Commons:관리자

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Administrators and the translation is 42% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Administrators and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.

ShortcutsCOM:A· COM:ADMIN· COM:SYSOP

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎Lëtzebuergesch • ‎Nederlands • ‎Tiếng Việt • ‎Türkçe • ‎Zazaki • ‎als • ‎asturianu • ‎brezhoneg • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎interlingua • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎norsk bokmål • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎română • ‎shqip • ‎sicilianu • ‎suomi • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎Ελληνικά • ‎беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ • ‎български • ‎молдовеняскэ • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎հայերեն • ‎עברית • ‎العربية • ‎فارسی • ‎مصرى • ‎پښتو • ‎नेपाली • ‎मराठी • ‎हिन्दी • ‎বাংলা • ‎ગુજરાતી • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어
Commons Administrator.svg

이 페이지는 위키미디어 공용의 관리자 권한을 설명하는 항목입니다. 세세한 규칙 및 관리자 임명법은 각 사이트마다 다를 수 있습니다.

만약 관리자의 도움을 필요로 한다면, 관리자 알림판에 내용을 남겨주세요.

현재 위키미디어 공용에는 218명의 관리자가 있습니다.

관리자는 무엇입니까?

Administrators as of 8월 2020 [+/−]
Listing by language
Listing by date
Listing by activity

Number of Admins: 218

  1. -revi, ko, en-3 (steward)
  2. ~riley, en, fr-1, es-1
  3. 1989, en
  4. 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  5. 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1
  6. 4nn1l2, fa, en-3, ar-1
  7. 99of9, en (bureaucrat)
  8. A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2
  9. Achim55, de, en-3, nds-3, la-2
  10. AFBorchert, de, en-3
  11. Ahmad252, fa, en-3, ar-1
  12. Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1
  13. Aka, de, en-3
  14. Alan, es, eu-3, en-2
  15. Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1
  16. Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1
  17. Андрей Романенко, ru, en-3, uk-3, be-2, fr-2, lv-2
  18. Ankry, pl, en-2, ru-1
  19. AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1
  20. Anthere, fr, en-3
  21. Arthur Crbz, fr, en-4, es-3
  22. Aude, en, ar-2, de-2, es-3
  23. AzaToth, sv, en-4
  24. Benoît Prieur,fr, en-3, pt-2, es-1, it-1, hy-1
  25. Benoit Rochon, fr, en-4
  26. Billinghurst, en
  27. Blackcat, it, en-3, fr
  28. BrightRaven, fr, en-3, nl-2, es-2, zh-1
  29. Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1
  30. Captain-tucker, en
  31. Christian Ferrer, fr, en-2, es-2
  32. Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1
  33. clpo13, en
  34. Common Good, en
  35. Cookie, es, en-2
  36. Czar, en
  37. DaB., de, en-1
  38. Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1
  39. DarwIn, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1
  40. Davepape, en
  41. David Levy, en
  42. De728631, de, en-5
  43. Dereckson, fr, en-3, de-1, nl-1
  44. DerHexer, de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1 (steward)
  45. Dharmadhyaksha, mr, en-3, hi-3
  46. DMacks, en
  47. Didym, de, en-2, fr-2
  48. Dyolf77, ar, fr-5, en-2, it-1, es-1
  49. D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1
  50. Ebrahim, fa, en-3
  51. Elcobbola en, de (checkuser)
  52. Ellin Beltz, en (bureaucrat)
  53. Emha, de, bar, en-3, fr-1
  54. Érico, pt, en-2, es-1
  55. EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat)
  56. Explicit, en, es, ko-2
  57. Ezarate, es-3, en-1
  58. Fitindia, en-3, hi-2, mr-2
  59. Flominator, de, als, en-3
  60. FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1
  61. Gbawden, en-3, af-1
  62. Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1
  63. Geni, en
  64. George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1
  65. Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3
  66. Gnangarra, en, nys-1
  67. Golbez, en, ja-2
  68. Green Giant, en, de-1, fr-1 (steward)
  69. GreenMeansGo, en
  70. grin, hu, en-3, de-1
  71. Guanaco, en, es-1
  72. Hanooz, fa, en-2
  73. Hedwig in Washington, de, en-4, nds-1
  74. Hekerui, de, en-4
  75. Herbythyme, en, fr-2, es-1, it-1
  76. Hesperian, en
  77. Howcheng, en, ja-2
  78. Huntster, en
  79. Indeedous, de, en-3, fr-2
  80. Infrogmation, en, es-1
  81. Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (bureaucrat, checkuser)
  82. Jaqen, it, en-2
  83. Jarekt, pl, en
  84. JarrahTree, en, id-1
  85. Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1
  86. Jdforrester, en
  87. Jdx, pl, en-2
  88. Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1
  89. JGHowes, en, fr-2, de-1
  90. Jianhui67, en, zh-4, ja-2, ms-1
  91. Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1
  92. Joergens.mi, de, en-3
  93. JoKalliauer, de, en-3
  94. Jon Kolbert, en, fr-4, de-2
  95. Josve05a, sv, en-3
  96. Juliancolton, en
  97. Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  98. JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  99. Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-2, ko-1
  100. Kaldari, en
  101. Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1
  102. King of Hearts, en, zh-3, es-2, ja-1
  103. Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1
  104. Krd, de, en-3 (bureaucrat, checkuser, steward)
  105. Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2
  106. Kwj2772, ko, en-3
  107. Leit, de, en-3, fr-1
  108. Léna, fr, en-3, es-1
  109. Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1
  110. Lofty abyss, en, mt, it-2
  111. Lymantria, nl, en-3, de-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1
  112. Magog the Ogre, en, es-2 (checkuser)
  113. Mahagaja, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1
  114. Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1
  115. Marcus Cyron, de, en-2
  116. Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (steward)
  117. Martin H., de, en-2
  118. Masur, pl, en-3, de-1
  119. Matanya, en, he (steward)
  120. Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1
  121. Mates, cs, en-3, sk-4, de-1
  122. Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1
  123. Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2
  124. MB-one, de, en-3, fr-1, pt-1
  125. MBisanz, en
  126. MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, no-1, sv-1
  127. Mhhossein, fa, en-3, ar-1
  128. Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1
  129. Mike Peel, en, pt-2, fr-1
  130. Missvain, en
  131. Mitchazenia, en, es-2
  132. Miya, ja, en-2
  133. Moheen, bn, as-1, bpy-1, en-3, hi-1, hif-1
  134. Morgankevinj, en
  135. MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1
  136. Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1
  137. Mys 721tx, zh, en-3
  138. Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1
  139. NahidSultan, bn, en-3, bpy-1 (steward)
  140. Nat, en, fr, gsw-1, pl-1
  141. Natuur12, nl, en-3, de-1
  142. Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2
  143. Nick, en, sco-2, fr-1
  144. notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2
  145. Nyttend, en, ang-1
  146. odder, pl, en-4, de-2 (bureaucrat, oversighter)
  147. Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1
  148. P199, en, nl, fr-2, tl-2, de-1
  149. Perhelion, de, en-3
  150. Pi.1415926535, en, es-2
  151. PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1 (oversighter)
  152. Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2
  153. Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1
  154. Pleclown, fr, en-3
  155. Poco a poco, es, de-4, en-3, fr-2, it-2, pl-2, pt-1
  156. Podzemnik, cs, en-2
  157. Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1
  158. Putnik, ru, en-2
  159. Pyb, fr, en-2
  160. Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1
  161. Racconish, fr, en-4
  162. Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1
  163. Ra'ike, de, en-2
  164. Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter)
  165. Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1
  166. Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter)
  167. Regasterios, hu, en-1
  168. Rehman, en, si-1
  169. Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3
  170. Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1
  171. Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1
  172. Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1
  173. Royalbroil, en, es-1
  174. RP88, en, de-1
  175. Rudolphous, nl, en-3, de-2
  176. Ruthven, it, fr, en-4, es-4, nap-4, ca-2, de-1
  177. Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1
  178. Sealle, ru, en-4, pl-2, sk-2, uk-2
  179. Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1
  180. Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1
  181. Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1
  182. Srittau, de, en-3
  183. Steinsplitter, bar, de-4, it-3, en-1
  184. Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1
  185. Storkk, en, fr-3, de-2, eo-2
  186. Strakhov, es, en-2
  187. Tabercil, en
  188. TadejM, sl, en-3, de-2, fr-2
  189. Taivo, et, en-3, ru-3, de-1
  190. Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1
  191. Techman224, en
  192. Teles, pt, en-3, es-2
  193. Themightyquill, en, fr-2, de-1, hu-1
  194. The Squirrel Conspiracy, en
  195. Thibaut120094, fr, en-2, ja-2
  196. Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2
  197. Tomer T, he, en-3
  198. Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward)
  199. Tulsi Bhagat, ne, mai, en-3, hi-2, bh-2, hif-2
  200. Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1
  201. VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1
  202. Wdwd, de, en-2
  203. Well-Informed Optimist, ru, uk-4, en-3
  204. Whym, ja, en-2
  205. Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, de-2, as-2, bpy-1
  206. Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1
  207. Yann, fr, en-4, hi-2, gu-1
  208. Yarl, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  209. Yasu, ja, en-2, de-1
  210. Y.haruo, ja, en-1
  211. Ymblanter, ru, en-3, de-2, fr-2, nl-2, it-1, es-1
  212. Yuval CT, he, en-3
  213. Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1
  214. علاء, ar, en-4, he-1, es-1 (steward)
  215. Abuse filter, (automated account)
  216. CommonsDelinker, (bot) see request
  217. CommonsMaintenanceBot, (bot) see request
  218. KrinkleBot, (bot) see request

The system currently recognizes 218 administrators. If that is not the last number in the list above, there is an error in the list.

기술적 권한

관리자는 위키미디어 공용에서 기술적인 권한을 사용할 수 있는 유저입니다. 다음과 같은 권한이 있습니다.

  • 이미지 및 기타 업로드 된 파일 삭제 및 삭제 취소, 삭제 된 버전보기 및 복원
  • 페이지 삭제 및 삭제 취소, 삭제 된 버전보기 및 복원
  • 페이지 보호 및 보호 해제, 관리자 보호 페이지 편집
  • 사용자와 개별 IP 주소 및 IP 주소 대역 차단 및 차단 해제,
  • MediaWiki 이름공간 편집
  • 파일 이름 바꾸기
  • 사용자 그룹 추가 및 제거
  • 업로드 마법사 캠페인 구성
  • 특정 로그 항목 및 문서의 특정 판 삭제 및 복구
  • 다른 위키에서 페이지 가져오기
  • 문서 역사 병합하기.
  • 편집 필터 수정
  • 페이지를 이동할 때 원본 페이지에서 넘겨주기 생성하지 않음
  • 스푸핑 검사 및 제목 또는 사용자 이름 블랙리스트 무시
  • 한 번에 여러 사용자에게 메시지 보내기 (대량 메시지)
  • API 쿼리에서 더 높은 제한 사용

이것들을 통틀어 관리자 도구로 알려져 있습니다.

Community role

Administrators are experienced and trusted members of the Commons community who have taken on additional maintenance work and have been entrusted with the admin tools by public consensus/vote. Different admins have different areas of interest and expertise, but typical admin tasks include determining and closing deletion requests, deleting copyright violations, undeleting files where necessary, protecting Commons against vandalism, and working on templates and other protected pages. Of course, some of these tasks can be done by non-admins as well.

Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate, respect community consensus.

Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Some admins may become more influential, not due to their position as such but from the personal trust they may have gained from the community.

관리자 요청

Please read Commons:Guide to adminship.

관리자 권한 회수

권한 회수 정책에 따라, 비활동이나 관리자 권한 남용으로 관리자 권한이 회수될 수 있습니다.

Apply to become an administrator

All intending administrators must go through this process and submit themselves to RFA, including all ex-administrators who are seeking to return to their previous role.

First, go to Commons:Administrators/Howto and read the information there. Then come back here and make your request in the section below.

  • If someone else nominated you, please accept the nomination by stating "I accept" or something similar, and signing below the nomination itself. The subpage will still need to be transcluded by you or your nominator.
Use the box below, replacing Username with your username:


투표

Any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable if you give reasons both for   Support votes or   Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to an argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 8 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not counted. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers.

  Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages. However such comments are part of the discussion, may persuade others, and contribute to the closing bureaucrat's understanding of community consensus.

Purge the cache Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.

Requests for adminship

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Jeff G.

Vote

Jeff G. (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 05:30, (UTC)

As has been seen on COM:AN recently, Commons needs more Admin attention. I hereby volunteer to help. You may find more information about me at User:Jeff G.#Introduction and elsewhere on that page.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


Votes

  •   Support Hopefully you will succeed this time. MZaplotnik(talk) 05:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support   Lotje (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 07:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Deserves a chance. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I am a little surprised that you are not an admin already. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 08:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose I looked at the previous nominations (1, & 2 & 3) and I don't trust this user with the extra tools. Multichill (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -FASTILY 09:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - we all learn, some get better some get worse - at least Jeff is genuinely active. --Herby talk thyme 09:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Best wishes --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. I have seen him in many aspects of Commons work. I think he have learned from the previous nominations. -- Geagea (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Long-term experienced user. Should be given a chance. 1989talk 14:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Unfortunately, I have no trust whatsoever. After I voted "no" to his previous candidacy, he tried to discredit me at the support team. (OTRS olny) Additionally I see major deficits in understanding the difference between copyright and personality rights. --Stepro (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Stepro: That was strictly about what became Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 77#User:Tm is deleting my DRs again, in which you were censured, and had nothing to do with your !vote. It was also over a year ago.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose - see Stepro. A NoGo. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --A.Savin 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Jeff is technically adept and helpful to users. But how can I support someone who supported my desysop using the words "and many remove !votes above."? That shows a lack of independent thought and herd mentality, also an unwillingness or inability to look beneath the surface into issues to the depth required, which is sometimes essential for an Admin. Sorry Jeff. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Wow, revenge voting? You can do better than this, Rodhullandemu. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    No, it's an honest opinion based on evidence provided by Jeff himself. The crats will give it whatever weight they think appropriate. Please quit making personal attacks and consider removing {{Retired}} from your user page when you're clearly not. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Rodhullandemu: Since you took exception to my brevity but were nonspecific, if you meant my brevity at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 85#Proposal: Desysop Rodhullandemu, here is a more long-winded rationale: "per nom, mattbuck, pandakekok9, Casliber, Motacilla, RexxS, Serial Number 54129, Charlesjsharp, Nick, Prosfilaes, Pudeo, Davey2010, and all the evidence presented above. Such incivility, bullying, and use of advanced permissions while involved is unbecoming, especially for an Admin." If you instead meant my brevity at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rodhullandemu (de-adminship), my rationale is the same, but with replacement of "above" with "at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 85#Proposal: Desysop Rodhullandemu".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. —Hasley 20:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Pretty knowledgeable about policy and copyright for the most part, but I do have concerns about his speedy tagging of File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs2.svg. This is clearly a self-made SVG, so the extent to which it makes use of Maslow's copyrighted expression and whether it exceeds COM:TOO is very debatable; in these cases COM:DR is a much better alternative. File:Flag of the President of Turkey.svg is another questionable tagging that should have gone to DR. In both cases they ultimately ended up at DR because someone else contested it, but ideally the nominator should know when speedy vs. regular deletion is more appropriate. I'm worried that he might be too trigger-happy and speedily delete images solely based on his view of copyright without considering whether there might be reasonable disagreement. -- King of ♥ 20:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Time will tell what the resolution of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs2.svg will be, probably longer than this RfA. I based my 08:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC) decision to speedy tag that file as a copyvio on established copyright law and the 02:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC) question of respected Admin Jmabel "How is that not a violation of Maslow's heirs' copyright?", currently at COM:HD#SVG file preview bugged. That file still has no sort of PD-text justification or sourcing. Just before I tagged it as no permission (not speedy), File:Flag of the President of Turkey.svg stated prima facie "I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain." That turned out to be a false statement, so it seems I was right. "Date = 2010-02-19" is still false there, as the design is much older.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    "Time will tell" means that speedy is automatically wrong, regardless of the end result, because speedy deletion is only for obvious cases. Again, I do not hold your opinion against you; if you had simply nominated them for deletion, I would respect that since your view is within the admin mainstream (one that Jmabel shares). However, the ability to foresee when a view might be controversial is a must for adminship, because the tools allow you to instantly delete a file with little scrutiny; we trust our admins to only do so when any reasonable admin would come to the same conclusion. And if a file description says something silly, that is grounds for fixing the description, not deleting the file. -- King of ♥ 02:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Sorry, you're right, I'll sent potential copyvios that might be under TOO (or DM, like File:Darwin Platform Group of Companies.jpg) to DR.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Concerning the Maslow file: you didn't mark it as patrolled (it's still unmarked). I think marking a file as patrolled is something you need to do when you place any deletion template (maybe it would be good to have this automated), it's kinda sloppy not to. Eissink (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
    @Eissink: Frankly, I can't see any way to mark either Maslow file description page as patrolled at present, but I also can't see any patrol activity in their patrol logs. Also, I assumed that I, as a member of the Image reviewers group, and Kwj2772, as an Admin, would automatically have our edits to those pages marked as patrolled via our autopatrol rights, so there would be no need to patrol them manually.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know if that is how it works, it certainly doesn't appear that way. I just, after you reply, marked the file. It's not a big deal, but I always (unless I forget) flag files marked after attaching a template. Maybe something to contemplate further. Eissink (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
  •   Strong oppose per Multichill and Stepro --DCB (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose per Multichill and Stepro + I looked at the previous nominations. Personally speaking, I had experience that for the most part drove me away from this site with this user. Our differences were resolved but I do not think making him an admin is going to benefit the site. (still semi-retired) --Don (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Jeff is already doing most of the work that is usually informally allocated to admins, and is doing it a lot better than most admins; I think it would be good to give him the full toolset. That said: a caution to Jeff that he should be careful when using those specifically administrative tools. For example, King of Hearts is correct above that a question about copyright that is not blatant should not be a speedy delete. But everyone sometimes gets something wrong, - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per 1989. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - Trusted, technically adept and is very helpful. - FitIndia Talk 07:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - per 1989 and JMabel Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose there is a Dutch idom that applies to this situation. Don't tie a cat to a piece of bacon. Natuur12 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Natuur12: What does that mean? 1989talk 15:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @1989: Tempting someone in a way they cannot resist, often resulting in an undesirable outcome. And more specific for this case, I'm afraid that Jeff G. won't be able to show enough retraitant with the admin tools. Natuur12 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support We all make mistakes and I think Jeff G. has improved and learned from his failed RfA. T CellsTalk 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice personality, very helpful with newcomers. Has to be admin. Thanks for helping me. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE: This user voted to keep two photographs which were subsequently deleted as potential underaged pornography. Note that in both cases, he voted "Speedy Keep". Whatever his reasons for doing so, his decisions were utterly inexcusable and there is no way that he should ever be granted administrative powers.
Speaking on a personal level, I've found Jeff G's performance to be far less than satisfactory. In the past, he has exercised extremely poor judgment by voting to keep clearly out of scope images which were later deleted by universal consensus. He has filed frivolous deletion requests, attempted to provoke negative reactions and brought complaints against good faith users when there was - quote - "no evidence of actual wrongdoing". Due to these and many other actions I've witnessed, I have no faith in this editor, and - in my humble opinion - neither should anyone else here. AshFriday (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You do realise that the links you have provided clearly state that the files were not deleted as alleged pornography with children, but rather as out of scope. In fact their deletion under those grounds was overturned. I also find it interesting how a person can have a strong opinion when Special:ListFiles/AshFriday has two files, one of them is incorrectly rotated image and the other claims to have adjusted colours while somehow (accidentally?) changing the resolution. I trust that the closing admin will not simply count the votes, because something strange is happening here. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you didn't read the deletion logs very carefully, or else chose to ignore the following:
  • 21:49, 12 February 2018 Jcb deleted page File:Buang air besar.jpg (potential underage porn -)
  • 21:49, 12 February 2018 Jcb deleted page File:Penis ereksi.jpg (potential underage porn -)
  • Whatever the case, the images involved two naked and partially clothed youths with erections, neither of whom looked like adults. I have a "strong opinion" because potential under-aged pornography has no place on commons, and no administrative candidate has any business voting to keep it.
  • Incidentally, my upload count is irrelevant: as an established user with over two thousand edits under my handle, I have every right to vote in RFAs and express my reasons for doing so. I trust that the closing admin will take all of this into consideration when they tally the final count. You're welcome. AshFriday (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have seen that, I also see that this deletion was undone because it wasn't correct. I also see that this deletion was before the vote, and therefore you are telling a falsehood when you have claimed that the image was deleted as potential child pornography after Jeff G has voted keep. The correct statement would be "Jeff G has voted keep on a file that was initially wrongly deleted as 'potential child pornography'". But that doesn't sound as bad, despite being the truth. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support An active user with lots of good administrative works. Despite mistakes are made, Jeff has shown improvement since the previous RfA. No one is perfect. Considering his contribution and the history of RfA, a chance should be given. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Jmabel and T Cells. --Achim (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Herbythyme. Jianhui67 TC 13:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely, deserves a chance.   Support, his contributions matters. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose See Stepro. --Nicola (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  •   Question How would you respond if File:Rodrigoparedes 299-365 (37924882086).jpg was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale: "derivative"? What would you take into consideration? --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @99of9: Thank you for alerting me about that file. Despite the fact that I uploaded it, I have nominated it for deletion, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rodrigoparedes 299-365 (37924882086).jpg. I'm sorry I uploaded it.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Good work. --99of9 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @99of9: Thanks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Jeff G. generally I think you are a very valuable editor but could you explain what you have learnt from your previous failed RfA (1, & 2 & 3)? Regards. T CellsTalk 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @T Cells: I think you and Multichill missed one, but using your numbering: from 1, I learned that people react badly to the "edit summary" template, to reduce RfA nomination text, to not advertise my RfA in my sig, to put udelh templates above headers, to avoid unblanking user talk pages, and to be less BITEy. From 2, I learned to stop using {{Oa}}, to avoid quick and flippant and facetious responses, and to avoid taking the bait and disengage from those who insist "it's your responsibility to address my concerns". In that RfA, I posted some of what I had learned in this edit 17:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC). In 3, I learned that opinions from other RfAs can be cited, that I shouldn't transfer from Flickr without careful curation (I don't do that any more), and that defending myself is frowned upon at RfA. In that RfA, I posted some of what I had learned in this edit 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC). For completeness, from Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. (which I did not name/number), I learned to be on my best behavior during RfA, and to put my babel boxes at the very top of my user and user talk pages. I've also learned that convincing users posting to a particular page to sign their posts is pointless and BITEy while SignBot is active on that particular page, so I don't do that any more.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Just to let you know I support your creation of {{oa}} and I actually prefer when people approach candidacy seriously and provide complete information in their nomination. In Russian language there is a phrase "Once burnt by milk you blow on water", I am unsure if such a saying exists in English, but perhaps you are overly cautious. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Gone Postal: Thanks. In English, a similar phrase is "Once bitten, twice shy". The portion I moved to my Introduction was as follows: I am a member of local groups Autoconfirmed users, File movers, Image reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors, Translation administrators, and Users, as well as global groups Global IP block exemptions, Global rollbackers, and OTRS members. My previous RfAs here were Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Jeff G., Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G., Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 2, and Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 3 (and I have learned from each of them). I have: Admin experience on Wikimedia Outreach, the Test and Test2 Wikipedias, Deletionpedia.org, RationalWiki.org, TheTestWiki.org, and various Wikia Fandom wikis; Bureaucrat experience on Test2 Wikipedia, TheTestWiki.org, and various Wikia Fandom wikis; and non-wiki Network Admin and Private IP Registrar experience at Canon USA and other client and employer networks in the New York Metro Area.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Would you delete a useful photo with a Commons-valid CC license just because it is limited in its re-use outside of Wikimedia projects due to personality or moral rights resp. patent or trademark rights? Please explain your understanding of different rights and how they affect photos of Wikimedia Commons. Thanks in advance! —DerHexer (Talk) 11:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @DerHexer: No, I wouldn't delete such a photo. We don't delete here on the basis of patent and trademark rights, we just document those rights as non-copyright restrictions.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Over the past 13 years, you have failed no less than four different RFAs that I know of, with a large number of fellow editors opposing your various nominations. What are you doing wrong to turn so many good faith users against you? AshFriday (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

CptViraj

Vote

CptViraj (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 17:56, (UTC)

Hi.

I'm CptViraj, I'm a native speaker of Gujarati, near-native of Hindi, intermediate of English and I have basic understanding of Fiji Hindi, Sanskrit, Marathi, Bhojpuri, Haryanvi, Nepali.

I started contributing in May 2019, I'm a license reviewer and filemover. I usually tag obvious copyvios, broken redirects, inappropriate userpages, out of scope files for (speedy) deletion. I'm fimilar with all of general guidelines/policies and copyright policies of India. On the license reviewing side I review and interesting in reviewing Bollywood Hungama and easy GODL-India files only, but I have basic knowledge of YT and Flickr files too. I have learnt from my this mistake.

If promoted, I will help at COM:DR, COM:RFR, CAT:CV, CAT:PER, COM:AN, COM:LRR, CAT:MWUDIOV, etc maintenance tasks. I won't use my rights whenever i'm in doubt and will ask for advice.

Please feel free to ask questions, Thankyou! -- CptViraj (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Votes

  •   Support Deserves a chance. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes absolutely . Thank you for volunteering. --- FitIndia Talk 19:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Hopefully you'll be dealing with spambots as well. 1989talk 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Natuur12 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome editor. Would be a great support for the community. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 00:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Deserving candidate. Best wishes --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support, yes please. Competent enough. I feel he will do great with the admin tools, and hopefully admin backlog will be cleared so glad to support. Keep up the good works! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 03:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Ahmadtalk 04:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support, of course!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 05:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Herby talk thyme 06:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 07:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -FASTILY 09:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. —Hasley 20:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I do have some suggestions, for example to be a little more explicit. For an admin it is sometimes good to just say "per above" or "because of what another person said", but in general it is best to restate things even when the appear to be obious. When a new user first comes across a person in position of power on Commons it should be a learning experience, not an attempt to guess what gods want at this particular time. But I find it a good sign that see the mistake that was done and to act to rectify it. I look forward to seeing CptViraj as an admin on our project and hope they will prove me correct. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 08:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for volunteering and please stay safe. T CellsTalk 18:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 TC 03:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes for me. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • Would you please give your opinion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bloom's Taxonomy for Course Design and Teaching.pdf. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Gone Postal: Thank you for commenting, I did give my opinion on the discussion page. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have answered on that discussion page, could you please consider it and give your response. Thank you. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you will probably get the nomination even without my vote, but I wasn't trolling when I have asked for a response, I honestly was trying to make up my mind. You don't have to respond on the deletion request, if you think that it's better to respond here (or even on my talk page), but I would appreciate it if you do. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Ah apologize, somehow I didn't noticed your above comment. I'll continue on the DR page. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Another question. When do you think that speedy deletion without a deletion discussion should be allowed? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    When the reason is uncontroversial and meets our speedy deletion criteria. And for F1 and F10, I personally believe that old files should go through DR process. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question How would you respond if File:John_Muir_Trail_-_Yosemite_National_Park,_California,_USA_(27672489992).jpg was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale: "derivative"? What would you take into consideration? --07:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @99of9: Thankyou for your question, here is my answer:
    As an admin: It is my own upload, so I won't make any actions. And if it wasn't my own upload, I will still leave it for another admin as I don't think it is a obvious copyvio, and currently I'm interested in performing actions for easy and obvious pages only.
    As a user/uploader: This image was part of a mass-upload I did from flickr, back then I wasn't that much fimilar with Commons copyright policies. I see that the drawing in the board could be copyrighted unless it is {{PD-old}}. I will try to find the history behind that drawing and if I failed, I will leave this to the admin. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question How would you respond if File:Fontainebleau, France - Synagogue (16867666306).jpg was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale: "derivative"? What would you take into consideration? --07:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @99of9: Thankyou for your question, here is my answer:
    As an admin: It is my own upload, so I won't make any actions. And if it wasn't my own upload, I will decline the speedy deletion request and will move it to DR as this is a FOP case, so F4 doesn't apply.
    As a user/uploader: This image was part of a mass-upload I did from flickr, back then I wasn't that much fimilar with Commons copyright policies. I don't see any non-free content in the image and I'm not fimilar with COM:FOP France so I will leave this to other users. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question A photograph was taken in India in 1945, and the photographer died in 1980. Is the image acceptable for Commons, and why? -- King of ♥ 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Thankyou for your question. It would be in the public domain in India per {{PD-India}} and {{PD-India-photo-1958}}, But any work originating in India must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both India and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. And for US I'm fimilar with TOO rules only, but I roughly read the PD rules after your question and I think the photograph would need to meet all the three requirements mentioned in {{PD-1996}}. For the note: As I said in my nomination "Currently I review and interested in reviewing Bollywood Hungama and easy GODL-India files only". Sorry! -- CptViraj (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question A user uploads a painting claimed to be from 1750 but provides no source information, so another user comes along and tags it with {{No source since}}. You are patrolling the log and come across this image. How would you handle this situation? -- King of ♥ 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Thankyou for your question. I will try to find the artist and the museum. If succed, I will use {{Artwork}} and for source it would be museum's institution template, for license it would be {{PD-old-100}} in {{PD-Art}}. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Martin Urbanec

Vote

Martin Urbanec (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 17:19, (UTC)

Hello everyone,

my name is Martin Urbanec, and I am mainly active at the Czech Wikipedia, where I serve as an admin, bureaucrat and CheckUser (used to be an arbitrator as well). Globally, I serve as a Wikimedia Steward. You can also know me from the Wikimedia Technical community (see Phabricator), mainly focused on site requests.

If promoted, I would like to directly deal with cross wiki abusers that often make their way to Wikimedia Commons, help the counter vandalism unit, and also help to decrease the backlog Commons has. Given I am also an OTRS agent, I would also like to use the bit to undelete images with a late-delivered permission in OTRS. I am also happy to lend my hand with whatever needs to be done, and my RfA isn't limited to those fields.

I have general knowledge about the copyright law (mainly in Czech Republic's copyright code), as well as Commons's licensing requirements, and I believe I can make use of such knowledge as a Commons admin.

If there is anything else you would like to know, please let me know, I am happy to answer any questions.

Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Votes

  •   Support 1st vote and first comment. This might sound similar to YouTube comments. // Eatcha (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - obviously a competent user from their permissions elsewhere ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 17:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rschen7754 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -Killarnee (CTU) 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not Martin? You are clearly a trusted and helpful user. T CellsTalk 19:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. --- FitIndia Talk 19:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I have positive experiences of interacting with Martin Urbanec from SWAT. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Majority of your contributions are reverts and global renaming. You do very little maintenance. I'd prefer a candidate who's engaged with Commons, not just experiences from different projects. 1989talk 20:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      Addendum Tagging plain text and signature images as no permission? Not good... 1989talk 20:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed, I should be more careful with the "select all" feature when doing bulk tasks. Reverted myself for the signatures. I think the other images does not fall below the treshold of originality, and as such, needs a release. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Like this one? 1989talk 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    How about this one? 1989talk 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    It isn't purely text, someone had to think to create both images. It may look simple, but it might also took hours to create (I mean, for the original author). Moreover, both images are probably not their own work anyway. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    That doesn't matter. Both images + more you tagged are clearly in the public domain. 1989talk 21:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose exactly per this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per 1989 and your OTRS work is absolutely unacceptable. I'm greatly concerned, for example, that you do not know the difference between the subject of the photo and the author of a photo. Copyright initially vests with the latter, yet you accepted the OTRS from the former for File:Ragy Thomas photo.jpg, with no evidence of a transfer (the OTRS interface has a template explicitly for such a scenario!) For File:Marieme 2020.jpg you accepted a ticket with no contact or evidence of permission from the author. I do not trust that you understand basic aspects of copyright or our COM:EVID requirements. Эlcobbola talk 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your vote. However, I disagree with your evaluation. As far as I can see, the first photo's permission was sent by the noted author (Eric Egerton) rather than subject (Ragy Thomas). Moreover, this photo is very likely to be a corporate authorship, and in many jurisdictions, the employer holds the permission by law, with no specific need for transfer. That is why the permission always needs to contain a claim of authorship. In the second case, the photo's permission was indeed sent by the noted author, from their personal mailbox. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • You're correct in the first regard; I referenced the wrong image and as I cannot find the one to which I intended to refer, I've struck that issue and am happy to consider it thus non-existent and my error--my apologies. I find, however, your comment regarding corporate authorship concerning. Corporations generally do not keep professional photographers on staff (especially small ones like Sprinklr) and independent contractors would generally retain intellectual copyrights. That image notwithstanding, you've not addressed the second image and, as supplemental concerns: for File:Mathias Kiss.jpg you accepted permission from a person who is not the author stated in the metadata; you accept images (e.g., File:Jos.Jindra Kunvald 1958 - 30 km b.jpg) from people claiming images are from "family archives" with no evidence that 1) a family member was the photographer and 2) that the sender of the correspondence was the heir who inherited the intellectual property. There are tickets from a theatre formed in 1990 purporting to license images that appear from the turn of the 20th century. Etc. Again, I am concerned that you do not have an adequate appreciation for parties who genuinely hold copyrights and of our evidence requirements for the same. Эlcobbola talk 22:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Hello, I did react to the second image - I said that the release sent to OTRS was sent by the author as noted in the Commons file. Moreover, the release was signed by the author.
        • Ad File:Mathias_Kiss.jpg, the file doesn't contain any metadata, but is large enough so it is plausible it is the original. I wasn't able to find the image elsewhere, and the release doesn't have any obvious issues. It is correct the OTRS agents can never be 110% sure about the image's status, because copyright law allows for so many possibilities - and in most (if not all) cases, only the author can be sure about the copyright status. The sense of releases is to shift the responsibility to someone else. It is similar to licenses in the real world. If someone claims they are an author, offers you a license, you pay for it, and use the work, you live in good faith your usage is authorized. Of course, it is possible you paid a frauder, but it allows you to shift the damages elsewhere. This applies to other listed cases as well.
        • Ad File:Jos.Jindra_Kunvald_1958_-_30_km_b.jpg, the release does actually state "I, Name, birth certificate number XXX, heir of copyright, agree...". Obviously, that may or may not be true - in those cases, OTRS agents have to more or less rely on the individuals sending the release they are correct - as agents are not law enforcements, they can virtually never be absolutely sure, regardless how good permission you show.
        • Ad File:Divadlo_Tábor_Oskar_Nedbal.jpg, I admit there was a tiny mistake on my end (the release states "I, author", while it should likely say "I, representative of the copyright holder"), but the release is otherwise fine. You are not right the theatre was formed in 1990. The theatre exists there since at least 1840, see cs:Divadlo_Tábor, or even the link you posted. As any theatre, the theatre in Tábor changed names over time, and in 1990, it was renamed to Oskar Nedbal Theatre, as a sign of appreciation to Nedbal. Change of names doesn't affect the corporation itself, it is still one corporation, having all the rights it had before, including the picture's copyright.
        • --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I've thought about this and feel there is a degree of badge collecting here. I'm guessing current activity levels will reduce after this RfA ends. --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm with Herby. Stewarts only should be in seldom and special exceptions become Commons Admins. Only if they really very active here. and less than 9.000 Edits in 5+ years is definetly not enogh to show enough knowledge in the here required fields of work. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC) PS: a short look into MU's world: asking for a global ban for machine translations. Global bans are not for such things. Even you are not understand those things how should I know you understand Commons rules?
  •   Support I have very good experience with Martin from cswiki. I don't agree that Martin is just a "badge-collector". — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Herby --DCB (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support, of course!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Trusted, LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I personally don't agree being Martin termed as Badge or Hat collector. They have been quick and helpful when it comes in Steward work and I believe given an opportunity they will do their best here. Also this rights will help them in their x-wiki work. Best wishes --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 08:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. —Hasley 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support In generally I feel that they will be a reasonable admin. I am a little scared about the zealous answers to the copyright questions below. I would not want admins to fail to see context and to always assume copyright violation when a photo is made in an inaccessible interrior. A lot of times it can mean a violation, but far from always. Hopefully they will grow. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I wanted to support because your steward work is excellent but a basic understanding of copyright law seems lacking. Effort has nothing to do with copyright for example. At least not in Europe and the US. I don't expect admins to understand every aspect of copyright law (no admin does) but I do expect them to be familiar with our basic policies, guidelines and help pages. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not convinced + per others. Some of your uploads seem not properly licensed, such as [1], [2] --A.Savin 15:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Experienced with the tools and language skills is a plus. So, opposing votes are not convincing. Érico (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    What could be more convincing for opposing a Commons adminship applicant, rather than apparently unsatisfactory knowledge of Commons' Licensing policy, Érico? Just curious, --A.Savin 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Sure. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --janbery (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, for several reasons mentioned above me from badge collection to low activity levels as low as only 254 deleted edits? and understanding of copyrights, wrongly handled OTRS tickets as mentioned above. And importantly I don't understand the need to collect so many rights on several projects like this? When one is already taking care of many responsibilities! QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 14:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 13:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Though I appreciate Martin's Steward work, the answers from him shows that he doesn't have a clear understanding on copyright and OTRS issues. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose good Steward/Meta User, but because of the concerns raised by A.Savin, etc. i cannot support the RFA at this time. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support: If I'm not sure making a decision I leave it to others. Martin will do it the same way. So to me there is no reason to oppose. --Achim (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 09:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. In my opinion Martin will not break Commons, but he MUST thoroughly learn copyright, use his powers with caution and ask advice, when in doubt. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Achim55 and Tiven2240. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support We have deletion requests open back to December 2019, so if Martin, or anybody else qualified in the same way, offers a helping hand, this shouldn't be refused. --Krd 09:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. -- Geagea (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, with the same reasons as Krd and the same serious reservations as Taivo. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Path slopu (Talk) 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support, but with reservations as Taivo. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the week added to check and vote. I think Martin is smart enough to stay away from descicions he has not enough knowledge of. This can't be said about all our admins, so he'll improve the overall performance. --Mirer (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose his recent handling of File:Revista-apsi2.jpg is sub-par for a Commons admin: first, tagging a file as npd after an admin had already declined the Speedy Delete as meeting TOO. Secondly, he didn't engage in discussion with that admin (me) before reverting. Thirdly, he didn't nom it for regular DR for wider community discussion if he disagreed with the TOO judgment call.‎ This is the standard a Commons admin should meet. — JGHowes  talk 22:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. I've been on the fence due to the issues raised above, along with the adequate but not perfect answers to my questions. But his lack of understanding of COM:TOO, as demonstrated by his recent taggings, is the deal-breaker for me. I would encourage him to review all the important copyright pages listed in {{Copyright navbox}} and reapply in several months. -- King of ♥ 01:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Taivo. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Martin Urbanec is a good steward, patroller and OTRS member. But I think his contributions aren't enough to be a Commons admin. Because he has about 300 contributions in deletion requests and about 300 contributions that have been deleted. In general, deletion requests have increased in the last 4-5 months. Based on his deleted changes and recent activity, it falls short of what I assume subjectively for be admin. So I say it's a bit early to be a Commons admin. Thank you for your contribution. Good luck. Uncitoyen (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Natuur12 and Herbythyme. Mahir256 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for the time being, without prejudice to a second RFA after he is able to address the issues raised here. His steward and OTRS work are appreciated, but I don't see them as a reason to support since the Commons community is looking for candidates who do maintenance work here. ミラP 02:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  •   Question You are patrolling new uploads, and come across a photo which is claimed to be "own work". Under what conditions would you accept the claim without further proof, and when would you demand more evidence? In the latter case, please list the different kinds of evidence that the uploader might need to supply depending on the situation. -- King of ♥ 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello, thank you for the question. Firstly, I would search the photo using the "search by image" functionality of Google Images. If found elsewhere, I would always require a release. If not found elsehwere, I would accept the photo if it looks like "likely" it is their own work - it seems shootable according to the information present in the image. For portrait photos of well-known persons, especially if they look professional, I would generally require a release sent to the OTRS, as it is unlikely a random person on the street would be able to shoot that photo. Similary, photos shooted in publicly-unavailable interior places would generally warrant a release. In another words, as long as the author's authorship claim seems to be plausible, I would generally not have an issue with patrolling the photo. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question A monument in the United States was built and placed in a public area in 1948, and the sculptor died in 1965. How would you determine whether photos of the monument can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? -- King of ♥ 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello, thank you for your question. Freedom of panorama concept in the Unites States applies only to "architectual works" in public areas, where architectual work is defined as "design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings", and building as "humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions". Those definitions exclude monuments, statues and similar. Hence, it is necessary to assess if the monument is still protected by copyright, or if it is in the public domain. In the United States, works first published before 1964 (which means the monument you mentioned is in this group) are protected for 28 years after publication, unless the copyright owner filled for renewal between the 27th and 28th year of copyright term. According to what you wrote, the author died before they could fill for renewal. As such, the right to renewal is automatically vested in their heirs. [3]. If author's heirs did fill for a renewal, the monument is still copyrighted (and as such, inadmissible unless a release is sent to OTRS). If they did not (which is likely, but I cannot be 100% sure), the work is in public domain, and can stay at Commons. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Good answer, but incomplete. What else must the copyright holder have done to retain their copyright, besides registering and renewing with the Copyright Office? (Hint: At the very beginning.) -- King of ♥ 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry. They would need to include a copyright notice, which was required prior 1989. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You are right that pre-1989 works in general require a copyright notice, but the situation is a bit different for public art. Since 1978, placing a work in public view is no longer considered publication; the copyright holder must have authorized the sale or distribution of copies of the work to the public. So in the vast majority of cases, only pre-1978 public art can be public domain due to no notice, as most post-1978 public art is considered unpublished. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. -- King of ♥ 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the clarification. According to the page you linked, putting a monument in public area would be considered publishing prior to 1978, so I feel the copyright notice should be there for the monument to be covered. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Selfish question just for my own information. Is it "a thing" that there are statues erected prior to 1978 that have little copyright notices at the bottom somewhere? That seems somewhat counter-intuitive. GMGtalk 12:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think will be good idea to extend voting for week. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Seems like a waste of time. Happened previously and nothing much changed besides baseless accusations being in place, which to this day is still there... By the way, there can't be exceptions. Admin nominations being extended should be part of the guidelines (COM:A#Voting). Not sure if the changes should happen through the bureaucrat team or community discretion. 1989talk 14:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Wasn't aware of this already being a bureaucrat standard. Never mentioned in Commons:Administrators, so I added it in. 1989talk 12:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    I was also not aware of this. Thanks 1989 for bringing this us. I have, however, restored the original wording, as votes should never be based on raw numbers but arguments. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    With inconclusive situations, absolutely, but unfortunately those elected who closes RfAs feel the opposite, which is why I changed the wording. 1989talk 14:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Schlurcher: To prove my point... 1989talk 15:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I support. Don't think it's a a waste of time. -- Geagea (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Requests for CheckUser rights

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

기록보호자 권한 요청

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

보존 문서

You can find requests for adminship archives at Commons:Administrators/Archive.

같이 보기