User talk:PBradley-WMF
Add topicStrengthen your collaboration through CapX
[edit]
We invite you and your community to join the Capacity Exchange (CapX), a Wikimedia community-built platform for connecting, collaborating, and exchanging skills with peers across the movement.
CapX helps Wikimedians and organizations find each other, share expertise, and build stronger, more connected communities.
Whether you’re an individual contributor, a user group, a community initiative or an affiliate, CapX helps you grow through knowledge exchange.
More information
[edit]→ Explore the CapX platform: capx.toolforge.org
→ Read: User Guide & FAQ
→ Watch: Meet the Capacity Exchange video
→ Join our Telegram community chat: CapX Telegram Group
If your community, usergroup or affiliate would like to have a CapX organization profile, please reach out at capx@wmnobrasil.org, and we’d be delighted to support you.
With warm regards,
Joris Darlington Quarshie
Outreach Facilitator,
Capacity Exchange Project – Wikimedia Brasil
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Academic Use Rationale.
[edit]I'd come to this conclusion independently, and only found your post from earlier in the year today.
I would strongly urge you to engage with the Commons Community, on getting something like your proposal implemented, with teeth, so it can actually be implemented as a workable idea. Did you have a draft template in mind? (I have something in mind : My current draft is unusable as it's built with unacceptable tools.)
Commons is NOT Censored : However, this has in my limited experience has meant that scope drift has technically included material which in my opinon would be borderline for inclusion in mainstream academic publications or encylopedia.
Recomendations :
1. Education Use Rationale, or academic context statement for 'sensitive' content, and enourage Commons to make it "enforcable" policy.
2. NOT Censored does not make Commons, a webhost for 'adult' content. I would strongly suggest a 'fast' deletion presumption be encouraged, unless an adminstrator is approached for approval BEFORE upload.
3. Scrap apparent 'grandfathering' of previous 'sensitive' content, and encourage a wholescale review of existing Commons media, tightening the scope of 'reasonable educational use' considerably.
4. Consider wholesale removal, of 2257 tagged media at 'Office' level, if media genuinely meets the criteria, Commons and other Wikimedia projects do NOT have the resources to keep adequate records.
I have other recomendations but cannot recall them currently. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, @ShakespeareFan00. This issue is front of mind for us, and we're certainly very happy to continue engaging with the community over it; though of course, there's no need to actually wait for WMF to weigh in again - there's very little stopping the community from working towards things you'd like it to see doing, just based on ordinary consensus, trial initiatives, etc. If we can help the community achieve things that it wants, then that's also good for us to know. PBradley-WMF (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, my recent experience in trying to work within the community isn't great :-
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Czu_MLP_clop_Wikimare.png. being a recent example.
(for context see also : [:Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MLP_clop_fanart_of_a_pony_version_of_Wikipedia.png]] Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:MLP_clop_fanart_of_a_pony_version_of_Wikipedia.png_-_Wikimedia_Logos_and_Visual_Identity_Guidelines and Wikipedia:Talk:Clop_(erotic_fan_art) [:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clop_(erotic_fan_art)&action=history]
being related discussions I wasn't involved in.)
I eventually 'struck' my delete vote, leaving the comment, given the responses of other contributors. I am of course rather upset, that a sincerely held viewpoint (possibly badly expressed) caused the reaction it did.
I'm increasingly of the view that unless there is a very specific 'platform operator'(I.E WMF) ruling, concerning 'sensitive' content (and the very clear statements of academic use you suggested previously.) that the change will not happen.
The direction of certain jurisdictions, is also such that if WMF/Office has to implement certain measures 'from above' something that is already controversial in communities, I would be unable to continue contributing due to technology limitations (hence my earlier comment about needing 'offline' means for User verification if needed). Rather than being anyone can edit', the site becomes "anyone that has the private financial and technological means to support an imposed trust architecture" which is I would hope not the WMF/Office aim, when it is trying to encourage wider participation.
If however, communities were 'actively encouraged' (noting that the current 'hands off' approach has been largely successful) to adopt a 'restrained compromise' approach, closer to that of other GLAM and collegiate academic organisations, then the need for such 'imposed solutions' is lessened. This would of course entail some changes of viewpoint from the community. Based on my experience, I am not convinced this is happening.
This has taken a while to draft, and is maybe badly expressed.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
In respect of an {{Academic context}} template:-
I can't plug this directly into Commons (because it was drafted using the Free version of ChatGPT (5.5 model), and there is a general presumption against using LLM content on wiki. )-
Prompt: Hypothetical: Draft for Wikimedia Commons, template outline for "Academic use rationale" to place on 'sensitive' images.. The grid produced by the template acts to explain why the material is in scope for inclusion..
== Academic Use Rationale ==
This file contains material that some viewers may find sensitive, disturbing, graphic, or controversial. The following information summarises its educational and documentary value.
{| class="wikitable"
! Criterion
| ! Explanation |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Subject matter |
| Brief description of the image's content. |
| - |
| Academic disciplines |
| Relevant fields of study (e.g. history, medicine, anthropology, political science, media studies, religious studies). |
| - |
| Educational purpose |
| What specific phenomena, event, practice, object, condition, or historical circumstance the image documents. |
| - |
| Documentary significance |
| Why the image provides evidence that cannot be adequately conveyed through text alone. |
| - |
| Contextual value |
| Relationship to notable events, persons, locations, cultural practices, or historical developments. |
| - |
| Research utility |
| Examples of scholarly, teaching, archival, or reference uses. |
| - |
| Availability of alternatives |
| Whether equivalent educational value could reasonably be obtained from a less sensitive image. |
| - |
| Scope rationale |
| Explanation of how the file contributes to Wikimedia Commons' educational mission. |
| } |
=== Summary ===
This file is retained primarily for its documentary and educational value. Its inclusion is based on its usefulness as a verifiable visual record and not on any entertainment, sensational, promotional, or advocacy purpose.
"
Prompt: Draft as proper paramaterised template...
A Commons-style implementation would probably work best as a collapsible metadata box driven entirely by parameters, allowing uploaders or reviewers to fill in only the fields that are relevant.
<includeonly>
{{Ambox
| type = notice
| image = {{#if:{{{icon|}}}|{{{icon}}}|Information icon4.svg}}
| text =
'''Academic use rationale'''
This file contains material that some viewers may find sensitive, graphic, disturbing, or controversial. Its inclusion is based upon its educational and documentary value.
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; margin-top:0.5em;"
{{#if:{{{subject|}}}|
|-
! Subject
| {{{subject}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{disciplines|}}}|
|-
! Relevant disciplines
| {{{disciplines}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{purpose|}}}|
|-
! Educational purpose
| {{{purpose}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{documentary|}}}|
|-
! Documentary significance
| {{{documentary}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{context|}}}|
|-
! Contextual value
| {{{context}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{research|}}}|
|-
! Research utility
| {{{research}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{alternatives|}}}|
|-
! Alternative depictions
| {{{alternatives}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{historical|}}}|
|-
! Historical significance
| {{{historical}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{scope|}}}|
|-
! Commons scope rationale
| {{{scope}}}
}}
{{#if:{{{sources|}}}|
|-
! Supporting sources
| {{{sources}}}
}}
|}
{{#if:{{{summary|}}}|
'''Summary:''' {{{summary}}}
}}
}} </includeonly>
<noinclude>
== Usage ==
{{Academic use rationale
| subject =
| disciplines =
| purpose =
| documentary =
| context =
| research =
| alternatives =
| historical =
| scope =
| sources =
| summary =
}}
=== Example ===
{{Academic use rationale
| subject = Post-mortem photograph of a notable historical figure.
| disciplines = History; Medical history; Visual culture.
| purpose = Documents contemporary funerary practices.
| documentary = Primary visual record of the event.
| context = Associated with a widely documented historical occurrence.
| research = Frequently used in scholarly publications.
| alternatives = No equivalent contemporary image exists.
| historical = Significant evidential value.
| scope = Illustrates a notable historical subject.
| summary = Retained for documentary and educational value.
}}
</noinclude>
One refinement that might suit Commons culture better is to avoid the phrase *"sensitive image"* entirely. The template could instead be named something like `{{Academic use rationale}}`, `{{Educational context}}`, or `{{Documentary value}}`, with the sensitivity issue left implicit. That reduces any impression that the template is acting as a content warning or moral endorsement, and keeps the focus squarely on scope and educational merit.
Prompt: Thanks
You're welcome.
If this were ever proposed on Commons, I suspect the strongest argument would be that it serves as a *structured scope explanation* rather than a warning template. Commons already has many files where the educational value is obvious, but a smaller subset—graphic medical images, atrocity documentation, extremist propaganda, post-mortem photographs, explicit educational material, etc.—often generate recurring discussions from viewers who encounter them out of context.
A template like `{{Academic use rationale}}` could provide a standardised answer to the question:
> "Why is this file within Commons' educational mission?"
rather than:
> "Why is this file permitted?"
That distinction would likely make it more acceptable to editors concerned about mission creep, censorship debates, or implied content ratings.
It could even be designed so that the completed rationale feeds hidden maintenance categories such as:
* `Category:Files with academic use rationales`
* `Category:Files with medical educational rationales`
* `Category:Files documenting historical atrocities`
* `Category:Files with primary-source documentary value`
allowing reviewers to assess consistency across similar classes of material.
The idea is not unlike a localised, Commons-specific analogue of Wikipedia's old "non-free use rationale" concept—except that instead of justifying an exception to policy, it documents the educational basis for inclusion of material that might otherwise appear difficult to reconcile with Commons' scope.
Independently of your earlier proposal, I'd arrived at the idea of an 'Academic Context' rationale myself and sometimes when filing DR's, I had been using the 'No academic context presented' rationale, only for some contributors to claim that 'academic context' wasn't a criteria on Commons, and that sometimes 'realistic educational use' should be applied as widely as possible. (sigh.) Lacking GLAM experience, I didn't feel confident to labour the point :(.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
CFD at Commons-
[edit]I hope you don't mind me notifying you of this CFD: - Commons:Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2026/06/Category:Files_with_Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act_warnings
The previous Deletion Request is linked:- Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files in Category:Files with Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act warnings
The standing 'advice' on meta was apparently - Wikilegal/Age_Record_Requirement which is now over a decade old. Also one of your predecessors seemed to be of the view (in 2010) that Commons wasn't a 'producer' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Sexual_content&diff=prev&oldid=39225950), but that indvidual uploaders were.
Commons (and other project are not generally censored, however I'm not personally convinced that the 'deferred responsibility' approach being used is a sustainable long-term position, given the direction certain jurisdictions seem to be moving towards. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @ShakespeareFan00 - thank you for this visibility into various ongoing Commons community discussions and proposals. Just FYI, emailing legal@ wikimedia dot or g is usually a better approach than posting on a single team member's Talk Page; our team has to deal with a large number of ongoing issues affecting close to a dozen projects, in hundreds of jurisdictions, with varying degrees of urgency, so emailing our legal@ inbox helps ensure that things are visible to (and assignable to) the right person at the right time, whereas Talk Paging an individual staffer might not. PBradley-WMF (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Arbitration block response time
[edit]Hello again. I have recently been blocked from Wikipedia for no apparent reason (including on my own talk page, for some reason), with the reason field stating "ArbComBlock". I'm a bit devastated, as I am an active contributor and haven't dabbled into much controversy outside of recent discussions, where I still remained neutral. Anyway, I have tried contacting the arbitration via the email link on my talk page, but there is currently no response. How long do these appeals usually take? I thought you would know, since you're a WMF employee. Thanks in advance. Dabmasterars (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I have just received a message from the arbitration. Dabmasterars (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)