This page is semi-protected against editing.

Commons:Administrators

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:A)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:A • COM:ADMIN • COM:SYSOP

Commons Administrator.svg

This page explains the role of administrators (sometimes called admins or sysops) on Wikimedia Commons. Note that details of the role, and the way in which administrators are appointed, may differ from other sites.

If you want to request administrator help, please post at Administrators' noticeboard.

There are currently 189 administrators on Commons.

What is an administrator?

Administrators as of January 2023
Listing by: LanguageDateActivity [+/−]

Number of Admins: 189

  1. -revi, ko, en-3 (steward)
  2. 1234qwer1234qwer4, ru, de-4, en-3
  3. 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  4. 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1
  5. 99of9, en (bureaucrat)
  6. A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2
  7. Achim55, de, en-3, nds-3, la-2
  8. AFBorchert, de, en-3
  9. Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1
  10. Aka, de, en-3
  11. Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1
  12. Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1
  13. Andre Carrotflower, en, es-3, fr-3, de-2
  14. Андрей Романенко, ru, en-3, uk-3, be-2, fr-2, lv-2
  15. Ankry, pl, en-2, ru-1
  16. AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1
  17. Anthere, fr, en-3
  18. AntiCompositeNumber, en, fr-2 (steward)
  19. Aude, en, ar-2, de-2, es-3
  20. Benoît Prieur, fr, en-3, pt-2, es-1, it-1, hy-1
  21. Billinghurst, en
  22. Blackcat, it, en-3, fr
  23. BrightRaven, fr, en-3, nl-2, es-2, zh-1
  24. Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1
  25. Captain-tucker, en
  26. Christian Ferrer, fr, en-2, es-2
  27. Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1
  28. Common Good, en
  29. Cookie, es, en-2
  30. CptViraj, gu, hi-4, en-3
  31. Cromium, en, de-1, fr-1 (steward)
  32. Czar, en
  33. DaB., de, en-1
  34. DarwIn, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1
  35. Davepape, en
  36. De728631, de, en-5
  37. DerHexer, de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1 (steward)
  38. Dharmadhyaksha, mr, en-3, hi-3
  39. DMacks, en
  40. Didym, de, en-2, fr-2
  41. Dyolf77, ar, fr-5, en-2, it-1, es-1
  42. D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1
  43. Ebrahim, fa, en-3
  44. Elcobbola en, de (checkuser)
  45. Ellin Beltz, en (bureaucrat)
  46. Ellywa, nl, en-2, de-1, fr-1
  47. Emha, de, bar, en-3, fr-1
  48. Érico, pt, en-2, es-1
  49. EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat)
  50. Explicit, en, es, ko-2
  51. Ezarate, es-3, en-1
  52. Fitindia, en-3, hi-2, mr-2 (checkuser)
  53. FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1
  54. Gbawden, en-3, af-1
  55. Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1
  56. Geni, en
  57. George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1
  58. Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3
  59. Gnangarra, en, nys-1
  60. GPSLeo, de, en-2
  61. GreenMeansGo, en
  62. Grin, hu, en-3, de-1
  63. Hekerui, de, en-4
  64. Herbythyme, en, fr-2, es-1, it-1
  65. Hesperian, en
  66. Howcheng, en, ja-2
  67. Huntster, en
  68. Indeedous, de, en-3, fr-2
  69. Infrogmation, en, es-1
  70. IronGargoyle, en, de-1
  71. Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (bureaucrat, checkuser)
  72. Jaqen, it, en-2
  73. Jarekt, pl, en
  74. JarrahTree, en, id-1
  75. Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1
  76. Jdforrester, en
  77. Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1
  78. Jianhui67, en, zh-4, ja-2, ms-1
  79. Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1
  80. Joergens.mi, de, en-3
  81. JoKalliauer, de, en-3
  82. Jon Kolbert, en, fr-4, de-2 (steward)
  83. Josve05a, sv, en-3
  84. Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  85. JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  86. Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-2, ko-1
  87. Kadı, tr, en-5, fr-2, az-2
  88. Kaldari, en
  89. Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1
  90. King of Hearts, en, zh-3, es-2, ja-1
  91. Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1
  92. Krd, de, en-3 (bureaucrat, checkuser)
  93. Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2
  94. Leit, de, en-3, fr-1
  95. Léna, fr, en-3, es-1
  96. Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1
  97. Lofty abyss, en, mt, it-2
  98. Lymantria, nl, en-3, de-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1
  99. Magog the Ogre, en, es-2
  100. Mahagaja, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1
  101. Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1
  102. Marcus Cyron, de, en-2
  103. Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1
  104. Masur, pl, en-3, de-1
  105. Matanya, en, he (steward)
  106. Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1
  107. MB-one, de, en-3, fr-1, pt-1
  108. MBisanz, en
  109. Mdaniels5757, en, es-1
  110. MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, no-1, sv-1
  111. Mhhossein, fa, en-3, ar-1
  112. Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1
  113. Mike Peel, en, pt-2, fr-1
  114. Minorax, en, zh (oversighter)
  115. Missvain, en
  116. Mitchazenia, en, es-2
  117. Miya, ja, en-2
  118. Moheen, bn, as-1, bpy-1, en-3, hi-1, hif-1
  119. Morgankevinj, en
  120. MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1
  121. Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1
  122. Mys 721tx, zh, en-3
  123. Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1
  124. NahidSultan, bn, en-3, bpy-1
  125. Nat, en, fr, gsw-1, pl-1
  126. Natuur12, nl, en-3, de-1
  127. Nick, en, sco-2, fr-1
  128. notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2
  129. odder, pl, en-4, de-2 (bureaucrat, oversighter)
  130. Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1
  131. P199, en, nl, fr-2, tl-2, de-1
  132. Pi.1415926535, en, es-2
  133. Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1
  134. Poco a poco, es, de-4, en-3, fr-2, it-2, pl-2, pt-1
  135. Podzemnik, cs, en-2
  136. Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1
  137. Pyb, fr, en-2
  138. Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1
  139. Racconish, fr, en-4
  140. Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1
  141. Ra'ike, de, en-2
  142. Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter)
  143. Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1
  144. Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter)
  145. Regasterios, hu, en-1
  146. Rehman, en, si-1
  147. Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3
  148. Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1
  149. Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1
  150. Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1
  151. Royalbroil, en, es-1
  152. RP88, en, de-1
  153. Rubin16, ru, tt, en-4
  154. Rudolphous, nl, en-3, de-2
  155. Ruthven, it, fr, en-4, es-4, nap-4, ca-2, de-1
  156. Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1
  157. Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1
  158. Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1
  159. Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1
  160. Srittau, de, en-3
  161. Steinsplitter, bar, de-4, it-3, en-1
  162. Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1
  163. Storkk, en, fr-3, de-2, eo-2
  164. Strakhov, es, en-2
  165. TadejM, sl, en-3, de-2, fr-2
  166. Taivo, et, en-3, ru-3, de-1
  167. Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1
  168. Themightyquill, en, fr-2, de-1, hu-1
  169. The Squirrel Conspiracy, en
  170. Thibaut120094, fr, en-2, ja-2
  171. Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2
  172. Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward)
  173. Tulsi Bhagat, ne, mai, en-3, hi-2, bh-2, hif-2
  174. Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1
  175. VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1
  176. Wdwd, de, en-2
  177. Well-Informed Optimist, ru, uk-4, en-3
  178. Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, de-2, as-2, bpy-1
  179. Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1
  180. Yann, fr, en-4, hi-2, gu-1
  181. Yasu, ja, en-2, de-1
  182. Ymblanter, ru, en-3, de-2, fr-2, nl-2, it-1, es-1
  183. Yuval CT, he, en-3
  184. Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1
  185. علاء, ar, en-4, he-1, es-1 (steward)
  186. Abuse filter, (automated account)
  187. CommonsDelinker, (bot) see request
  188. CommonsMaintenanceBot, (bot) see request
  189. KrinkleBot, (bot) see request

If 189 is not the last number on this list, there may be an error or there are some users assigned temporarily.

Technical

Administrators are users with the technical ability on Wikimedia Commons to:

  • delete and undelete images and other uploaded files, and to view and restore deleted versions
  • delete and undelete pages, and to view and restore deleted revisions
  • protect and unprotect pages, and to edit admin-protected pages
  • block and unblock users, individual IP addresses and IP address ranges
  • edit less-restricted interface messages (see also Commons:Interface administrators)
  • rename files
  • add and remove user groups
  • configure Upload Wizard campaigns
  • delete and undelete specific log entries and revisions of pages
  • import pages from other wikis
  • merge the history of pages
  • modify abuse filters
  • not create redirects from source pages when moving pages
  • override the spoofing checks and title or username blacklist
  • send a message to multiple users at once (massmessage)
  • use higher limits in API queries

These are collectively known as the admin tools.

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.

Suggestions for administrators

Please read Commons:Guide to adminship.

Removal of administrator rights

Under the de-admin policy, administrator rights may be revoked due to inactivity or misuse of sysop tools. In an de-admin request, normal standards for determining consensus in an RfA do not apply. Instead, "majority consensus" should be used, whereby any consensus to demote of higher than 50% is sufficient to remove the admin.

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:

Voting

Any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable you give reasons for both Support and Oppose votes 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. Bureaucrats may, at their discretion, extend the period of an RfA if they feel that it will be helpful in better determining community consensus.

Symbol neutral vote.svg 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.

Cybularny

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cybularny. I live in Poland and my home wiki is Polish Wikipedia in which I have served as an adminintrator since 2019. I have edited Wikimedia projects since 2014 and I have been more widely active on Commons since 2017. The most important maintenance activity I'm involved in is tracking copyright violations which are a huge problem for Wikimedia Commons and far to less people looks for them and I will use my admin rights mostly in that field. I often use copyvio, no-permission or so source tags as well as nominate problematic files to DR. I'm aware that a previously published file without a reliable free licence at source, proof of beeing PD or VRT permission should be treated with one of those procedures. FBMD in EXIF data suggests that a file is copied from Facebook. If a file is of low resolution and lacks EXIF data the propability of being a copyvio in much higher and often, especially if it looks professional, is unlikely to be taken by amatour or the uploader has a history of uploading unfree photos, it can be nominated for deletion on grounds of COM:PRP. To track copyvios I mostly use Google Image search but since I know that Google won't reach everywhere i sometimes look for the previous publishing manually, mostly on Facebook, where I might find a file quite deep. If I suspect that a file may be previously published I can spend a while to patiently find a proof. Of course I'm familiar with Commons policies for instance licensing, TOO, DW and FOP, the minimis or project scope. ~Cybularny Speak? 19:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes

Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like the answers. Taivo (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question If you came across a file with FBMD in the metadata, under what circumstances would you: 1) tag as {{Copyvio}}; 2) tag as {{No permission since}} or similar; 3) open a DR; 4) take no action? You do not have to use each of the four options, if you do not believe there is a set of circumstances under which that option is appropriate. King of ♥ 21:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I couldn't locate the source I would not use copyvio as it should be used for the most obvious cases. Using no permission tag would not be a mistake because that tag means generally that I have doubts about the validity of the licence (or either that I'm sure about the problem but can see a slight chance that the user will clarify the copyright status via VRT during the following week) but it doesn't give a comfortable chance to clarify the point of tagging. So the best option is a DR where I can explain in words what is the problem so the reason of nominating for deletion would be clear for both uploader and other users participating in the discussion (and closing it at the end). If I found a source file on Facebook without a free licence I would choose between copyvio and no permission. There is no strict border between them in such case for me, just copyvio is stronger while no permission gives chance for the uploader to resolve the copyright issue via VRT without immediate deletion. If I can point an unfree source where the photo had been previously published the file can be always speedydeleted as copyvio. However the uploader sometimes may have an informal permission from the author (or even be an author themself) which of course in not sufficient on Commons and needs to be corfirmed via VRT. So the choise between copyvio and no permission tag would depend on the whole context. If the uploader had a long history of uploading unfree files I would rather use copyvio tag whereas for example if the uploader published a profile photo of a person they are describing on Wikipedia I would be likely to choose no permission as they may be in contact with that person and the copyright status of the photo might be clarified (still using copyvio tag in such case would not violate Commons policies, if VRT team would get an acceptable permission after deletion the file will be restored, just delaying the deletion for a week is a kind of courtesy and assuming good faith). ~Cybularny Speak? 22:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are there any circumstances in which you would take no action? What if the uploader had many contributions and no violations? Brianjd (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question You are patrolling Category:Copyright violations and come across a black-and-white film photo which appears to be from Poland. The tagger has provided evidence that it has appeared on an external website without a free license prior to its upload to Commons. What do you do? -- King of ♥ 21:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, old photo does not mean PD photo. We have {{PD-Poland}} but an original source is necessary to determine if the file complies all guidelines of such PD. To use {{PD-old}} we need to know the author and their year of death. Therefore such file qualifies for deletion just us other files not beeing own work and without a proof of beeing free. The only other thing I could do would be contacting the uploader in order they could provide any reason for that file to be PD (other source on via VRT). If an uploader holds a copyright of their ancestor they may use a tag from Category:License tags for transferred copyright (but if the photo is previously published on the web VRT permission is still needed). That's true that historical photos are often difficult to upload on Commons. If an old photo lies in your album and you don't know who had taken it, it's practically impossilble to upload it on Commons. Due to COM:L and COM:PRP a copyright status of a file must be clear to keep it on Commons. ~Cybularny Speak? 22:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the detailed breakdown! Since we're talking about the speedy queue here, let me get to the point: would you delete it immediately, or what other action would you take? -- King of ♥ 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changing copyvio tag to no permission for example seems to be a good option. It would give the uploader some time do determine free copyright status of the file while guaranteeing deletion if they fail to do so. However I'm not sure if my response corresponds with practise – since now I have been just a nominator and I don't have any admin experience on Commons. As an nominator I would rather use no permission tag in such case. Of course if I was sure that the file is copyrighted and uploaded illegaly (in context) I would just delete it (as an admin). ~Cybularny Speak? 23:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've got the right general idea, though converting it to a DR might be even better (if it doesn't appear to be a family heirloom). For non-obvious cases where the licensing is suspect, a good rule of thumb is: use DR if the most plausible route to saving the image is through public means (e.g. finding evidence it is PD or successfully arguing it is below TOO), and use "no permission" if the most plausible route to saving the image is through private means (e.g. emailing VRT). -- King of ♥ 23:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Your country's neighbor to the west is Germany. While your country has a generous freedom of panorama (but only outdoors), Germany has an outdoor freedom of panorama very particular on photographer's location as well as photographer's manner of photography (if he/she used some special tools or not). Courts there defined the extent of German FOP. Suppose you come across a photo showing Europaturm of Frankfurt-am-Main as taken from a drone, what would be your approach to it? Hint: the debate at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's 1.30 a.m. in Poland, so I will look at this case later. ~Cybularny Speak? 00:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's OK @Cybularny: . I'm from UTC+8 time zone-country (Manila time is 8:41 a.m. now as of this writing). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    German FOP is quite tricky. At first we can see that Germany is green of the FOP map similarly to multiple other countries. However, while in most countries FOP is determined by location of the object regardless where the photographer stands, in Germany the position of the photographer is essential to decide whether FOP applies. Therefore photographer needs to take a photo from public place and moreover the object must be visible form that point so drone photography, using a ladder, moving the tree branches etc. does not fulfill German FOF requirements, even using long focus lens is said to be possibly problematic. Howewer more liberal court decisions exist, they are mentioned on COM:FOP Germany or several undeletion requests. Practice on Commons seem to vary in that case even among very experienced users. On the one hand these four files were undeleted basing on that court verdict, while on the other hand undeletion reguest mentioned in the question was eventually declined even though two users argued for undeletion. During that discussion it was stated, as long as I understand correctly, that it's not obvious that all courts would agree with the interpretation from that verdict and Commons should not rely solely on one verdict. Due to significant doubts whether FOP actually applied the photo was not undeleted per PRP. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Suppose you come across a file that lacks EXIF data. The file might be low resolution, or it might be a high resolution professional photo. There is no uploader history of copyvios or other evidence of copyvio. What action (if any) would you take? Brianjd (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would your response be the same as the ‘FBMD’ question above? Brianjd (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe my actions would depend on individual context. We have COM:PRP but we need to assume good faith (note that uploading an inproperly licensed file with good faith is possible and probable especially among new users). Each time I see such picture I would seek for evidence that it was previously published. If I don't have such direct evidence the key would be to estimate the probability that the file is not own work. It is always higher when a photo looks professional, seems to be a official, profile photo (e.g. of a music band), is a direct shot of a celebrity or in any other ways doesn't look as created as amatour person. If that probability is high enough to call it significant doubt (mentioned in PRP) I would nominate such file for DR. I have seen many DR where something like small photo without EXIF, unlikely to be own work was enough to delete a file and I agree with them. Obviously we cannon prove all cases where someone uploaded as own work a photo taken by different person so basing on probability we are able to reduce the number of them. If the uploader is indeed an author they can for example show the original photo (with EXIF) to VRT team or when the probability of copyvio seems lower a additional declaration of authorships may be enough. If a file is high resolution and professional showing the original with EXIF to VRT should not be a problem as long as it is really your photo. ~Cybularny Speak? 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This seems like a reasonable answer. We should also remember Commons talk:Deletion requests#Lack of EXIF as a deletion reason. Brianjd (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurmanbek

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 22:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm Kurmanbek. I have been contributing to Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, for many years. I have Interface administrator, technician and patrol rights at Turkish Wikipedia. If it's on Wikimedia Commons, I own the file carrier and patrol rights. Now that I'm much more active on Wikimedia Commons, I want to be an administrator and help more. For example, I started my candidacy because I want to not only move files, but also make contributions such as deleting inappropriate files, merging history, correcting redirects. I would also like to point out that I always pay attention to the rules on Wikimedia Commons. Kind regards. Kurmanbek (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes

  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Based on the issues identified in the comments section, I am inclined to oppose. But we should wait for the candidate to respond before casting a definitive vote. Brianjd (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The candidate has answered some questions. But for other questions, they have responded without actually answering. The candidate should be aware that an RfA is a chance for the community to scrutinise their contributions and their understanding of Commons policies. They should answer each question with a reasonable amount of detail. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I told you in detail about the laws in our country, why I open deletion requests for discussion, and more. You even commented on my Meta page even though it had nothing to do with it, which I consider unnecessary. Frankly, I was very curious why you asked so many related and irrelevant questions in a row... Moreover, the answer to your first question has already been given. Kurmanbek (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The answer to the first question shows a lack of understanding of the spirit of COM:SCOPE. Commons is just here as a neutral host of any file that at least one project finds useful (or which is generally considered educationally useful). Neither Commons nor the "home wiki" of a country-specific topic gets to dictate which image every project should use for that subject. It's a fine line, of course; sometimes I upload a new photo of a subject and consider it better than all the existing photos, and certainly I'm allowed to update it of my own accord on multiple wikis. But I always try to give an explanation why I am doing the replacement in the language of the wiki, and if I am unable to do so I will leave it alone for that wiki's editors to handle as they see fit. It is important to speak the language of each wiki so that you can provide a justification if challenged; each wiki has its own independent consensus process. In any case, I would not use COM:GR. -- King of ♥ 07:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course, Commons is not a local place. However, why not update a station's photo to be better on all wikis? Is it a problem to have an updated photo? If that's the whole problem, I'll have another update. Honestly, I don't think there's anything to hinder the candidacy process. —-Kurmanbek (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You must understand that not everyone agrees on what is ‘better’. Maybe the other users on trwiki agree with you, but that is not a guarantee that other users on other projects will agree with you. If you cannot understand that, then that alone is a reason that you cannot be trusted as an admin. Brianjd (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I totally understand. In fact, sometimes users change the photo and put another photo in other languages ​​on this subject, and I do not oppose it in any way. Users can use whatever photos they want when writing in their own language, it's none of my business. I'm just trying to help. Other than that, I don't think you have anything else on your mind. —Kurmanbek (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

  • I have two questions. a) Recently you uploaded a bunch of images of Atatürk Cultural Center's interior. What might be problematic about these images in terms of copyright? b) Recently you did a Global Replace of this photo by your photo -- why do you think the second is a better illustration, and is COM:GR really the appropriate way to go in such cases? Thanks. --A.Savin 22:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Mr. Savin. First of all, I took the photos of Atatürk Cultural Center myself. Photos comply with the FOP law in Turkey. Secondly, I replaced it with a photo I took myself. Because I thought it would be better for the station name to appear. In fact, we examined the New York Subway station photos on the English Wikipedia, and we discussed this issue on the Turkish Wikipedia, and came to the opinion that this style is much better descriptive. Respects. —Kurmanbek (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos comply with the FOP law in Turkey. Please elaborate, with reference to COM:FOP Turkey.
The photo was replaced at en:Vezneciler (Istanbul Metro), tr:İstanbul metrosu istasyonları listesi and tr:Vezneciler (İstanbul metrosu). It was also replaced at fa:وزنچیلار (متروی استانبول) and wikivoyage:ru:Стамбул/Султанахмет-Старый город. I repeat the question above: Is COM:GR really the appropriate way to go in such cases? Brianjd (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Brianjd. as I said above, we have a Wikiproject: Transportation working group. Here we opened a discussion and discussed this topic so that the photos of the rail system stations in Istanbul would appear as a set and have a better perspective. As a result, we agreed to update the images in this way in consensus with the members of the working group. While we changed it in Turkish Wikipedia, we also changed it in other Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. Because the photos we took are current photos. Unfortunately, before we established the working group, the number of photographs of the rail system stations in Istanbul was very few and the ones belonging to very old dates. In other words, we intend to show the user an updated and better photo. It certainly has no other purpose. Respects. Kurmanbek (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In many cases, projects do not agree on which photo is best. Usually, if a project decides that a particular photo is better, they can use that photo, but they don’t interfere with other projects. Also, Commons has a clear policy of not interfering with other projects (Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful …. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality ….). Why is this case different? Brianjd (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changing the file does not mean it should be deleted. While we have a more up-to-date photo, we have updated it so that it can be used more up-to-date in other projects. We do not aim to change the photographs taken more professionally anyway. For example, I replaced Taksimİstasyonİçi.JPG with M2 Taksim station (1).jpg. Because many changes occurred at the station from 2009 to 2022. I don't think the photo taken in 2009 need be in the infobox. Kurmanbek (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image is used at fa:تکسیم (متروی استانبول), he:הרכבת התחתית של איסטנבול, tr:Taksim Aktarma Merkezi, tr:M2 (İstanbul metrosu), tr:İstanbul metrosu istasyonları listesi and Taksim (Q113553574). None of those pages use the image in an infobox. Some of them use the image in a gallery. There is no need to replace the image there. Also, there is no need to replace the image on Wikidata. It is fine to include both images. Also see King of Heart’s comment on their vote. Brianjd (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course he can stay. However, I think that it would be healthier to have the current state of the place in the forefront as the featured visual. —-Kurmanbek (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my opinion is, that replacing of this photo by this photo is not appropriate, as the former photo has at least the same quality and the wide-angle-like composition fits somewhat better as a general view for illustrating this metro station. Additionally, I don't think the station sign has to be visible at any price, and I also don't think that the photo in article has to be recent, unless there are really significant changes you can see in comparison of both views. Regarding your example, Taksimİstasyonİçi.JPG vs. M2 Taksim station (1).jpg, the newer picture is indeed better IMO -- however I still think that crosswiki replaces should be done manually, alone for the reason that with an automated replace you cannot check if the captions are still correct (for example GR only replaces the filename, but not "2009->2023").
And yes, per COM:FOP Turkey FoP is valid only for exterior views and unfortunately the laws make no distinction between various sorts of buildings, whether you have to pay entrance fees or just can go in anytime etc.pp... That means, for example, that many of the interior shots of the Istanbul Airport aren't OK to upload either, many users are not aware of this, but a sysop should be. Regards --A.Savin 08:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your constructive comments. If we talk about the station photographs, I think that the dimensions of the photograph stand out more in substance. In addition, it seems to have a nicer appearance if the colors are a little more pronounced. Yes, almost nobody in our country knows about this law except photographers and experts in the field of justice. For this reason, there is a need for administrators who can distinguish such photos on Commons. For this reason, I can say that I am a candidate. Kurmanbek (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question You have come across a photo of a modern statue by living artist permanently placed in a park in İzmir. What would be your response to it: tolerate it or launch a deletion request to it? Hint: per COM:FOP Turkey: "Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi JWilz12345, according to the FOP law in Turkey, works of art in public spaces can be placed on the Commons. There is no need to delete the photo as there is no harm in this. The laws in Turkey are never simple enough for the citizens to read and understand clearly. Let me tell you like this; For example, a work of art in a state museum for which no money is charged may also be in compliance with FOP laws. Because it is also a public space and everyone can enter as they wish. This issue needs to be discussed and clarified by the state. Kurmanbek (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kurmanbek: Thanks for your reply. However, looking at some of the successful deletions at Category:Turkish FOP cases/deleted, it may seem to counter your input regarding Turkish FOP. Accordingly, parks in Türkiye do not count as streets, avenues, or squares as indicated at Turkish laws that COM:FOP Turkey follows. Are you willing to have another discourse on Commons regarding Turkish FOP, or are you going to change your input on this? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Logically, it is considered a public space, as no fee is charged. In addition, there is another clause in the law that says "Fine works of art may be exhibited in public places by their owners or by others with their consent, unless an express prohibitive record has been placed on them by the owner". Based on this, I think works exhibited anonymously in public spaces are eligible for FOP. Kurmanbek (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Looking through your recent contributions in the Commons namespace, I found Commons:Deletion requests/File:HKP logo.png. Do you believe that the logo is below the threshold of originality in both its source country (Turkey) and the US? If so, why? Brianjd (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or do you still believe that the file must be deleted, just not speedily? Brianjd (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC) It’s the candidate’s own upload. Brianjd (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Greetings, I am not a party to the deletion of the logo. I just changed it from quick delete to discussion so that the deletion is open for discussion. So we will be discussing whether to delete it or not. If you ask my opinion, the logo can be included as {{PD-shape}} on Wikimedia Commons. Kurmanbek (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question I also found many cases where you converted your own speedy deletion (copyvio) nominations into deletion requests. Please describe when a speedy deletion should be used, and when a deletion request should be used. Brianjd (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Greetings, I'm converting delete requests because I wanted some of the files to be discussed and deleted, not quick deletion. Also, when I encountered such a problem before, they told me that I should open a deletion discussion instead of quick delete. --Kurmanbek (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Your talk page archives only go back to 2021, yet you were briefly blocked in 2017. Where is the information about what happened before 2021? Brianjd (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It starts in 2021 as I installed my archiver bot in 2021. I haven't had a chance to extract and add previous messages yet. It is already in the version history. Kurmanbek (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please fix your Babel tags, which currently say you are both en-3 and en-0. Brianjd (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your attention. I think there is something wrong with that user box. I will remove it until it is resolved. Thanks again for reminding. Kurmanbek (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Requests for Oversight rights

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.

See also