Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/02

New F10 (n)

Hello. I see that some nudity pictures are speedied as F10 personal files. They may or not be F10, but that is not the point. I want to propose to create a subsection (subcategory or simply another category) within/besides Category:Personal files for speedy deletion. This may be named "Category:Personal files for speedy deletion (n)". Nudity files considered F10 may be requested to delete speedily with a new "F10 (n)" CSD command. In this case, people who do not want to see nudity images when looking at the Category:Personal files for speedy deletion will be able to avoid them, if they so wish. This will not affect anything else. Thanks. Antipene (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and you should change your username. Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

man... if an admin dont wanna see inappropriate images then he should quit from adminship... this is unnecessary... also these kind of files shouldnt be deleted as f10, because they are Commons:NUDE. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 16:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

man, just ignore the troll Bedivere (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. OP indeffed and this feels like a bait post--Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Expanding Template:Official Doctor Who YouTube channel and Template:Official Star Wars Flickr stream

I would like {{Official Doctor Who YouTube channel}} and {{Official Star Wars Flickr stream}} to be expanded to allow the tagging of content from other official Flickr accounts and YouTube channels. Examples of official YouTube channels which could be added include Bravo, Cartoon Network India, FOX Sports, Harry Potter, HBO, MTV Shores, MTV UK, MSNBC, NBC News, NickRewind, Nicktoons, Prime Video AU & NZ, Rooster Teeth Animation, Warner Bros. Games and Warner Music New Zealand. Aside from the aforementioned Star Wars account, I am unable to think of any official Flickr accounts that even seldom publish their uploads under a free license (please let me know of any that do). Thoughts? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Media from YouTube, Template:From YouTube, Template:YouTube CC-BY

Hello, currently both Template:From YouTube and Template:YouTube CC-BY categorize files into Category:Media from YouTube which contains over 200,000 files and user @Trade did ask to diffuse the category. By using #switch function we can change the templates to categorize by file type into Category:Videos from YouTube or Category:Screenshots of YouTube videos where possible.

Here are the modified templatesː User:999real/From YouTube and User:999real/YouTube CC. And an example usage at File:Lil Zane 2024.jpg. Currently Template:YouTube CC-BY is protected for editing to template editors and admins so I can't edit it.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --Trade (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Expanding an explanation on the De-adminship 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.

There is no consensus for any changes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose this text to expand the de-adminship policy, this text came as a result of this discussion on meta and also inspired by the current policies on English Wikipedia:

Administrators are expected to adhere strictly to the principles of respect and proper etiquette as outlined in the Universal Code of Conduct. Any administrator who repeatedly or egregiously violates these principles by engaging in disrespectful behavior, personal attacks, or actions that undermine the community's trust may have their administrative rights revoked. Administrators are accountable for their actions and must provide clear and prompt explanations when their conduct or decisions are questioned. Repeated failure to communicate, poor judgment, or misuse of administrative tools, as well as conduct incompatible with the responsibilities of the role, may result in sanctions. Such cases will be reviewed by a designated committee, which will evaluate the severity, frequency, and context of the violations, ensuring a fair and transparent process. Administrators must maintain proper account security, including using strong passwords and reporting any unauthorized access immediately, as compromised accounts may lead to immediate loss of administrative privileges. In cases where violations persist despite warnings or where the offenses are severe, the administrator’s rights may be permanently revoked to safeguard the integrity of the platform and its community. Reinstatement of administrative rights, if sought, will be subject to thorough evaluation by the committee, considering the administrator’s past actions, corrective measures taken, and the current trust of the community.

This aditional description in the current policy aims to uphold a respectful, accountable, and secure environment, ensuring that administrators act in alignment with the values and expectations of their role in our community Wilfredor (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the process as it is is perfectly fine but it can be improved for sure. Clarifying that personal attacks and disrespectful behaviour is not okay seems like a good step however common sense applies. Also your proposal mentions a committee whose creation you do not elaborate further. In any case I would oppose creating a committee and leave the decision of desysopping in the hands of the community (i.e. voting). I don't mean to condone wrong behaviours but one off disrespectful comment or attack could be pardoned, the desysopping process should go for reiterative bad behaviour only. Bedivere (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Also stating that "Administrators are expected to adhere strictly to the principles of respect and proper etiquette as outlined in the Universal Code of Conduct" is redundant since all users are expected to abide to that code of conduct, including admins for obvious reasons (it is literally verbatim) Bedivere (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

We all should keep in mind that the UCOC is the BARE MINIMUM for acceptable behavior, and we should expect admins to have a much higher standard than UCOC. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but the proposed wording is not stronger. I would not oppose a stronger wording at all (just fyi) Bedivere (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wilfredor, Would you be willing to add a sentance into the proposed text stating that UCOC is the bare minimum, and should be well above the UCOC at all times. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this thing that seems to be obvious, I do not feel that it is being fulfilled. Wilfredor (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Common sense isn't that common. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It can be easily weaponized to serve personal agendas, though, so a good amount of good sense and discretion is strongly recommended when using it. Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That's right. All I would support is stronger-wording the current policy and saying that personal attacks, poor behaviour are not accepted. But as it is now, there should be a discussion (always local) before initiating a proper desysopping voting Bedivere (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

February unarchiving

In light of the U4C's motion about this topic I'm rescuing this from the archive in hopes that there is interest among Common's editors to continue the discussion above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, I'm not seeing consensus to implement the proposed text, mainly because it implies commons would need an arbcom. I am seeing concensus that the policy wording should more strongly discourage personal attacks and disrespectful behavior, while reitterating admins are expected to act to a much higher standard to the UCOC. Due to participating in this discussion, I can't close it. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I've formally closed it as having no consensus for any changes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

---

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

Consent query

In theory, photographs licensed on Commons are expected to have the informed consent of the people depicted in the photo: Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people (2011)

In practice, this is rarely even asserted, let alone documented or enforced. There are less than 20,000 files with consent assertions: Consent tracking

I propose that this might be improved by adding {{consent|query}} to photos that meet some set of criteria. Perhaps those where:

1. An individual is the prominent focus of the photo
2. An individual is not posing or making eye contact
3. An individual is in a state of undress ("Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots")

If nothing else, adding the consent query tag will increase awareness that informed consent is an expectation. And I'm assuming that this one of the reasons the consent query template was established.

What is a responsible and productive way to go about this? Jerimee (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that any one of these criteria triggers a need for consent, or only the combination of all three?

Even if the latter, I can immediately think of photos I've taken that fall under all three of the criteria you have mentioned and which certainly does not require more explicit consent (examples are necessarily NSFW because of criterion 3):

• File:2017 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists prepare 020.jpg, File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2010 - 92.jpg, File:2017 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists prepare 057.jpg. The people who are the prominent focus of these are all naked or nearly so, are not making eye contact, and there is no doubt in the U.S. that if they are doing this in the completely public situation of being in a parade, no further overt consent is needed. Indeed, it would be seen as very odd to ask for more formal consent, to the point where they would probably be very suspicious of the motivation of anyone who asked for that consent (especially because, presuming the photographer was clothed, it would be very awkward for that photographer to expect the people in the parade to pay attention to them). - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly; I appreciate input. I understand why photos of that activity may not require (additional) consent. I appreciate that example.

I expect the criteria will need to refined based on response and what is learned by doing more of this. For my part, I know I will often get it wrong and apply the tag where it isnt much needed, especially at first. I will need to learn and improve.

One thing that I find confusing/tricky is "What constitutes public space?" I feel like this is highly circumstantial and varies considerably from culture to culture etc.

I feel strongly that people who take photos in the context of cultures they do not belong to... I feel like that is more problematic than people taking photos of cultures they belong to or are culturally fluent in. (I've phrased this poorly!) Jerimee (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kochendes Paar in einer Küche 2017-01-15.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Little-girl-570864 1280.jpg, which both touch on your very subject. I support your notion of processing and documenting consent, though. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but those look to me like photos where the subjects are clearly posing/posed, especially the first one. This seems visibly apparent to me; I don't exactly know why... They seem professional, deliberate, staged/not candid, purposefully arranged, and studio lit. So excellent examples of what we are not trying to flag. Jerimee (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t like the overt focus on perceived nudity. Nudists or Himba women probably do not care that they are being photographed in what western society considers a “state of undress”, and even in fairly conservative western nations most people would not consider photographing someone in a swimsuit a violation of privacy on a public beach. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, nudity is great. Lack of consent is not, especially when the unconsented media is globally licensed such that the depicted person has no control over how their likeness is used.

Nudists and Himba women do not need you to speak for them. Unless of course you are a Himba woman in which case your comment is entirely appropriate and appreciated. Unsourced hypothetical assertions about groups of people made by people who do not belong to those groups aren't especially helpful.

Who goes to a beach and intentionally photographs strangers without their consent? Nudists, since you mentioned them, explicitly do not do this. 1 2 3 4

This discussion is not meant to be a forum for criticizing our existing consensus guidelines. When you say you don't like the overt focus, was that meant to suggest that consent queries be focused elsewhere? If so, where would that be? How can we improve our work together? Jerimee (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many files like this one - File:Pyrotechnic show at the 2013 Ostrov rock festival.jpg - where the depicted persons are clearly performing, but where it also seems unlikely they gave consent to have their likeness licensed for anyone in the world to do whatever they want with. Performers make a living by selling their likeness; there is no (implicit or other) agreement to allow strangers to give it away for free without reservation. These photos are often released requiring the person photographer to be attributed, but with little thought given to the rights of the person photographed. Jerimee (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the Russian laws on that and whether doing a performance like that is implicit consent to be photographed (it would be in the U.S.). Normally the way we handle that for U.S. photographs it to add {{Personality rights}}, indicating that there are likely to be many potential uses for which you would need the subject's consent. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There are moral as well as legal considerations. That said, perhaps my idea that the photos are actually licensed with the licenses attributed to them is overly literal. If that is the case, it would be nice to have that made more explicit in the licenses themselves. Jerimee (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

A photographer (or other copyright-holder) can only license the rights that they own. Any picture of a living human has some limitations on how it can be used, and some of those rights either cannot be waived, or someone would be out of their mind to waive them. For example, virtually no picture of a living human that we have on Commons could legitimately be used in the U.S. in a context where it implied that they endorse a particular product, politician, etc., and we would not expect anyone ever to waive a right like that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I may be confused on what our licenses are/do. I am assuming "use for commercial purposes" permits usage in commercials, among other things. Jerimee (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: in the case of a picture of a living human being absolutely not, and yes that word "commercial" is confusing because in the U.S. that is the common word for a radio or television advertisement (in the UK, they are generally "adverts"). What "commercial use" means in the CC licenses is that you can (for example) use it in a book or newspaper (or even a post card or calendar) which is "commercial" in the sense that is is sold for money. This is still limited by personality rights. In theory, you could slap {{Personality rights}} on any picture of a living person (and some uploaders do that). In practice, I think most of us use it only where we think something might be more than routinely sensitive or where the personality rights issues might be more than usually extensive.

Reuse of any image is always subject to the laws of the country where you are using it. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The personality rights tpl says this: Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose.

I'm not sure your claim denying images "... could legitimately be used in the U.S. in a context where it implied that they endorse a particular product, politician, etc...." is as strong as I first took it to be.

I appreciate your input; thank you for your replies. Jerimee (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That is a non-copyright restriction. Nowhere does it say "are not subject to personality rights restrictions" or "are not subject to trademarks". - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Purple people eater (50350528136).jpg I share this example because

1. it is ambiguous if this person knew they were being photographed (my read of "candid shot" is "creep shot")
2. highly unlikely they gave informed consent
3. they aren't easily identifiable, but certainly possible

What do you think? Jerimee (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I certainly would not have uploaded that. It is certainly legal in the U.S. (no expectation of privacy on a public beach), but it seems out of scope, of only prurient interest, and potentially embarrassing to its (probably unknowing) subject. If you wish to nominate it for deletion, I would certainly vote to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really view it as prurient or even OOS, but it’s a rather unflattering image of an unaware subject as well as a very common topic illustrated poorly. I would not really feel grotesquely violated if this was me and it was just hanging around commons among countless other images, but it wouldn’t necessarily want it broadcast to the world on a high traffic page. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about tagging photos with the consent-query template, as an interim step toward, or perhaps in place of, a delete request?

I picked this one as an example because I (incorrectly, as it turns out) thought this particular image was not eligible for personality rights.

I appreciate you mentioning the personality rights template. I prefer the consent query template because, in my mind at least, it better addresses our code of conduct re moral rights (Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). I agree that the pr tpl is more ubiquitous and serves a similar purpose, but the focus on the legal aspect does little to enforce or inform about the equally necessary moral requirement for consent. Jerimee (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: how would any image of a living or recently living person in the U.S. be "not eligible for personality rights"?

Consent, in a legal sense, is present. Again: no legal expectation of privacy at a public beach in the U.S., consent is implicit.Still, it's an unflattering picture, and I see no educational value in it. Since I take it you do not plan to nominate this for deletion I will. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

OK. I mean, I don't mind doing it, but it sounds like you are. I thought photos had to have at least half of the face visible; my mistake. Jerimee (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Commons:Personality rights
• Commons:Choosing a license
• Commons:License revocation

Jerimee (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jerimee (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)