Commons:Administrators/Requests/Ralgis
- Support = 12; Oppose = 8; Neutral = 0 - 60% Result. Unsuccessful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Ralgis (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
- Scheduled to end: 05:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Ralgis to be an administrator. He has been on Commons since 5th November 2011. Since then, he has made over 7600 edits on Commons of which 382 are on project namespace and 30000 globally. He has image reviewer, patroller, rollbacker, OTRS member rights on Commons, patroller, rollbacker on es.wiki and especially, a bureaucrat, admin at eswikinews. His main work here involves in deletion requests, image reviewing and copyvio/no permission tagging, which is valuable for an administrator. He has accepted to my proposal, see here. Thank you for participating--Morning ☼ (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for nominating me, Morning. I hope the community can trust me, and I hope to do a great job helping this great project and its users. --RalgisWM-CR 02:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Votes
- Support as the nominator--Morning ☼ (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Experienced user. INeverCry 06:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support – Deserving candidate.—Bill william comptonTalk 06:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - We need more Spanish-speaking admins. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 08:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Of course Lobo (howl?) 11:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Definitely. Trijnsteltalk 16:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki13 17:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Worried Oppose. Free software doesn't mean all content is free. This film obviously isn't. IMO some more experience would be necessary. Savhñ 21:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I also was worried about those images, specially because all of them were published under a free license. That was why I tagged them with {{LicenseReview}}, specially when the original uploader could have bought rights to reuse them and to publish derivative works under the given free license. I'm sorry if this uploads don't give you enough trust, but I also appreciate very much your toughts and your words. Thank you. --RalgisWM-CR 02:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- "could have bought rights to reuse them" - have you come across an instance where someone bought the rights to a major motion picture for a Wikimedia upload? Please... Hekerui (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- What do you honestly think is more probable: a) That the files containing copyrighted works are incorrectly licensed or b) that they "bought" the rights, to release the files under a free license, permitting even commercial use? This lack of action is also troubling. Savhñ 11:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- "could have bought rights to reuse them" - have you come across an instance where someone bought the rights to a major motion picture for a Wikimedia upload? Please... Hekerui (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I also was worried about those images, specially because all of them were published under a free license. That was why I tagged them with {{LicenseReview}}, specially when the original uploader could have bought rights to reuse them and to publish derivative works under the given free license. I'm sorry if this uploads don't give you enough trust, but I also appreciate very much your toughts and your words. Thank you. --RalgisWM-CR 02:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Rzuwig► 21:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support About time. russavia (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Məmnuniyyətlə, --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 13:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid the nominee is not responsible enough, ignoring such an easy-to-fix request (see this too) and trying to blame it on other people (license reviewer and author) is something that I can't accept, especially from an administrator. ■ MMXX talk 21:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Of course.--LK-4D4 ¿0100 101? 20:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The candidate does not say anything but trivial phrases (simple answers on simple questions). Also, uploading of a 49KB next-to-trivial SVG file indicates some problems with understanding of relevant parts of our format guidelines. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per the statement of User:Mmxx above --High Contrast (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per savh - it really is an obvious copyvio. I guess if you're still relying on answers from others about possible derivative works like that, then you're not quite ready to be judging deletion requests about similar issues. If this request falls short, I'd encourage you to apply again in a few months, after participating in a more DRs (which will be a substantial help the closing admin). --99of9 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - Sorry, while I praise his contributions at Commons as a whole, I do not think the nominee has demonstrated well his understanding of some important points about copyright, including derivative works and the threshold of originality. Perhaps more importantly, I was not impressed very much by his accountability in responding to Savh and Hekerui above. That being said, I know that some copyright issues, varying between countries, are confusing to many people (including myself), and that he seems trustable given his other roles, thus weak oppose. I would turn to support when he continues his activities including DR participation and demonstrates his carefulness over the points raised here. --whym (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm concerned about the screenshots of copyrighted films. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose evasive answer above. Hekerui (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Question Find the main Commons' category for pictograms used in graphic user interfaces, please. Classification by which attributes does it offer? An answer with blue links is preferred. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- The main category for pictograms in graphical user interfaces is Category:Icons. I'm not sure to understand what do you me by “wich attributes”, and perhaps it is an idiomatic gap for me. I you meant shapes, those are dots, hexagonal, round, square and triangular. I'm sorry if my answer is vage, but I don't quite understand what did you mean by “attributes”. Thank you for asking. --RalgisWM-CR 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a classification by shape. But if you look for pictograms with a specific meaning, by-shape categories would not help much, would it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I believe you mean all of its subcategories: Category:Icons by color, Category:Icons by shape, Category:Icons by subject, Category:AE-Icons, Category:AH-Icons, Category:Avatars, Category:Clip art, Category:Favicons, Category:GC-Icons, Category:Google g logo, Category:HE-Icons, Category:HRE-Icons, Category:HU-Icons, Category:Icon sets, Category:JE-Icons, Category:KDE icons, Category:Map application icon, Category:Open Icon Library, Category:RE-Icons, Category:Russian Wikipedia RFAR Icons, Category:Smilies, Category:SVG icons, Category:Icons by theme, Category:Topic symbols, Category:Wikimedia icons. --Ralgistalk 02:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- You still didn't get the point. You created and populated the Category:Oxygen 4.8.0 - Apps. What is wrong with the category itself? Which shortcoming have your numerous pictograms uploads? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know what is wrong with that category. I simply made the subcategories according with the way de icon set was categorized by its authors on the source file. --Ralgistalk 02:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- You still didn't get the point. You created and populated the Category:Oxygen 4.8.0 - Apps. What is wrong with the category itself? Which shortcoming have your numerous pictograms uploads? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I believe you mean all of its subcategories: Category:Icons by color, Category:Icons by shape, Category:Icons by subject, Category:AE-Icons, Category:AH-Icons, Category:Avatars, Category:Clip art, Category:Favicons, Category:GC-Icons, Category:Google g logo, Category:HE-Icons, Category:HRE-Icons, Category:HU-Icons, Category:Icon sets, Category:JE-Icons, Category:KDE icons, Category:Map application icon, Category:Open Icon Library, Category:RE-Icons, Category:Russian Wikipedia RFAR Icons, Category:Smilies, Category:SVG icons, Category:Icons by theme, Category:Topic symbols, Category:Wikimedia icons. --Ralgistalk 02:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a classification by shape. But if you look for pictograms with a specific meaning, by-shape categories would not help much, would it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- The main category for pictograms in graphical user interfaces is Category:Icons. I'm not sure to understand what do you me by “wich attributes”, and perhaps it is an idiomatic gap for me. I you meant shapes, those are dots, hexagonal, round, square and triangular. I'm sorry if my answer is vage, but I don't quite understand what did you mean by “attributes”. Thank you for asking. --RalgisWM-CR 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question I am asking this question hoping that your answer will help us know how you will be dealing with deletion requests. After becoming an administrator, if you saw this file nominated for deletion with the rationale
copied from the official site; see source
, and no one had commented there, how would you act on it and why? --whym (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)- Well, “copied from the official source” is not a valid reason to delete it. I would find its official source, check if it is the same image, and review its license to see if it is compatible. I must consider if it is an exact copy, a derivative work or a fan art. If it is an exact copy or a derivative work, I must look for a given permission from the copyright holder by OTRS. If not, I must instruct the uploader about how can he or she request for confirmation. As an OTRS volunteer, I can review the confirmation myself. On the other hand, I must consider if the image is ineligible for copyright. If the image is in the public domain or has the right license or permission, I would not delete it. If the image is found to be a copyright violation, I must delete it. Of course, if I found it is and obvius copyright violation, I would close the request immediately and erase the file. Thank you for asking. --RalgisWM-CR 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am a little troubled by this answer. Since it consists of nothing but text in an ordinary typeface, it seems to me very clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. Everything else is irrelevant. While Ralgis's answer describes steps in a process, it does not answer the question -- what would he do with the image? . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was responding in "generic terms" because I wanted to demostrate that I understand the process, but in relation to that particular image, I would remove the licencing as provided and replace it with {{PD-textlogo}}, which is of course the case, because due to other cases it does not meet the threshold of originality. I would replace the source with the right source instead of a Google search. I also would leave a message to the uploader explaining him/her that in Commons we need the actual source instead of a generic search. Of course, I would do all those things right away. --RalgisWM-CR 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good response Ralgis. It's also good to see that the changes you have made to the file are inline with what we need on Commons (such as the correct source, etc). I think this, as well as your "generic" answers above show you have a sound knowledge of policies, etc. russavia (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was responding in "generic terms" because I wanted to demostrate that I understand the process, but in relation to that particular image, I would remove the licencing as provided and replace it with {{PD-textlogo}}, which is of course the case, because due to other cases it does not meet the threshold of originality. I would replace the source with the right source instead of a Google search. I also would leave a message to the uploader explaining him/her that in Commons we need the actual source instead of a generic search. Of course, I would do all those things right away. --RalgisWM-CR 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am a little troubled by this answer. Since it consists of nothing but text in an ordinary typeface, it seems to me very clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. Everything else is irrelevant. While Ralgis's answer describes steps in a process, it does not answer the question -- what would he do with the image? . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question I see that you reverted File:Mario Casas.jpg to an earlier version. What would you answer if someone said that the copyright holder probably hasn't licensed your version of the file under the specified licence? Also, what is your opinion about User:Skorken2003's version of the file? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- If someone said that the copyright holder probably hasn't licensed my version of the file under the specified licence, I would prove him/her that 20 minutos releases its content under a free license and that that version of file was released by 20 minutos. About Skorken2003's version of the file, it is has a very poor resolution, and that makes it suspicious of copyright violation. Also, that image beneath Mario Casas looks like was inserted with a graphic editor, and it may be a joke against Casas. Thank you for asking. --RalgisWM-CR 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- This answer makes me a bit worried. Commons claims that the file is available under the licence {{Cc-by-sa-2.1-es}}, but the licensing page says that the image is available under the licence {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. It is important to list the correct CC licence. Also, I'd try to get rid of Skorken2003's file since it's not a good idea to host potential copyright violations. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- For information: there's a bigger, watermarked version with additional exif here [1]. --99of9 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- As there is a higher resolution photo, it probably should be taken to a deletion request. 20 minutos notes exemptions with some media, and the higher resolution image states that the author is FormulaTV. After the deletion request, if the image is decided to be kept, then the license tag must be changed to the right CC license. But in my opinion the higher resolution image indicates that I should act according to the precautionary principle and delete it. --RalgisWM-CR 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good response Ralgis, and I think the DR you have started shows a good understanding of COM:PRP and putting it into practice. russavia (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- As there is a higher resolution photo, it probably should be taken to a deletion request. 20 minutos notes exemptions with some media, and the higher resolution image states that the author is FormulaTV. After the deletion request, if the image is decided to be kept, then the license tag must be changed to the right CC license. But in my opinion the higher resolution image indicates that I should act according to the precautionary principle and delete it. --RalgisWM-CR 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- For information: there's a bigger, watermarked version with additional exif here [1]. --99of9 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- This answer makes me a bit worried. Commons claims that the file is available under the licence {{Cc-by-sa-2.1-es}}, but the licensing page says that the image is available under the licence {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. It is important to list the correct CC licence. Also, I'd try to get rid of Skorken2003's file since it's not a good idea to host potential copyright violations. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- If someone said that the copyright holder probably hasn't licensed my version of the file under the specified licence, I would prove him/her that 20 minutos releases its content under a free license and that that version of file was released by 20 minutos. About Skorken2003's version of the file, it is has a very poor resolution, and that makes it suspicious of copyright violation. Also, that image beneath Mario Casas looks like was inserted with a graphic editor, and it may be a joke against Casas. Thank you for asking. --RalgisWM-CR 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question: How can you be sure the author of this ticket is the same as the author of the photgraph you uploaded? Thanks, Savhñ 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't be a 100% sure, but the picture wasn't uploaded on the Internet before that in Wikimedia Commons, so there were no need to ask for validation of copyright holder. Also, the metadata is complete and the image has a very high resolution, wich helps against any suspicioun of copyright violation. --RalgisWM-CR 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Please adjust your sig both to make it easy for a newbie user to find your talk page and to eliminate the cross-wiki reference. While Commons Admins may certainly be active on other Wikis, we expect them to be solidly based here. Also, please add a Babel Box to your user page. Commons is very much a multilingual project and it is important to know what languages an Admin can read. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Please enable Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary in Special:Preferences. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Is there any particular reason for this? --Ralgistalk 02:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately it seems they ignore this RfA too, although they're active on other projects. ■ MMXX talk 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Good point -- an RfA is probably the most important thing one of us will ever do on Commons and he seems to have a two day turn-around in responding to most of the questions and comments above. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have closed this DR as deleted--Morning ☼ (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)