedia are consistent with a sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013, but in this case, their substitution of images relating to the Funivia di San Marino were not unreasonable. Apologies if this isn't notifiable. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. already indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo and Эlcobbola: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the edit history of SpooksBGone which started off with them posting to editor's talk pages attacks on User:EugeneZelenko. I blocked them at en.wiki as their second edit was to create an attack page aimed at another editor. That finally led me to Commons. Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can someone that speaks French please explain to Quentin42170 that their free license is irrevocable, and that their uploads are within scope, so we're not going to delete them five years after upload? Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. -- CptViraj (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]