Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fredddie

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 9;  Oppose = 5;  Neutral = 3 - 64% Result. Unsuccessful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 06:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Fredddie. I've been around for a few years, mainly in the U.S. Roads project area where I routinely create maps, route markers, and the occasional photo. A few months back I became an OTRS volunteer (info-en and permissions queues) and I feel my work on OTRS would be significantly facilitated by having the ability to delete/undelete/do things that I cannot do currently. I also have rollback and filemover flags. Thanks for your consideration. –Fredddie 06:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  • While you have contributed over 8500 edits to Wikimedia Commons (thanks!), less than 100 are in the Commons namespace and only about 25 of them are deletion-request-related with no complicated case, as far as I can see. Since you would like to work as OTRS volunteer, can you please point me to a page or location where you collected more copyright experience? This can be a link to another wiki, a contributions-page for a limited time-span, … Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 08:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • en:WT:AURD. Here, I had uploaded a set of route markers for use by the Australian roads project on en.wp. There was little-to-no doubt that the files were in the public domain in the US, but there was doubt about their status in Australia thanks to the threshold of originality. The files ended up being moved over to en.wp and tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. –Fredddie 06:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this sounds interesting. I never understood why Australia does not have the principle of a Threshold of Originality. Would it be possible comparing sections relevant to the Threshold of Originality in U.S. copyright law (point me to paragraphs or quote from it) with the relevant paragraphs in Australian copyright law? Case law is not required here as already listed at COM:TOO. Thanks in advance! -- Rillke(q?) 10:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part III is nice and vague when it comes to determining an original work. So we have to rely on case law to determine where the TOO lies, unfortunately. However, there is Section 182A, but I really doubt the design of Australian route markers was directed by an Act of Parliament. –Fredddie 04:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75 actions in the last 30 days is imho not enough. We need active administrators to reduce the backlog. @Fredddie: Do you plan to help with closing DR's etc.? --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think there is an answer that will make you change your mind about me. I freely admit I have never been a prolific editor in the Commons namespace. But that being said, I wouldn't have started this if I wasn't going to help at all. –Fredddie 01:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Some questions:

  1. Do you see any issues with File:Aleksei Pakhomenko.jpg?
  2. Do you see any issues with File:Recordings Paisley Beach - Powow Studio LA.JPG?
  3. Do you see any issues with File:Sagan biyegu 2012.jpg?
  4. Do you see any issues with File:Disgusting-Y-2013.jpg?

I will ask some others after you have answered these. russavia (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have to do with personality rights, but each have their own intricacies. I have added {{Personality rights}} to each of the file pages.
  1. Mr. Pakhomenko is a public official, but this photo was taken in a public space (press conference background gives it away) in Russia, so any use of this picture would require his consent if not used in state/social/public interest.
  2. This photo was taken in California, so their personality rights extend 70 pma.
  3. Taken in a private space in Nepal. Adding the personality rights template seems to have been sufficient for this former picture of the day, which is way more obvious, so I can't see why this would be any different.
  4. Argentine band and it's unclear who took the portraits that make up the image. Based on who submitted the OTRS ticket, I'm certain everybody in the image gave their consent for it to be published here. (Sidenote: I've never talked about a ticket at any length here before, so I don't know how much I'm able to divulge. I've always used the rule "Whatever happens on OTRS stays on OTRS".) Consent from everyone would need to be given to use the image outside of here. –Fredddie 05:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket for File:Aleksei Pakhomenko.jpg is in Russian, and it's probably not a language you understand? The file page here has a PD tag on it, but on OTRS the file is licenced under {{FAL}}. File:Recordings Paisley Beach - Powow Studio LA.JPG the OTRS is from one of the subjects in the image, but they state they are the author of the image; this is likely not possible, and OTRS really should probably come from the actual author, or at the very least further clarification should be sought as to whether it was a work for hire, etc to be able to ascertain the actual authorship and who is authorised to release it in to PD. File:Sagan biyegu 2012.jpg on OTRS is released under CC-BY-SA-3.0 as well as the {{GFDL}}, but this is missing from the file page. File:Disgusting-Y-2013.jpg I see the same possible concerns as you raised above; finding out the copyright holder on such images is important, especially if they are signed to a label, as often the label will have ownership not the band members. But as per the previous image, they also released the image under CC-BY-SA-3.0 plus the GFDL, but that is missing from the file page. These are just some examples of where attention to detail is especially important. russavia (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]