Talk:Education/News/April 2019/Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions

From Outreach Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

the lady doth protest too much, methinks[edit]

I'm glad a lesson was learned. Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care. Unsurprisingly, they don't trust new content of this quality. I'm curious to know, Galder, if you ever bothered engaging the regular editors on Commons. For example, you made three edits to Commons's Village pump in April and none of them were about this project. I would think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But, as I've said, a lesson was learned. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm currently managing around 30 education projects in the universities, and I organized the Wikimedia+Education Conference in April. As a volunteer, I upload images and videos, but mostly edit on Wikipedia. I would like to have the time to say admins in the Village pump that some content that will be highly supervised (I want this project to work perfectly, because it will create a huge leap forward on our general programme) and claimed to be "own work" with perfect attribution of cc licensed external works (i.e. music) is in fact "own work" with perfect attributon of cc licensed external works... but that would change a lot, since I had a similar discussion some months ago about a deleted video and the admin claimed that I couldn't act on behalf of the uploader because I'm not the uploader. I have learned a lesson, that's true. Next time I will say everywhere that this content will be uploaded... maybe the hype is the solution! The fact is that we have to think not on me (I even know how to start this discussion) but on a professor that has limited time and want to devote their students' work to the commons! ;) -Theklan (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There are two factors at play here: 1. Overworked admins. Which leads to: 2. An innate distrust of new users--for these overworked admins it is better to kill something with fire than risk having copyrighted material go up on Commons. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but claiming that an image is a DW without saying of what is not an option. -Theklan (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The solution is simple, create a special class of "Deleters" who can delete images if there is consensus to do so in a deletion request, but unlike with admins where they can just delete a page they have to link it to a DR, if there are more users with this power than the backlogs would be less and the admins would be less overhobbied (or "overworked"). --Donald Trung (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest the following strategy: Treat Commons as you would as if you were a guest attending a stranger's party. Communicate with the editors on Commons before you upload anything. Tell them what you plan to do, ask them their opinion on it. Upload 1-2 items and ask them to weight in on it. I often tell people that Wikipedia really is a social encyclopedia. Recognizing that will help in managing and avoiding incidents such as this. - Kosboot (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)!

Who exactly? Being social is not mandatory! -Theklan (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
True, it is not mandatory, but many people expect common decency. :) - 65.88.88.208 22:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
may i suggest the following tactic. upload to youtube with CC license, wait a while, and then upload to commons, with youtube as source. it is a waste of time to cultivate trust on commons. common decency is uncommon on commons. Slowking4 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Thanks for the suggestion. I think it has two faults:
  1. Technically, newbies can't use video2commons to import from YouTube, so the problem would be even harder. Furthermore, uploading via video2commons needs higher technical skills, as you need to tag everything using wikicode, which newbies don't know. All the efforts I have made to use video2commons before with students have been harder to solve, and lead to deletion by sysops.
  2. Politically, we can't say that our multimedia repository is secondary to YouTube, Vimeo, etc... imagine the same idea of uploading to an external system before we devote to the commons but with text in Wikipedia: you should upload everything to blogspot before contributing to Wikipedia. It sounds weird, isn't it? -Theklan (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. we don't want newbies to interact with commons: lambs to the slaughter. we can have a cadre of bitten veterans interact. and you could route around video2commons by uploading a local copy using chunked uploader, linking to the external source. conversion to WebM necessary though.
  2. no, we must say that - that train has left the station; there is also Internet Archive. we should not be introducing students to a dysfunctional work environment. there are plenty of other media repositories on the web, and students should be familiar with how to interact as a media network system with many nodes. it would require a culture change at commons before we could have such pretensions that it were not secondary. it is merely an aggregator; it lacks the professionalism required to be a serious repository. that is not weird, that is reality. Slowking4 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"a lesson was learned" Indeed. Sadly, though, it seems it was not learned by the people most in need of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 11:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, @Pigsonthewing: -Theklan (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chris. Theklan I have seen lots of education projects over the years, mostly on Wikipedia. They either fail because the organiser wasn't really a Wikipedian and had some weird ideas of how Wikipedia worked, or they fail because they didn't prepare, act and resolve with the cooperation of the community. As others have noted, most education projects create a page where they describe the project and list the students involved. The students are also encouraged to link their user pages to the project page. This gives community and admins a link to the organiser so they can quickly resolve any problems. All we see here is a bunch of newbie redlink users dumped some material on Commons as their only activity and disappeared. When their work was tagged, there was no response from the students and it does appear that you also didn't get involved till a month later. So this wasn't really well supervised project.
You should have prepared a project template that would be included on each image. This would also have created a category where all the images would be collected. That category could also link back to your project page. All this preparation and communication would have prevented these images being tagged -- the admin would first contact the project organiser to alert their concerns.
The derivative work tagging does indeed look problematic. I cannot figure out from looking at a few images or videos what the work was supposed to be derivative of. Was is a logo, a font, a song, music, etc? So I think the admins on Commons should investigate that and think a bit more about how their templates and messages look from a newbie point of view.
Theklan, you say you are also organising another 30 projects and the Wikimedia+Education Conference in April. Well I really cannot understand how you cannot then be aware of the basic levels of community involvement expected of education projects. I suggest you talk to others who have run such projects using the templates and project pages I described above, and ask them for help and guidance on setting this up. It is quite unacceptable that e.g. File:Infografia Hip-Hop.jpg has no project banner, no project category and the "what links here" page does not tie it to a project or a supervisor. How on earth is anyone or any admin supposed to know this is a project work? While I agree there are issues with the tagging being unhelpful, your post here, that Commons is a hostile place for multimedia students" is clickbait. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin:. Thanks for the comment. I'm tracking it exactly in the place I'm supposed to to that, Outreach Dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko_komunikazioa_(2019). And that's the place we are also suggesting professors to track their students work, even with courses, video-tutorials and documentation. If the place is not that, then we are asking to multiply efforts only because there's no suitable place for tracking what the students are doing.
I will say more. This project was perfectly tagged and I even wrote when it started to ask if newbies could use video2commons (they can't). Guess how many problems we had with admins because of this uploadings! They are inside a category, with a template saying exactly what they are and with proper links to the original source, which has a good licensing tag below. -Theklan (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Theklan, if you want to run an educational project on Commons, create a project page on Commons and create Commons templates and ensure the images and users involved are all clearly linked with the project on Commons. A wmflabs page is not going to help anyone "on Commons" do the right thing. As for the other project you link to, I look at File:Adunako Maria Luisa Zabala.webm and see a basic template saying "This video was made by Ahotsak.eus and was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons within the agreement with Basque Wikimedians User Group" I contains no links to "Basque Wikimedians User Group" or any other links to information to tell anyone on Commons about the project. Other than this group category, which on its own tells me very little, I see no other Commons categories for the videos. Some of the videos are added to a Wikipedia page but otherwise this looks like a silo project that didn't integrate with Commons, using it as little more than hosting disc space.
I look at the uploader User:Euskal Herriko Ahotsak and see nothing linking this user to any project or user group. Their talk page is full of deletion notices, many of which remain deleted. They have made 0 edits outside of File space -- not even one edit on their user page or talk page to respond to the admins who posted there. I see you finally post on that user's talk page after they get blocked. Theklan, but when you run an education project that brings lots of newbies onto Commons, then you are responsible for them and any problems they cause. When you say, "guess how many problems we had with admins" you really are getting this all upside down. Commons is saying "guess what a lot of unnecessary admin grief, work and hassles this project caused Commons". It isn't that Commons doesn't appreciate the media itself, but Commons is more than just cloud storage, and I don't think you or your projects appreciated that. All of this was unnecessary -- you and your students failed to communicate with and integrate with the Commons community -- and it is really down to you to do better. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
So, @Colin:, your suggestion is not to upload things to Commons. Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
yeah, it is all burden is on the uploader to anticipate their demands. and they do not understand why you have a problem with not interacting with them. as i said elsewhere, take the good work elsewhere, like Internet Archive, commons does not deserve it. Slowking4 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Theklan, I have not said that at all. Look at your introductory paragraph: "students to create texts, images, photographs and videos for specific articles on Basque Wikipedia". That pretty much says it all: you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia or simply to judge as part of classwork. You really didn't consider the impact or effect on Commons at all. Your clickbait title says "multimedia students" -- how is Commons to know this is work produced by a student project under supervision of a leader who is active here and should well know the rules? Because you didn't do your preparation, and because you abandoned your students when they uploaded, and because they were not advised that they absolutely must interact with admins if their work is questioned, you wasted lots of admin time and likely gave your students a sour experience here. There are issues with the admin tagging of files and an incomprehensible template about "derivative works" which would have generated a "WFT?" response in anyone. You could do well to try to address such issues using courteous and professional language rather than creating clickbait at the Village Pump and here that just attracts the trolls (Slowking4 is currently blocked on Commons, essentially for trolling). But really, if your students created professional-looking videos and posters, and uploaded them with a redlink newbie account, and then disappeared, refusing to respond to admin queries, .... what on earth did you think might happen? I guess you didn't think, that's the problem. -- Colin (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: It happens that Basque Wikipedia (as many others) only uses Commons for file uploading. Because we believe in the common. -Theklan (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you believe in Commons. You asked in your (clickbait) headline if Commons was a place for multimedia students contributions and the answer is of course: yes. But all student projects, whether on Commons or Wikipedia or elsewhere, need the organiser to do their homework, to communicate effectively with the volunteer community on those projects, and to be involved in helping their students out if there are problems. As your headline and subsequent responses seem to indicate, you don't seem at all willing to accept that nearly all of the blame for this and previous projects falls on your shoulders, but would rather blame a community. -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
negative feedback has been dismissed as "doth protest too much", "clickbait", and "trolling". good faith outside observers can decide where the blame resides. you should not imagine that your views have a consensus among those good faith outside observers. Slowking4 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Early alert[edit]

It's a fiasco, all right, and the fault is at the Commons end, and I don't see a way to prevent similar fiascoes for users unfamiliar with the shortcomings of Commons customs. For the experienced, it's a matter of prep work. Preparation was clearly extensive at the user end but nobody knew about our overworked Commons Copyright Cops and their need to react quickly to a sudden spate of possible copyviols. If student uploads had begun trickling in at a few per day as the first videos became available, then daily checks for alerts would have detected the problem when it was small. Alternatively, ask a few days in advance at the Commons Village Pump. Alas, any such precaution requires knowledge which someone contemplating their first big uploading project simply isn't going to get, except perhaps though an outreach program. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the range for files eligible for "Speedy deletions" should be narrowed, just last month I saw the logo of a German educational project (a University division) being deleted as "advertising, spam". Speedy deletions for copyright violations should only be allowed (and this should apply to both sysops and non-sysops) to images which are clearly marked as being copyrighted on another website and the speedy deletion should link to this image to prove that it's a copyright violation, "listening to your gut" as many content cops do now isn't a good option.
Yes, the deletion requests currently have a huge backlog but it's better to bring something as a DR than to not give the uploader a chance to defend it at all. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we thanks these students and teachers ?[edit]

I started the talk on commons village pump. It would be nice if we can thanks these students. :) --Yug (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

We should, but we should probably try to create a local WikiProject for GLAM's and have a FAQ linked on the Wikimedia Commons main page for people interested in donating educational materials by their institution(s)/students to Wikimedia Commons.
Wikimedia Commons, as "a community", should try to learn from this experience and try to improve in a way that such misunderstandings don't happen again. I also suggest creating a "Student engagement barnstar" and a "Student tutorial". --12:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC) --Donald Trung (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First sorry[edit]

Hi Galder,

I am utterly sad to see this, especially after being the Commons "outreacher" at the Wikimedia+Education Conference... I was already sorry and ashamed for speaking up about this community for other reasons, and seeing absurd after another absurd occurring not helped.

The community is unhealthy and I see this increasing, different from other volunteers, I see the real problem, and it's not in you not warning the community, the community is the problem, period.

The saddest parts for me is the defence of the indefensible, and not seeing teachers that had similar issues speaking in support to your letter.

The community will not stand out against the sysops decisions by the fear. This is a well know problem (you can check that I had an issue with that), and most people see this hostile sysops as a necessary evil, as they do the so hard work, and because they are so scarce (see above this speech), so we must keep they.

They also will input the responsibility in the victim, first to take away their responsibility, and also to keep the status quo. This have to do with the roots of this Movement, I'll not dig into this point.

And other volunteers not supporting you, not showing all the issues that they had could be by two reasons:

  • Fear of being hunted after opening their experiences;
  • They already give up.

Both are terrible, and no Friendly Policy will help.

My suggestion:

Being frank, you have to options: fight back, choose another project.

I'm not saying another Wikimedia Movement community (that people insist in call they projects), I'm saying take the multimedia project away from Wikimedia Movement.

Every layer of the Wikimedia Movement have the focus at Wikipedia, the result: we are far behind from being the main source of education material for the actual generation, imagine the next... And we have people at Wikimedia Movement openly saying that we should be hostile to multimedia volunteers (even audio is hunted...), they not approve featured videos for being "boring"... or accept videos as Valued Image, because "videos are not image"... WMF not making any effort to improve the upload system of videos is symptomatic, let alone they make an effort to create a collaborative video editor built-in a wiki to cease the speech that "videos are hard to edit" (as if photos, charts, and text are not hard...).

The fight back option is create all the steps that you described at Wikiversity, all the process to create a video write down there, show all the steps to more volunteers create more videos and flood the Wikimedia Commons with videos. Be prepared, I suggest the follow-up of a gastroenterologist, because you must have stomach to deal with this people.

I am ashamed that I choose to dedicate a great part of my energy and life in the Wikimedia Movement and even at 2019 we have this absurdities occurring freely (the only free that will be constant) and the responsible are being pet, and people that acknowledge the problem are not fighting back.

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: Thanks for your words and the discussion at the Village Pump. The hard thing is not that this happened (for me is the third time, so I was really careful to fulfill every step)... the hard thing is that it will happen again. Because no lesson has been learnt. -Theklan (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
no lesson has been learnt -- that very much looks to be the case, and some very basic steps, taken by most Wikipedia education projects, were not taken on this project that involved Commons rather than editing Wiki articles. When you interact with Commons, there is a whole community of volunteers and admins, and whoever deals with what's been uploaded may be different each time. Some admins are careless and some are excellent. But it is clear that this project provided no help for any admin to do a decent job and understand why this material was being uploaded to Commons and provide a contact to discuss issues. The obvious common factor, in the three projects you say you've had problems with, is you. -- Colin (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: Thanks for noting that I am a problem. -Theklan (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Theklan, you seem determined to misrepresent what others say to you. You aren't a problem, of course not. You appear to have communication issues and don't appear willing to accept any fault. That's understandable since you've created a platform here to air your grievance, so naturally being told that you made mistakes is embarrassing. Perhaps you should ask for help organising these things from someone who is a better communicator. -- Colin (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. -Theklan (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To reply to the starting comment in this section, the Wikipediacentric nature of Wikimedia Commons is a huge problem, almost daily are images and other media files nominated for deletion because they are "not encyclopedic" and the hunt for copyright violations usually let's (some) users assume that any file which requires a great deal of effort to create must be external. But simply going away from the projects will hurt the mission, Wikimedia Commons must work closer together with educational institutions and this should be done at their terms and not Commons' because at present many of the rules in place (especially the unwritten ones) are exclusionist (hostile) in nature.

We should also remember that the deletion culture is (usually) conducted in good faith but as a lot of files get uploaded every day and the users who do wish to fight copyright violations in good faith and are genuinely nice and helpful will face burnout much more quicker than the "let's just delete it" bunch and those that love deletion will outlast the former because they like it so much.

Wikimedia Commons should take an example from Wikidata where mass-creation and mass-imports and working together with educational institutions are encouraged. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Donald there really is no evidence that Commons was hostile to "educational institutions". The sorry evidence is that Commons was totally unaware it was dealing with an educational project, vs some random redlink newbies uploading videos and artworks. The mess that resulted was quite avoidable with some basic communication that is well established on Wikipedia. Theklan's project was mainly on Commons, so the education project templates on uploads, user pages and a master page holding details of who is organising the project and its purpose, are all missing. -- Colin (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: here. Thanks. -Theklan (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware of your wmflabs page. It is of no use to users on Wikipedia or Commons unless there are links to it on Wikipedia and Commons. You need to put this information on Wikipedia and Commons using a project template and student template. Users working on either/both projects need to tag their user pages with links to the project page. Same for any files uploaded. I don't know why you are refusing to accept or understand this. Wikipedians and Commoners and Admins are not mind readers. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: Can you give me a guidelines page on Commons about this, please? -Theklan (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware of one for Commons. My experience of education projects is mainly Wikipedia and is quite a few years out-of-date. So things may have changed there. What certainly used-to-happen on Wikipedia was what I described. You saw some newbie make an edit to an article you've watchlisted, and let's say it was plagiarised or unsourced. You went to the user page and saw a big banner saying that MrNewbie was a student in the Spring 2019 Medicine101 class at SomewhereUniversity. You could then get in touch with the course organiser. I will admit I assumed this still occurred and perhaps someone has moved the whole thing to wmflabs, not realising that users on the projects need this sort of information. It would take me some time to dig out some examples on Wikipedia and they are likely out-of-date. Best probably to have a chat with others in the education programme to see what they do (or did). While I do sympathise that the admin tag on those files was unhelpful, I really don't see how Commons could have done much better because it simply cannot know that the file and the user are involved in your education programme , unless there are links on the file page and the user page to that programme . -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: So there are no guidelines (or not clear) about this, but I have to fulfill them. Thanks for noting it. -Theklan (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Theklan, I wondered about your question: is this you just throwing another hurdle at me and refusing to accept that you could have done better, or are you genuinely interested in running a better educational project on Commons next time and want some advice. I assumed-good-faith, but it is clear you are simply here to throw stones and be grumpy. Several other people have made the same points as me on Commons, but you aren't listening. I think I've adequately made my point and since you aren't in a constructive frame of mind, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: Thanks Colin for your constructive behavior and not insulting anyone on the way. -Theklan (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"You don't want to get into a situation where you think that the ideology is more important than people. If you see that it's not working for people you don't say: "Oh, well, those are just the people who don't get it, those are the ones who get left behind, those are the expendable ones, they don't matter." [1] -- Slowking4 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Theklan: do not waste your energy with Colin, he is one of biggest fans, so every step that I that I make he have to something call my attention.

And it's funny how many energy this people use to write to you, and no energy to find a solution solve the problem... we have a similar case opened at Village Pump, and their solution is to create a bigger bureaucracy.

I'll find a way to built something to better solve this issues. Anyone start the restoration of the files?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not fair[edit]

Hi, I think it is not fair to call Wikimedia Commons a "hostile place". There are certainly issues, but I don't think Commons is more hostile than other big Wikipedia projects. In addition, as it was already mentioned above, the community is very small compared to the amount of work to do: reviewing files, deleting copyvios, helping newbies, fixing categories, translating descriptions, etc. There indeed was some communication issues, and fixing that alone would have avoided the whole issue. I have since long advocating doing massive trainings to increase participation and awareness about potential issues when uploading files to Commons. These trainings should be sponsored by the WMF and its affiliates. I have myself done 2 such trainings in India, and more are coming. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Well, deleting something that is perfectly free, and then having all the undeletion burden makes admins have twice the job queue. Also, there's no way to know what has to be done if it is not written anywhere (or making it easy to find). Deleting something because of random decissions and then victim-blaming is not the best option. -Theklan (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it was an error, but it is quite stretching to call the whole project "hostile". Regards, Yann (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Shouting at the volunteers does not make usually them more friendly. Cheers, Pbsouthwood (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
more fair than the bitey wall of deletion templates that greet the average newbie. the reality is that GLAM professionals are appalled by the conduct at commons. and they will express their disappointment in ways that you will not approve. Slowking4 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

@Yann:, I'll quote: "Why shouldn't it be a highly hostile place for multimedia student creations?" [my highlight] at the Village Pump right now, and how this is not a hostile place?

More examples of how hostile this place is: I received a 1 week block for reporting abuses of sysop, he removed the report from AN/U, and blocked me, no other sysop moved a finger to fix. The same sysop that tried to stop a digitalisation of museum requesting to the museum absurd documents, more than once. Nothing necessary do to the law. And even after the OTRS confirmation, he claim "At this moment we have even nothing at all from the museum"...

From another digitalisation of GLAM I had to hear from another volunteer that you indicate as a possible sysop candidate: "we don't need their photos", "We don't need your photos", a volunteer that randomly spams warnings in my page, for no reason, he give me random warnings with block treats.

You want me to keep going, or you will look this discussion above and the one at Village Pump? You (plural) are hostile to GLAM, and to volunteers.

Another point:

"and most people see this hostile sysops as a necessary evil, as they do the so hard work, and because they are so scarce (see above this speech), so we must keep they. " Me - 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"the community is very small compared to the amount of work to do: reviewing files, deleting copyvios, helping newbies, fixing categories, translating descriptions, etc. " You - 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's time to us assume our responsibility, the files that I saw was delete without passing trough the deletion paths, a volunteer removed the "{{own}}" template from the source, and another deleted. This is not a issue about this project, it's a manoeuvrer to delete files without discussion and without evidences. And it's not a isolated case, no workshop will fix this, this is an unethical practice that happens, and you all tolerate, so it's a Wikimedia Commons community problem.

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)