Cross-wiki upload from *.wikipedia.org (190716—270716) (living & tagged & deleted & from where) = User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 19.07.2016–27.07.2016

• (which is the sequel of User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 15.07.2016–18.07.2016.)

Cross-wiki upload from *.wikipedia.org (190716—270716) (living & tagged & deleted & from where) = User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 19.07.2016–27.07.2016

• (which is the sequel of User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 15.07.2016–18.07.2016.)

"What do you mean by "summaries of filters"?" Sorry for my misleading comment. I mean the summaries (or upload comments) in the uploads using different upload tools (see above), like (example) "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org" which is stored in the mediawiki-table "img_description" and which can be used – via Quarry – for filtering. If e.g. this gets overwritten with License: {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} (...) it will be eventually harder to filter those uploads...

Will this have effect in summaries of filters established via Special Tags, like cross-wiki uploads (see also filter 153 --> "Cross-wiki upload from" in summary") + video uploads + OAuth Uploader + etc. ?

In T120867#2503815, @Gunnex wrote:

Btw, if you have time, go through Cross-wiki upload from *.wikipedia.org (190716—270716) (living & tagged & deleted & from where) = User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 19.07.2016–27.07.2016 – which is the sequel of User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 15.07.2016–18.07.2016.

I made two runs of the query:

• 1st run on 16:39, 28. Jul. 2016‎: 4.690 rows. 4.025 living (428 pending deletion), 665 deleted --> bad ratio: 23,31 %
• (5 hours later)
• 2nd run on 21:37, 28. Jul. 2016‎: 4.716 row**s, 4.043 living (489 pending deletion) 673 deleted --> bad ratio: 24,64 %
• **) The total of rows is changing due to some double entries, caused by bug T140522

I engaged since 16:39, 28. Jul. 2016‎ for around 2 hours also exclusively into these uploads and the 61 additional pending deletion (copyvios/DR/no-permission/etc.) + 8 deleted files (copyvios) are probadly result of my work... again an indicator for the low "non-tagged-ratio" at Commons, understaffed, etc...

In T120867#2501748, @El_Grafo wrote:

(...) Requesting wiki configuration changes says we need community consensus, so I suppose we should start an RFC at Commons:Village pump/Proposals?

@Gunnex wrote:
Probadly yes (but not by me).

@matmarex: thx for your honest answer. I followed your attempts to make this thing working and I respect the work you dedicated for it.

Finished now the analysis of cross-wiki-uploads from 15.07.2016–18.07.2016 via Quarry = User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 15.07.2016–18.07.2016

In T120867#2384233, @matmarex wrote:

In T120867#2374083, @Steinsplitter wrote:

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AbuseFilter_for_cross-wiki_uploads

This seems like a pretty good idea, I left a longer note there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Queries_and_data. Currently AbuseFilter limitations make it impossible to implement that filter for cross-wiki uploads only, I'll be working on T89252 to resolve this. I also filed T137841 about making the upload dialog react better to AbuseFilter preventing the uploads.

Related: Commons:Forum#Ich geb nicht auf und frag nochmal: Kann mir jemand erklären, was der Mist soll? (in German)

In T137269#2372528, @matmarex wrote:

@Gunnex The task creator here has explicitly said that is not what they are requesting. Please do not hijack tasks :(

In T120867#2369946, @Platonides wrote:

@Gunnex, maybe you could also list the creation date of the global account? I suspect not only their commons account will be brand new but that in many cases their "wikipedia account" will be quite recent, too.

"(...) I sometimes see in their upload summary "Cross-wiki upload from commons.wikimedia.org" --> this appears to be extremely rare --> if I managed to configue the Quarry Cross-wiki upload from commons.wikimedia.org (March 2016) (living & tagged & deleted) correctly, I got 0 rows for "Cross-wiki upload from commons.wikimedia.org" in March 2016 (with 36.478 cross-wiki uploads).

FYI I:
Commons scope + upload wizard --> a discussion at Commons started with: "We have a serious problem with junk uploads. Wikimedia Zero in particular is terrible for reasons we've already established.[4] But in fact all uploads coming from new accounts have this problem. (...)"

In T120867#2353998, @Whatamidoing-WMF wrote:

the "cross-wiki upload" feature via Visual Editor

@Gunnex, please take a look at this screenshot:

(...)

The cross-wiki upload tool is available to all editors in both editing systems. Many of these inexperienced people are using the wikitext editor to upload images to Commons.

In T120867#2338071, @Nemo_bis wrote:

(...)

• the data analysis is completed to really show that each kind of users (e.g. "first time uploaders") doesn't make significantly more copyright mistakes than with Special:UploadWizard/Special:Upload .

Update 29.05.2016 for User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 08.03.2016 = https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/9633:

@matmarex: Thx for your feedback.

Well, it appears that bad ratios of + 80% from cross-wiki uploads are - however - tolerated by... finally WMF — as I am seeing noone engaging more in this matter. If that is indeed the case, just give my — please — a feedback to just quit the job. I am obviously wasting my time here...

In T120867#2061203, @Gunnex wrote:

In T120867#1950722, @Gunnex wrote:

In T120867#1939646, @Gunnex wrote on Sun, Jan 17, 11:17 AM

Currently, we have +/- 780 deletions (...)

In T120867#1942810, @Gunnex wrote on Tue, Jan 19, 1:26 AM:

(...)
Check of option 4 is (as stated above) in progress — currently December 24: Merry christmas... :-)

Done (without liability).

995 deletions (per page info: edits) so far, besides the pending ones (deletion requests, no-permission/source/etc.).

Status of today: 1.576 deletions...

! In T131934#2224940, @DFoy wrote:
(...)
The users are amazingly adept at the process of switching sim cards around, and some phone models offer a multi-sim capacity so you can switch between carriers without opening the case. So to the point of the discussion, there is a very low barrier for most people to quickly switch between networks.

(...)

In T131934#2221083, @DFoy wrote:

(...)
I agree here about getting some data together. To proceed, I think we need to know what the typical age of user accounts are that are already using video2commons for legitimate purposes. With this information, we may be able to figure out an account age that allows the existing users of video2commons to continue using it, but stop more recently created accounts from gaining access. I’m expecting that this ‘waiting period’ threshold for new accounts would be on the order of months, not days, which could help make this an effective deterrent for abuse. Can someone get data together on this topic to see if this is a viable approach? Also, are there additional data points we could access regarding the user that could help strengthen this evaluation?

So far I can analyze the situation (I am not a technician, just giving some feedback from the user front about what I am currently monitoring...), only a few uploads of copyrighted filmes/videos and music were triggered by abuse filter 149 (Wikipedia Zero uploads), assuming that most of them are using paid mobil (flat-rates), probadly also with better bandwidth to handle uploads up to 500 MB — 1 GB (complete films: Superman/Star Wars etc.). I remember the "Angola Fecebook Case" where especially some admins of related Facebook groups wasted mobile credits for "their" Facebook audience, providing music & video files via Commons. Btw, the "Angola Fecebook Case" was focused more on music (mostly ogg-files). The "Bangladesh Facebook Case" is more focused on films & videos (webm, ogv).

Hi! Thx for the filter.
How I could track Wikipedia Zero uploads (on Commons) via Quarry? I checked +/- 24 h of Commons's abuse filter and +/- 98 % uploads are bad/nonsense/copyvios/out of project scope/etc.. As result, I would like to have something similar to Cross-wiki upload from pt.wikipedia.org (07.03.2016) (btw: with similar bad ratio via local Visual Editor) on a daily base — and comparing it on a same daily base with deletions, like Cross-wiki upload from pt.wikipedia.org (07.03.2016) (deleted) (in this example: 40 uploads and 36 deletions: bad ratio = 90 %). The goal is to monitoring the amount of Wikipedia Zero uploads at Commons, comparing it to related deletions and do statistics with "bad ratios".
The main issue (upload of copyrighted complete films/videos/musics etc. via the "Bangladesh Facebook Case") may be not covered by this filter because even today I (and other users) noticed several related uploads (shared instantly by Bangladesh Facebook groups) which were not covered by this abuse filter --> most likely uploaded via paid flat mobil contracts (with better bandwidth etc., consdering also uploads of complete films involving hundreds of megabytes till +1 GB of data).
Nevertheless, the filter is valuable to analyze the behaviour of Wikipedia Zero user. Currently, I would say: Commons = used by Wikipedia Zero users as a free image hoster for Facebook like profiles, ego-spam on local wikis, nonsense/attack images or illegal, spontaneous grabs from Internet / social media. In other words: the "educative" motive steps into the background. Or shorter: they don't care [about copyrights etc.]. It's something for free. It's Wikifacebook.

In T130761#2149875, @Bawolff wrote on Thu, Mar 24, 10:20 PM:
Could someone link to some example files? Perhaps there's commonalities that could be identified by looking closer at the file.

In T31793#1924052, @MarkTraceur wrote on Jan 11 2016, 1:56 PM:

OK, so, to disagree with my past self...

This seems like a thing that WMF could negotiate with Google (or TinEye) and run on new uploads to Commons that are marked as "own work". Don't get too excited, those conversations still need to happen.

I've written most of a bot to do the browsing and the flagging, and I'll be polishing it when we get more information about an agreement and an API from one of the two above.

TinEye pros:

• Easy API
• Catch more innocuous, but more high-value, copyvios

Cons:

• Miss a large portion of potential copyvios
• Potential financial cost (nearly negligible, esp. given the benefit we get in return)

Google pros:

• Catch almost every possible copyvio if it was copied from the Internet
• Free(?)
• Improve relationship between Google and this iteration of the Multimedia team

Cons:

• Miss some non-Internet possible copyvios, maybe?
• Potential false positives with the "similar image" functionality - still need human checking
• API seems non-existent

In T120867#1950722, @Gunnex wrote:

In T120867#1939646, @Gunnex wrote on Sun, Jan 17, 11:17 AM

Currently, we have +/- 780 deletions (...)

In T120867#1942810, @Gunnex wrote on Tue, Jan 19, 1:26 AM:

(...)
Check of option 4 is (as stated above) in progress — currently December 24: Merry christmas... :-)

Done (without liability).

995 deletions (per page info: edits) so far, besides the pending ones (deletion requests, no-permission/source/etc.).

Well, I'll continue my check — but the current interim results are IMHO not acceptable:

Hi! Do you mean something like the (ongoing) check of Cross-wiki uploads from pt.wikipedia.org?

In T120867#2008552, @Yann wrote:

Hi, I think the only reason the option 3 provides slightly less bad files is that it is a bit more complicated to answer the question. IMO that confirms what I said earlier: we can't allow anyone to upload without some basic copyright crash course. And this tool fails to do that.

In T120867#1939646, @Gunnex wrote on Sun, Jan 17, 11:17 AM

Currently, we have +/- 780 deletions (...)

In T120867#1942461, @matmarex wrote:

(...)
Yes, I'll update the statistics when the numbers stabilize. I noticed the delinker activity on that page, I didn't realize it's the result of work by primarily one person – thank you!

In T120867#1908354, @matmarex wrote on Tue, Dec 29, 5:45 PM:

Alright, I disabled the test for now. All users on all wikis are back to the old interface.

I dumped a list of all the participating uploads here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Matma_Rex/December_2015_cross-wiki_upload_A/B_test. Help reviewing would be appreciated. I spotted and marked some obvious copyvios already, so there's definitely work to be done :)

(...)

So I guess we can say that option 3 (the one with the yes/no questions) succeeded in stopping some uploads. But it seems to have stopped good and bad uploads equally. Apart from that there's no clear difference. Maybe someone smarter than me can extract something from the data we have.