Commons:Administrators/Requests/Iwaqarhashmi

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Withdrawn by the user. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iwaqarhashmi

Related requests:

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 15:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am glad to propose Iwaqarhashmi for adminship on Wikimedia Commons. He has fair number of edits, although relatively less on the uploading-side, but he has been actively patrolling areas like COM:RFR, and significantly works in the areas of file-renaming and license reviewing. Good at communication, and net-positive. The temperament that Waqar possesses is something that I usually look at when supporting anyone for adminship. Besides all of this, I believe Waqar's diplomatic and balanced approach, is good for the community in managing conflicts between users. Additionally, the languages he knows, would be a great addition to admin team. Waqar, Kindly indicate your acceptance, and tell the community about the areas where you can offer your support Regards, Aafi (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I am honored to nominate Iwaquarhashimi for the mop. Waqar is fluent in Punjab and Urdu, languages with only one admin speaker ( Satdeep Gill and Aafi respectively), a huge boon for new users. Waquar consistently demonstrates his commitment by actively reviewing candidates at RFR and frequently engaging in LR requests, Areas he plans on staying active in. Waqar always accompanies his input with clear rationale and sound judgment. Additionally, he contributes to DR on occasion and often stands as the sole commenter beside the nominator. Notably, this is the first non-admin nomination since Gbawden's nomination by 1989 in 2019, and to my knowledge, it marks the first RFA where a user has both an admin and a non-admin nominator in over a decade. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination acceptance: I am truly honored and thank you so much for nominating me. I wholeheartedly accept this nomination and look forward to contributing more to the project. The areas where I've been generally willing to participate and help would be CAT:CSD (deleting images that are the candidates for speedy deletion), COM:RFR (reviewing requests), COM:DR (closing deletion requests), CAT:U (deleting images with license issues), COM:AN (helping at the administrators' noticeboard), and COM:RFPP (dealing with reports and protection requests). I'd like to say that the Commons community has always been very supportive and helpful to me. I've learned lots of good things in the past few months here. It'd be an honor for me to contribute more to this community, and I'd always try my best to be sincere and helpful to everyone as much as possible. Thank you! Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Votes

*: First of all, enwiki is a completely different project, but since you've discussed it, I'd like to make some things clear here. My admin candidacy was 2 months ago, not last month. Also, I didn't plan to apply beforehand and wasn't ready for it at that time. It was an experimental process, and I just tried it out without thinking much about it, and I accept it was my biggest mistake ever. But I learned a lot from it and changed my approach. I wasn't hat collecting, but moving too fast is something I agree with and realized I shouldn't have been doing and stopped since then. I'm glad you brought Saqib here. Saqib is long known for harassing users on enwiki. He was the first one to withdraw his adminship request after facing backlash and was blocked indefinitely on enwiki shortly after and is now globally locked this month. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

It was withdrawn one month and 21 days before, which admittedly rounds to two months, although CD still said one month, but this is largely irrelevant: it was not long ago. Saqib's conduct outside your admin candidacy is also irrelevant; I have no idea what got them ArbComBlocked and locked by the WMF, but they left a good-faith comment and you responded to it with hostility. While this is outside Commons, I believe it is telling re. temperament. Coupled with Ratekreel's comment, I must  Oppose, although I would be happy to support a future candidacy after a reasonable amount of time. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral  Support Iwaqarhashmi has been highly active in DR lately, adding comments to hundreds of open nominations. That's a good thing, because a lot of nominations never get a second pair of eyes. Overall, I would say that Iwaqarhashmi gets it right 99% of the time, but I've seen a handful of cases where they miss an important detail and vote delete for a file that should be kept. I can't find the specific DRs because there's such a high volume, but I recall a handful of times where a file was legitimately in use that they said was out of scope. This is almost certainly going to be a successful RfA (which, again, I'm supporting), so my advice to the candidate is that once you're the one clicking delete, just make sure you take your time and check. As bad as the DR backlog is, it's better to take more time and close less discussions than to delete files that should be kept. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted, and I'll be sure to take your advice to heart. Thanks a lot! Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    The answer to Krd's question about VRT was disappointing. This isn't enWiki where RfAs get a dozen questions. I would have liked for Iwaqarhashmi to have put in a bit more time and given a better answer. Combined with my preexisting concerns about the candidate moving fast and occasionally making mistakes, I think I need to go to neutral for now. Would be happy to see them run again in six months though. I think they're decently still decently close to me supporting. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--UltimoGrimm (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per Queen of Hearts. Bedivere (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt, you're definitely one of the best here, and I really hope you reconsider after seeing my reply to Queen of Hearts. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    I'm extremely upset at your response to Ratekreel.  Oppose --Bedivere (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I've been working together on deletion discussions and file moves lately and it's always been goal- and result-orientated interactions. Positive impression. --Msb (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (might reconsider) I believe Waqar works with good intention, but in addition to what QoH said above, I've noticed that Waqar only participates in deletion requests the outcome of which is obvious (i.e. clear project scope issues, blurry, duplicates, FoP), never in DRs that require extra reasoning. The votes at majority of times are mere repetition of nominations e.g. "not in scope", "per nom", "blurry". While his participation is welcome, but this behaviour does seem GAMEy (at least to me). Similar GAMEy vote pattern was noted in his enwiki admin elections. Additionally, there is far less contributions on the content side and COM:TOYS issue as early as 27 July 2024. Ratekreel (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think GAMEy is the right term, giving the meaning of it is to disrupt the project, which is the complete opposite of his contributions here. 1989 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may sound harsh but I don't mean it literally. I'm just referring to the behaviour. Ratekreel (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to what I said above, I'd also note here that Waqar were granted TE on on 22 October and his last edit in template and associated namespaces is on 24 October. Ratekreel (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*: I'm really surprised that you find my behavior 'GAMEy' while you're the one who's posting the same knee-jerk 'GAMEy' votes after my comments. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. These are just a few of them, and there are a lot more. Just see how many DRs I started that 'required extra reasoning' in my LR, and I still am. I agree with your statement, 'There are far fewer contributions on the content side and COM:TOYS.' It's because I wasn't an image reviewer at that time and was only involved in counter-vandalism work. Not to mention your RFA when you were inactive for years and then requested VRT and adminship at the same time and month. About TE, it's not something you use on a daily basis. I have relatively low edits in template namespaces because I know how far-reaching the consequences are, but on the other hand, I've been using all the other rights that I was granted regularly. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  • That's some impressive research into my contributions. I commented purely in good faith, expecting you to interpret my remarks as intended–in a positive sense, not pejorative. I'm not sure what prompted you to highlight my "shortcomings" here and what you're trying to convey. But since you've brought this up, I want to clarify that most of these !votes were made during the development of DRHelper to test the script. There's nothing wrong with requesting VRT access and adminship simultaneously. My vote reflected my minor concerns, not the tie-breaking criteria for my votes on RfAs, as I explained in my vote diff to reconsider after answers. Ratekreel (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*: Dear Ratekreel, I didn't need to do any research since I see your and others work on here everyday. I wasn't trying to highlight your 'shortcomings', I was just replying to this statement, 'Additionally, there is far less contributions on the content side and COM:TOYS issue as early as 27 July 2024.' Also I agree with, 'There's nothing wrong with requesting VRT access and adminship simultaneously.' Because I'm the only one who supported you in your RFA when everyone else was opposing it at the end. What I'm trying to convey is since there's nothing wrong with requesting rights after being inactive, then it should be fine to contribute more to other issues if you haven't before. I know you're trying to be helpful, and so am I. I've good intentions and always looking for ways to be helpful. I hope I convince you and we continue to work together on DRs to make a positive impact. Thank you! Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Comments

  • Waqar, thanks for running. A couple of questions from me:
  1. A user uploads a high quality photograph of a painting by an Indian painter (author unknown until 1997) who died in 1950. The painting had remained unpublished and was discovered and published in the US in 1997. Do you think the file can be hosted on Commons and under which conditions? What relevant policies of Commons apply here and which template should be used, if it can be hosted?
  2. A user uploads a digital 3D rendering image of an ancient Greek statue that is in the public domain. Would this file be considered a derivative work and acceptable on Commons? How would you justify your decision?
  3. Since you're very active in file renaming, I'd like to ask what do you think is the relevance of COM:File naming when renaming files?

Ratekreel (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The author died in 1950, which means that the painting itself is in the public domain, and most countries (including the US) have a copyright term of 70 years after the author’s death. The fact that the painting was only published in 1997 is significant. In many countries, unpublished works are protected for a period of 70 years after publication. However, this doesn't apply to works by authors who are already deceased for more than 70 years, so the painting is likely already in the public domain regardless of its later publication. The photograph of the painting is a separate work, and its copyright status depends on the photographer. If the photograph of the painting is copyrighted, it must be licensed accordingly. The uploader should attribute the painting correctly, indicating that it is by an unknown Indian painter (deceased in 1950), and that it was published in 1997. If the painting is in the public domain (as I mentioned above), the appropriate template to use would likely be PD-old / PD-India. If the photo of the painting is copyrighted (depending on the photographer's license), the CC-BY-SA-4.0 or other relevant Creative Commons templates can be applied.
    Yes, it would be PD in India but not the United States since it was first published in 1997 per COM:HIRTLE. We could not host it until 2048 unless the painter's estate granted a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So here's what we know so far, it entered PD in India in 2011 and will be copyrighted in the US till 2048? But let me break what I'm actually asking. What's the effect of URAA and what does subsequent publication mean in the US and in India (would this be considered a posthumous publication in India)? That's my question in simpler terms. Ratekreel (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the ancient Greek statue is in the public domain, a digital 3D rendering of it would not be considered a derivative work, as long as the rendering is a faithful reproduction of the original. Since the original statue has no copyright, the 3D model is just a new form of the same public domain statue. It would be acceptable on Commons as long as it's properly credited and doesn't add any significant creative changes.
    Bridgeman doesn't apply to 3D art. The digital 3D rending would be considered a derivative work and would have to be freely licensed. Abzeronow (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The relevance of COM:FN guidelines is crucial for clear, understandable, and consistent file renames. Also in my opinon, it’s important and useful for both requesting and renaming files.

Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • maybe you can see this as cliche, but how about indef ban? when and how you will indef ban accounts? and how about ban appeals? if an indef banned account makes appeal that he says "im sorry, never again" will you accept it? whatever he was, troll, sockpuppet, vandal, copyvio.lators... or will you trust him after say "im sorry"? man.. i got emotional. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An obviously vandalism/disruption only account should be shown the door after significant warnings/temporary blocks. As far as the ban appeals are concerned, I think if they were banned indefinitely, there must be a reason for that. I might leave the appeal in queue to be dealt with by the blocking admin or other experienced admins after giving my 2 cents for consensus. Best, Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Iwaqarhashmi&oldid=971977511"