Commons:Administrators/Requests/1234qwer1234qwer4 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 36;  Oppose = 4;  Neutral = 2 - 90% Result. Successful. --Krd 06:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1234qwer1234qwer4

Related requests:

Vote

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 22:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello again! After gaining further experience with particularly copyright-related deletions since my last RfA a couple months ago, I feel ready to put up my candidacy again. Having focused on the former as well as other kinds of regular and speedy deletion requests for a while now, I still plan my work as an admin to be concentrated around this area, helping with the massive backlogs Commons is experiencing. Apart from Commons, I actively participate in numerous other Wikimedia projects, and have been serving as a Meta-Wiki administrator for almost a year, as well as being a global AbuseFilter helper. Thank you for your consideration, and happy to hear your comments. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  • A file is uploaded as "own work". In what cases should the file be speedily deleted as {{Copyvio}}? In what cases would you nominate it for regular deletion and/or use a tag like {{No permission since}}? And finally, in what cases is it fine to believe the uploader and leave the file alone? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Copyvio}} is for obvious copyright violations, mostly when there is an online source for the image which lacks a free license and ideally confirms that it has been published there before the upload on Commons, at least for less recent uploads. Usually I use TinEye to find such a source for images where I have reason to doubt the authorship claim (e.g. professional-style photographs by new users, sophisticated logos and designs or artworks, which might be published online by the copyright holder); the "first found" date in TinEye can also be quite useful for determining the origin. Personally I rarely use {{No permission since}} for own work claims, employing it primarily when the file has source information but that cannot confirm the license, though I have seen it used when the uploader claims to be the professional photographer, designer or artist themself in the examples above. Since these cases are more likely to require more discussion with the uploader, I prefer using a regular deletion request in these situations. Deletion requests (as far as copyright is concerned, since we were only talking about that) are also used for TOO- and FOP- or other COM:DW-related discussions, where legal arguments by multiple users can be considered. Furthermore, some deletion requests are based on COM:PCP, when a source cannot be found online but there are other reasons for doubt, such as a non-trivial image with low resolution and no metadata (EXIF). Finally, own work claims are usually credible for experienced uploaders in good standing (though derivative works might be uploaded by those too and should not be disregarded), mundane images, or where the licensing and uploader's identity has been confirmed through the COM:VRT. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, You write English with a better level than en-2. Yann (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Apparently I haven't changed it for almost two years, though I don't feel like I speak English at a higher level (I only figured out yesterday that decisive is pronounced differently than I thought...), and unfortunately there is no way to distinguish that from writing. Either way, I will consider updating it. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/1234qwer1234qwer4_2&oldid=649185596"