Commons:Administrators/Requests/Elisfkc

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 12;  Oppose = 5;  Neutral = 1 - 70.6% Result. I think will be good idea to make another request after some time, when candidate will demonstrate learning from past mistakes. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elisfkc

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 01:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Today I would like to introduce Elisfkc to become the next Commons administrator. They have over 700,000+ edits in total, with 670,000+ live and 39,000+ deleted. They obtain the license reviewer, file mover, and rollbacker rights. They are thoroughly experienced with CSD and DR, and with their knowledge, they could help the admin backlogs. Thanks for your time and I hope you agree! 1989 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of Nomination I humbly expect the nomination to be an administrator. --Elisfkc (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

@Elcobbola: small world is a mistake, Gringotts can be argued that it is part of the building. Also, besides Gringotts, they are over a year old, and I've learned a lot in the time since. The Cincy vs. Crew photos offer different versions so that users can chose which one fits what they want best. --Elisfkc (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That actually couldn't be argued, no. In regards to copyright, "The term 'building' means structures that are habitable by humans", which Gringotts is unambiguously not. And even if it were, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the conceptual separability doctrine. It's troubling to see such an uninformed response, and it rather supports my concern. One also wonders why you've not used your purported knowledge to review your uploads an nominate the "mistake[s]" for deletion. Эlcobbola talk 00:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Elcobbola, sorry. --A.Savin 06:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, good knowledge of copyright issues still looks unconvincing, and the habit of working with large volumes of files can lead to a lack of attention to details. Moreover, the applicant seemed to have lost interest in the request - it was somewhat unusual that other users answered questions for them. Sealle (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sealle: Still interested, just busy. --Elisfkc (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A word before is worth two after. Sealle (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, echoing Elcobbola and Sealle. I certainly appreciate the work Elisfkc has put into the project, but the sheer number of copyright issues concerns me, as does the silence in a lesser way. The heart in me wants to chalk up the copyright problems as an artefact of uploading so many files, but the logic side says that, if so many copyright issues are coming up, little discrimination is being applied to what is being uploaded. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support (which, in the end, counts as support, but I wanted to acknowledge the candidate is not completely perfect.. then again who is) Generally appears to be friendly. Missing some copyvios isn't nearly as much of a problem as deleting images that aren't copyvios, and I see no evidence of that currently. Also, Elisfkc actively contributes with uploads (not a user who is merely active producing DRs), which I find important as it allows them to understand the point of view of "the other side". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Лушников Владимир Александрович: Many of the uploads that are found to be license laundering cases (I'm not sure about every single one of them) I had uploaded because they were uploaded using the wrong format or something else similar from Flickr, causing them to end up in Category:Flickr images needing human review. I try my best to see if the files are license laundering, but unfortunately I cannot catch every single one. One of my biggest initiatives in the past was going through this category and many of its subcategories and fixing the files in them. Unfortunately, I took a Wikibreak a couple of months ago and the categories got full again. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what about this particular upload: File:Galatea lakes exploring (36087121320)-video.webm? --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Лушников Владимир Александрович: They made a mistake adding the {{Licensereview}} instead of {{Flickrreview}}, causing it to be part of a backlog that isn't monitored by a bot. The file wasn't reviewed in nearly a year, and the recently promoted LR just got to the file. During that duration, the author could of changed the license. @Hedwig in Washington: Could you verify this? -- 1989 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbythyme and Jeff G.: They responded to your concerns. Reconsideration? – 1989 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service: Deleted file: 

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description=A spot of video with the wrong lens at Galatea lakes.
|date=2017-08-10
|source=[https://www.flickr.com/photos/davebloggs007/36087121320/ Galatea lakes exploring - Flickr]
|author=[https://www.flickr.com/photos/davebloggs007/ Thank you for visiting my page]
|permission=
|other_versions=
|other_fields=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-2.0|Thank you for visiting my page}}
{{LicenseReview}}
[[Category:Alberta images by Artix Kreiger]]
[[Category:Nature of Alberta]][[Category:Images by davebloggs007]]

[[Category:WebM videos]]
[[Category:Uploaded with video2commons]]

It's possible that the license changed. @Zhuyifei1999: Does video2commons check the license at the time of upload? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is not enforced, only as a prefilled file description page that can be altered before upload. It is less trustworthy than UW's Flickr review. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! AFAIK the Flickr user ist LTA Wyntersteppe, aka Artix Kreiger,.... I assume that the file has been correctly uploaded and the license changed later because of anger that he was found out. Again. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Elisfkc&oldid=336234490"