Commons:Administrators/Requests/とある白い猫

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 19;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 1 – 100%. Result: successful. odder (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

とある白い猫

Vote

とある白い猫 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 20:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

とある白い猫 was admin until 2008. He is now back, so I propose his nomination as adminship. Yann (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I graciously accept the nomination. I have been away for a while but I am active again. I am familiar with copyrights, FOP issues and case law that relates to copyrights. If given the mop, I intend to help with COM:DEL nominations and speedy deletion. Feel free to ask about any point. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • I see that your signature is a redirect. Can you update it so that it links directly to your current user/talk pages? INeverCry 08:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh that is intentional, the /15 refers to 2015. This way I can list stuff like Special:WhatLinksHere/User talk:とある白い猫/15 easier. I find this particularly helpful in keeping track of discussions I participate in as I do not want to watchlist them typically. For instance I can do something like this to see who I have been in contact with recently (this year) and there is a particular discussion I have forgotten. I found this to be a good way to keep track of my own activity particularly regarding COM:DEL request I filed/closed/participated or appeals I need to be aware of. I can modify my signature to have a link that goes directly to my user/talk pages on top of the redirects if you wish me to do this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If the EU removes FOP, you will delete affected files? What about URAA files? --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the community is undecided on how to handle this. I am uncomfortable in making a general broad claim of a wide range of files as I'd prefer a case by case approach with precision decisions rather than bulk. If FOP goes away, we may look for other laws that may allow to keep at least some of the content - consider the template on Category:Viaduc de Millau allowing to have files in that category from a FOPless France as an example of such laws. And while I raised that category in particular, some of these images look possibly problematic (ex: File:Millau bridge struts (3843357484).jpg, File:Millau (10).JPG). I wouldn't speedy delete these but perhaps I would bring them to COM:DEL for a community decision. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please explain the block and right removal (fm) in 2012. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My rights removal was voluntary, it did not get involved in any controversy as nobody complained about my rights usage etc. I was spending too much time on commons and school work based stress was having a toll on me. I found myself getting upset over the protection/unprotection of license templates which was a clear sign to me to take some time off. I'd rather drop the mop than cause others grief with it.
    • As for the blocks, the 2008 one was self requested about the same time as my rights removal request. I needed a time out. It wasn't my best decision.
    • As for the 2012 one, I feel it was an overreaction. I was not even warned prior to the block. I was merely replacing the {{Ku}} tags with {{Ckb}} on some pages that only featured ckb dialect despite some opposition from non-commons users (it affected something like 50 pages and I honestly did not expect anyone to care too much). I do not believe it was a wise decision to go ahead with the modifications given the off wiki opposition in hind sight. I still think the actual change was a good idea since it formatted rtl content within an rtl tag which is more helpful to the reader whom has their interface in rtl ckb.
    -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please look category:Stadionul Steaua. Do you see some copyright violations? Which ones? Taivo (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So to investigate, w:Stadionul Steaua is in Romania and per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Romania we'd have to consider when and by whom it was built. We see 1974 as the construction year and "Ministerul Apărării Naționale al României" as the architect which translates to "Ministry of National Defense of Romania" which is strange at best. We need to first establish the copyright holder in order to reach the correct conclusions since it isn't clear to me if the structure is copyrighted given the architect situation which would need to be clarified. On the assumption that the subject (stadium) is copyrighted for the sake of argument below...
    • File:Ghencea stadion.jpg feels like a copyright violation since it is inarguable that the stadium itself is the main subject furthermore I do not exactly buy "own work" since I found the file on this website as well as a few others.
    • File:Stadionul Ghencea.jpg also feels like a copyright violation as I find it unlikely that the uploader owns this work given its angle unless s/he was working near the goal area particularly. Normally the person would need to be security, player, other staff, etc to be there. Furthermore how that exact image is on this website. I realize that there is a possibility that the image may have been taken from commons since image only appears on this site, but it feels unlikely given how the uploader has only two uploads and both are portrayed on websites. This file is on Com:Del so the outcome of that would determine the if we keep it or delete it.
    • As for the others, there is room to argue that the main subject isn't the stadium and instead the ball game or the light show, but I am not sure if that is sufficient for us to keep these files we may need to delete or crop most to all of them. It should be OK if we eliminate the architecture aspect of the files. This of course would be a consensus call and not just my own.
    • Sorry if this was more of a lengthy rant but I decided to explain my thought process instead of just a list of files since I'd not be comfortable deleting aside from the two I specifically mentioned (which have issues beyond FOP mind you). I'd be more comfortable in taking FOP concerns to COM:DEL, rather than speedy delete.
    -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/とある白い猫&oldid=165477297"