Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2

Deletion of Image On My Profile

How can I delete the image on my profile? Can somebody please help me. Anthea Roa Murfet (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anthea Roa Murfet: Hi, and welcome. File:Anthea Roa Murfet.jpg was already deleted per COM:HD#Deleting an image.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jeff! Anthea Roa Murfet (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anthea Roa Murfet: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to F1 and F3

Here is my proposed revision of F1 and F3, developed in collaboration with others at Commons talk:Deletion requests#Changes to CSD text:

F1. Clear copyright violation

Content is a clear copyright violation, with no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work.^{Note: See revised version as of 06:34, 14 September 2021 below.} This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality. Repeated uploading of non-free material may lead to the uploading user's account being temporarily or permanently blocked.

F3. Derivative work of non-free content

Derivative works based on non-free content (such as screenshots of non-free content). This does not apply to photographs taken in a public place, though the photograph itself remains subject to the other speedy criteria if its authorship is in question. Given the complexity of copyright rules like COM:FOP and COM:DM, it is best for such issues to be resolved in a formal deletion request.

I've basically taken my proposed changes 1 and 2 from that section as-is, and revised change 3 to be more generic. I've also swapped "apparent" for "clear", since "apparent" is a contranym which could mean either "obvious" or "seeming", and we want to emphasize that F1 is not for mere suspicions of copyvio. @Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, Nelson Ricardo 2500, Christian Ferrer, ArticCynda, Andy Dingley, A.Savin, Jeff G., Davey2010, and JWilz12345: @廣九直通車, Tuvalkin, Liuxinyu970226, Yann, Pere prlpz, and LPfi: Your feedback is appreciated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Support LGTM. SHB2000 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Support, especially the F1 change. I might still try to work in a link to COM:FOP in F3. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Clindberg: How does it look now? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I like F3 but would suggest rephrasing F1, because there are users who believe that mere small (or even not that small) size constitutes "no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing" and produces a presumption of copyright violation, such that even photos from 2005 by photographers who uploaded them in good faith but may be dead should in their opinion be deleted. My proposed rephrasing: Content is a clear copyright violation, with good evidence that no Commons-compatible license was issue by the copyright holder, nor is it a free work. This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality, nor is mere size clear evidence of copyright violation. Repeated uploading of non-free material may lead to the uploading user's account being temporarily or permanently blocked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek: How about we invert it: "Content is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licensing has been issued by the copyright holder." (No need to mention size in that case.) The most common form of such evidence would be an external website with no free license predating the Commons upload, but other forms of evidence would include Getty Images in the metadata or watermarks which indicate that the image is from a notable copyrighted work such as Google Maps or a copyrighted TV show. (What we don't want is people tagging for speedy deletion just because a random name in the file description, metadata, or watermark does not match the uploader's username; those are for npd or DR.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Support I definitely support that phrasing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support phrasing as of 06:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support. I suggest the simplest English wording (short sentences), while we still have a precise explanation, so that it can be understood by non-native speakers. It also makes translations easier. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support This is an improvement. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support. -- Geagea (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support --A.Savin 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support Lotje (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support looks good to me! --El Grafo (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support Excellent improvement, nice work! ArticCynda (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support. Sensible to clarify SD shouldn't be used in some more nuanced cases. Aranya (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Seeing that there is unanimous support after a month, I have made the change. Please take a look at the new version of the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

U1

U1 currently says:

User requested deletion of their own user page or user-subpage. User pages that are blanked by the user may also be deleted under this criterion.

The linked page is a rejected proposal! Why is it linked here? The rejected proposal links to meta:Help:User page; perhaps the CSD should also link to that help page. Brianjd (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Creations by blocked or locked users

I think we need a new criterion based on en:WP:CSD#G5.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been rejected at least once before. Tokfo (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason is similar to why we allow original research on Commons (which can be as simple as visiting a remote area of a national park to photograph it and having others trust that the image depicts what it purports to depict). Copyrighted text can be easily transformed into Wikipedia prose in a way that is not considered a derivative work, so it is not a huge loss to delete contributions by banned users. However, images don't work the same way, so 1) we don't require images to come from a reliable source and 2) we can't afford to lose useful content created by a banned user which can't easily be recreated. Now, if it's out of scope, it can of course be deleted for that reason alone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the blocking is important. If someone persistently creates new accounts to upload copyrighted images, then asking for each one to be individually checked is a huge sink of volunteer time while in the meantime leaving copyrighted images hosted on Commons under false licenses. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: In my experience, a history of copyright-related warnings or deletions is already a significant factor in subsequent DRs where the copyright status is in doubt - even if the uploader has not yet been blocked. I don't see what this has to do with blocking. Brianjd (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's about potentially avoiding sucking up volunteer time in building the DR case and then adding to the months-long backlog of deletion requests. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Oh, I see. That's why you want to send these files to speedy deletion. But is individual tagging for speedy deletion (which implies individual checking of each file) really more efficient than a mass DR (which probably will not require individual checking in such an extreme case as a copyright-violating sockpuppet)? I don't have much experience with sockpuppets, so I am probably not qualified to answer this question. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The COM:VFC plugin allows a user to add the same speedy deletion tag to any or all of a user's uploads in a few clicks, although I don't know how that looks to the admin deciding whether to delete or reject each one. Speedy deletion is more efficient in terms of how quickly the issue would be addressed, though: I've seen cut-and-dried block evasion DRs left open for six weeks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this quote sums it up:

An upload by a sock that has to be deleted and another day the same upload by a non-sock that has to be kept is patent nonsense.

— Achim55 at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/04#Request for comment: Deletion/undeletion of uploads by banned/blocked users

Of course, this quote would not apply to copyright violations, which seems to be Chipmunkdavis's main concern. What about Jeff G.? Why do you want this change? Brianjd (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Brianjd: I want to streamline the process of deleting the detritus left behind by locked or blocked proven sockmasters, sockpuppets, and copyright violators by allowing the use of Special:Nuke and more discriminating tools, as inspired by the frustration I see at User talk:Elcobbola#Sockfarm copyright issues.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a "speedy PROD" approach may be appropriate: any files uploaded by socks of blocked/banned users during their block/ban may be speedily deleted if no user in good standing endorses their existence. If a file is in use on any Wikimedia page other than the sockpuppet/sockmaster's user page (which is a broader definition than COM:INUSE), then it is automatically ineligible because someone else implicitly endorses its use. (If a non-banned user adds it anywhere including their userpage, then they are endorsing the file, though it can still be nominated for regular DR as out of scope. If the banned user adds it to an article, then the community is endorsing the file until and unless they remove it from the article.) If someone makes a keep !vote at DR, then it is ineligible as well. Finally, files speedily deleted under this criterion may be unilaterally restored by any admin or summarily REFUNDed at COM:UNDEL upon request by a user in good standing (and converted to DR if the patrolling admin has doubts, but they should not unilaterally decline the request unless it meets another CSD criterion). This criterion should only be used as a last resort, i.e. if there is sufficient evidence for F1 then F1 should be used. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Support At least in case of globally banned users the situation is clear – just block, nuke & forget. It's not worth to loose volunteers' time for analysis what a vandal/abuser did. The global policy states: Accordingly, an individual globally banned by the Foundation may not edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists, without the explicit permission of the Wikimedia Foundation and Any contributions made by a banned individual, directly or indirectly, may be reverted or removed as part of ban implementation. --jdx ^Re: 00:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Productive users can get blocked or banned for reasons that have nothing to do with violating copyrights. If somebody's files were to be deleted on the ground that they are blocked, they need to have been blocked for that specific reason, and they should be new users so that their uploads can be regarded as one batch. I don't see why a deletion request for "unused files uploaded by NN" cannot be used for those cases, and I don't see what being blocked has to do with anything. Only a tiny portion of our files are used on any Wikimedia projects, so not being used is no guarantee for not being valuable. –LPfi (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For the sockfarm issue, that can be handled by requesting deletion for any files uploaded by the specific user and his present and future socks, in an ordinary deletion request or whatever. Those are about very few users, so we don't need any shortcuts for the decision itself, and we don't need to couple it with blocks or banns, which are about a much larger group. –LPfi (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is a really bad idea, a user known for uploading good images could be blocked and / or banned for basically anything unrelated to their uploads and if they evade their block to upload more useful free educational images these images would then be considered for speedy deletion (without discussion) while under the current system they wouldn't even be eligible for the normal deletion process. If a user only uploads copyright violations and is known for only uploading copyright violations then it's highly likely that they are already getting nuked in the current system without such an addition, in fact it doesn't even matter if there was a prior block (or ban) or not. Meanwhile it would automatically make useful (often used) images eligible for deletions simply because of the social status of the uploader and not the content of the file itself. There is this user who keeps telling me that I'm an idiot and that I should go fuck my mother, I have tagged around a hundred of their socks and I usually find their socks pretty quickly, but they manage to find extremely rare public domain images that otherwise wouldn't be on the internet if they didn't upload it with their socks, while I cannot say that I am a fan of that person, I very much appreciate his uploads and have defended a number of his uploads from being deleted after others that have had issues with him nominate them as "sock uploads" and nothing more, if they upload copyright violations of hoaxes I nominate them for deletion, but a lot of their uploads are free and educational and most important of all extremely hard to find online. If a user gets indefinitely blocked for uploading copyrighted screenshots of non-free websites after warnings and then registers a new account to upload free content and doesn't continue any disruption that originally got them blocked then deleting their good edits doesn't prevent any more bad edits, it would be deletion for the sake of deletion.

Deleting content on the basis of anything other than the content itself is a disservice to the Wikimedia Commons and its users. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, based on globally locked users puts extra powers in the hands of admins on other projects over the Wikimedia Commons (not talking about WMF banned users), if a user at the Turkish-language Wikipedia and Turkish-language Wikisource disrupts there and then gets globally locked (de facto globally banned) then all their contributions here would then be liable to deletion (despite official policy at the Meta-Wiki even stating that global locks aren't global bans and that lock evasion shouldn't immediately be greeted with another global lock if the new account isn't being disruptive, current version), in all cases, content should always come first and rehabilitation should come before blind punishment. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Support for uploads that match the disruptive behaviour a user was blocked for, with it being enough for a nominator to say "likely copyvio" without providing an explicit source if a sockmaster has a talk page full of copyvio deletions. In a case like Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuiyui2001, the problem user seemed pretty happy to upload dozens of hoax police badges onto Commons under a new username every few weeks, seeing that it would often take Commons a month to discuss and delete each batch, at which point they could make a new account and upload some more. I'm also seeing cases where socks of copyvio uploaders get blocked for socking, but their uploads are left in place: there should be an option for a quick sweep of "block evasion, likely copyvio" speedy deletions, rather than expecting the blocker or nominator to comb through and provide source URLs for dozens of files. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Policy for users removing tags from their own images

{{Dont remove speedy}} says that users shouldn't remove speedy templates from their own articles and to "make your case on the image's talk page", but {{Speedydelete}} says to "replace this tag with a regular deletion request".

If the second is correct, is that the best advice to give to new users? An editor unfamiliar enough with Commons to be uploading problem images seems unlikely to know how to raise a "regular deletion request", and it seems rather backwards to say that if someone wants to save the image they should request its deletion. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for "F1. Clear copyright violation"

Hi! The most common case I encounter are SVG logos that are uploaded under the default license as "own work". Official licensing information for a work is often hard to find. Is it okay to just {{Copyvio}} the file or am I supposed to open a deletion request instead? On one hand I usually don't have proof that it isn't own work, but the uploader also provides no proof that it is own work or that the company that uses the logo allowed sharing it under cc-by-sa. TilmannR (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I just found {{Logo above threshold of originality}}, which says "this media is a logo or a derivative work thereof, which are always presumed to be copyrighted [...]". So I'll just place this template and it'll be the uploader's responsibility to show that the logo is available under a free license, I guess? TilmannR (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm also seeing some "own work" logos with "No permission since" ({{subst:npd}}). Is that the preferred method? TilmannR (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Limits to G10: advertising

I think this policy needs to be clarified and limited somewhat, and I'll give two examples of types of files currently nominated for deletion that would be better not deleted, if possible:

• File:Weisses Ross.jpg (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Weisses Ross.jpg)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Amaro Santoni -pdf (involves several files I propose to keep and others to delete)

I'd like to refer you to Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 1#Promotional criterion, which has language I think we should insert into this rule and apply to regular, not speedy deletion: "advertising when it is clearly without educational purpose". In other words, I would substitute "This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services when it is clearly without educational purpose." for "This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services, outside our project scope.", which, because of the comma and ambiguous language, is clearly seen by some users as forbidding all images uploaded as publicity.

So why would we want to allow any advertising? We should when the image also adds to the sum total of human knowledge expressed in images, such as in these cases of photos of a distinctive hotel and a liqueur with presumably copyrighted bottle shapes and labels waiving most of their rights under copyright laws to share images that others have not shared (or in the case of the liqueurs in bottles, would likely be nominated for deletion if uploaded by anyone not representing the company - another problem that may need clarification in a different thread). Most blatant advertising is clearly seen as watermarks on photos (per se forbidden) or extensive promotional language on the file page (which can be deleted, but the photos in such cases are usually uninteresting snapshots of people and such).

As a bureaucrat/admin on Wikivoyage, I'll also give you some examples from one of your sister Wikis: en:voy:Colorado's Wine Country was largely written by en:voy:User:(WT-en) WineCountryInn, who had a business interest in attracting visitors to their inn(s) but worked conscientiously within site policies on not touting but providing information of interest to travelers and was mainly responsible for creating a good article that was featured on the site's front page. Also, we normally block people who work as paid publicists for hotels when we see a pattern of touting particular chains and such, but one user, en:voy:User:VerbInteractive, worked so studiously within our guidelines and produced work that was so trustworthy that we made them an autopatroller, meaning that their work didn't need to be closely supervised as we trusted it.

I suggest to you that we need to be somewhat selective in deleting advertising, when it is duly licensed and provides useful information, such as in the examples I gave in bullets above, and that fanaticism in rooting out all advertising can actually be a vice, or at least counterproductive to the mission of serving as a source of free information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Speedy deletion per G10 should be limited to files that are clearly completely useless beyond advertising purposes. In most cases I have encountered so far, an image uploaded with the intention to advertise something just requires a little bit of description page cleanup to be indistinguishable from a regular user upload. Maybe change the language from "without educational purpose" to "without educational use" or "without educational potential", though. "Purpose" sounds too much like "uploader's intention" to my (non-native) ears. El Grafo (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Your suggestions improve the phrasing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What about This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services when it is clearly not useful for educational purpose? This makes it clear that it’s not about the uploader’s intentions (not useful for instead of without), while keeping the wording Commons:Project scope uses so that one doesn’t have to wonder if it means exactly the same or just something similar. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems fine, too, though I'd tweak it slightly to "clearly not useful for any educational purpose" or something similar for grammatical reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not a native speaker either, so if you say the any is missing there, I believe you. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any objections to this proposed change in language or any suggestions for a different form of words? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Edited accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And edited a bit further for grammatical reasons, etc. Is the phrasing ideal? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance to non-speedy deletion

In view of this thread, is there another talk page where a policy of deleting educationally useful images just because the uploader's motivation was apparently promotional has to be discussed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the correct thread is at Commons talk:What Commons is not#Advertising. I posted a new comment there. Please express your opinion on whether we need to change the wording of COM:ADVERT to make it clearer that files that are uploaded for promotional purposes but are within scope should not be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

F10 definition

Criterion F10 is currently defined as Personal photos by non-contributors; This includes low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions. My issue is with the ambiguity of "This includes". It could be interpreted as "For example...", but the proposal on which F10 is based, implies it should be read as "This excludes high-quality selfies" etc. I propose the following phrasing:

Personal photos by non-contributors

Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions.

Pinging Srittau as original proposer. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It has been a week without objections, so I'll go ahead and make the change. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)