Commons:Administrators/Requests/Mike Peel

 Support = 25;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100% Result. Successful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Peel

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 00:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Earlier this year I started {{Wikidata Infobox}}. It's now used in over 14,000 categories, and hopefully that number will dramatically increase soon if/when the bot deployment request is approved. That probably means that the infobox template, along with the templates and modules it uses, will need to be protected soon to avoid potential vandalism. I would like to be able to continue editing the template after that protection, hence this request for the mop.

I started contributing to Commons in 2006. Since then I've uploaded 25,000 of my own photos, and I've made 63,000 edits. My focus is on content - adding new photos, and sorting out the organisation of them through categories and Wikidata. Don't expect me to contribute to, or close, detailed copyright discussions - I don't understand all of the nuances, and my own photos have been deleted here due to FOP issues and the like. Do expect me to work on templates (particularly those involving Wikidata), help out with obvious speedy deletions (in particular housekeeping), and to lend a hand with other admin tasks when needed.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support Besides the need to edit the infobox, clearly a longstanding productive editor. Eleven years with the mop on enwiki is nothing to sneeze at either. Easy support, even if you did steal my bot name ;) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, and sorry for the unintentional theft of your bot name! I can change it if you want - I named it after the Raspberry Pi that I'm running the code on! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the name is yours! (Maybe I should register User:BananaBot though...) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Support I know this user for a long time even in real life and can trust him. His given reasons are reasonable for me. --Stepro (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -FASTILY 04:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Long time, productive user, honest application. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- KTC (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support yes, please. Storkk (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support strakhov (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support. -- Geagea (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Yep ticks the boxes for me - thanks for helping --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support, longtime trusted user.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, why not --A.Savin 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 14:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support 100% positive experience with the user during the mentioned bot approval process --Schlurcher (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Hystrix (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support. --Rzuwig^► 07:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - Longstanding, productive & clueful editor - 110% support. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support long-standing productive editor who will help the project as an administrator. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Honest application, solid contributor. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support. I thought multiple days, but at last decided, that Mike does not break Commons. Taivo (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question It would unfair to let you get away with no questions about copyright, all admins must have a decent grounding in the topic, but I'll keep it relevant to your interests...
  1. Commons has allowed datafiles for a while, but these are still displayed as a CC0 default pending the consensus to allow other licenses to be implemented. Does the technical merging or abstraction and searching of Wikimedia Commons contents via Wikidata, including as a repository of databases of variously licensed data and artefact metadata, create risks for either project? Do you have suggestions for further proposals to mitigate them?
  2. One of my bot tasks does a daily photo slurp from the ESA, fortunately I can rely on a CC license. Licensing in this area can be tricky to pick apart, even if no copyright lawyers have made it to Mars, yet. Do you know if illustrations or photographs created under contract for NASA, i.e. not outsourced, are suitable for Commons? If some are and some are not, how do we check the difference? --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Fæ: On (1), Wikidata is CC-0, but that doesn't mean that it can only hold info about/links to CC-0 datafiles, in the same way that it can hold info on non-CC-0 photos. It does mean that any non-CC-0 files couldn't have their contents copied over to Wikidata, though. And then there's the whole question of copyright of datafiles; facts can't be copyrighted, and database copyright is messy, with en:Database Directive in Europe, but nothing elsewhere (that I'm aware of). So in general I'd stay away from this area. ;-) On (2), {{PD-NASA}} generally applies, but with some exceptions; the best way is to check the NASA website's image use guidelines to see what it says before importing files from there, but even then there can be exceptions due to files created elsewhere but copied over onto the website, so you have to be careful. Probably look for image credit lines, and parse them to spot if e.g. StSci is credited. ESA's becoming simpler now, but be careful of legacy images that they might not have released under a CC license yet, since that's relatively new. For example, as far as I'm aware, Planck images are still copyrighted, which is why we mostly use NASA images from the WMAP experiment here (disclaimer: I'm part of the Planck collaboration). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)