Commons:Requests and votes/Amicon

Withdraw. Concerns raised cannot be fixed. I'll live without adminship. – amicon 20:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Amicon

Vote

Links for Amicon: Amicon (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Hi, I request adminship. I've done a fair bit of work on Commons, keeping down the Flickr backlog as of late. I regularly comment in Deletion requests, featured picture candidacies, and I tag newly uploaded images for deletion, if needed. I also did a fair bit of categorizing images. In addition, I regularly comment on the various noticeboards (village pump/admin noticeboard/help desk), giving help/advice to users. I really enjoy working here and I look forward to assisting further. How do you turn this on (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have changed my username to Amicon. Amicon (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose First Edit 1 October 2008 Maybe later --Herrick (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose 1231 Edits on Commons is imho (by far) not enough for a support of the request. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering 200 edits was the minimum guide suggested a couple of weeks ago, to state "by far not enough" is a bit strange, as I'm 1000 above the old requirement (which I in fact suggested be removed). And what has edit count got to do with it? I could easily make 300 more edits today to make 1500, or 800 in the next couple of days to get 2000. Would you support me then? As you can see, basing opposes solely on numbers is a bad idea. How do you turn this on (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I have only 1207 edits; does that mean I should be desysoped? Maxim_(talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • We suggest 200 as a way to show some familiarity. I had a lot less than 1200 when I stood, I see no issue there. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - I use AGF. Everyting a admin do can be undone. So he is maybe not so long on Commons but i don't see a reasson the oppose. Sterkebaktalk 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
•  turned on! Good, active user. abf /talk to me/ 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Helpful positive contributions across many varied capacities on this project, and a good attitude overall, also good communication input in community forums. Thank you for volunteering to help out even more in this capacity if given the tools. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Sure, he's new. So what? In two months, he's shown dedication, trustworthiness and a good understanding of Commons. Pruneau^talk 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose because of this censorship on the Vilage Pump. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I've been impressed by all of his work that I've seen.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support First two oposes are about time when he registered and the number of edits. I had many fewer edits when i became an admin so it's no problem for me. I don't see any other reason why you shouldn't be an admin, so support. Herr Kriss (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant to say shouldn't and not should :) --Kanonkas_(talk) 00:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks ;) Herr Kriss (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Trust level works for me. MBisanz ^talk 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Trustworthy user, plenty of edits, active. Anonymous101 ^talk 10:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Seems civilised enough Noodle snacks (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support as Amicon has shown quite some dedication even if he or she is quite new to the project. We've quite a number of backlogs and every helping hand with some common sense is very much welcomed. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral - per the conversation below, I have concerns about the grasp of fundamental and basic tenants of copyright. Merely existing and actually being published is an incredibility important distinction which has profound implications on necessary considerations. Whether a work has been published or not can effect, among others, country of origin (set forth in the Berne Convention) and how one determines copyright term (set forth in USC 17). If someone in the US took a photo in 1920, didn't publish it, and died in 1950, it would still be under copyright ceteris paribus. Deletion requests have always had the problem of "looks old enough"-type declarations; admins ought to know why just "being old" (e.g. existing before 1923) is not enough - for US works, that is. Эlcobbola _talk 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Has always appeared a very helpful and rational individual. Seems to have a good, fair judgement of things. I think he'd make a great admin Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 Question what would you do if somebody uploaded this picture on Commons? --Kanonkas_(talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I would delete it. It seems to be a copyrighted work of art. How do you turn this on (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm, This is the image used in the enwiki article, and it's marked as unfree fair use. So while the photo is almost certainly the property of the Flickr user, it's derivative of copyrighted art (it's only from 2004). How do you turn this on (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Under what criteria? Why is it derivative work of copyrighted art? --Kanonkas_(talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the main focus of the photo. The image is copyrighted. It would be like me taking a photo of some copyrighted logo and claiming it's free because I took the photo - instead of taking it straight from the website, or whatever. How do you turn this on (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but that isn't quite what I was looking for. You might want to check more on this here before replying back to me. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I answered your question (correctly) some time ago. Can you please be a little more clear what you're after? In short, I'd delete it as a derivative of copyrighted art, and if I really wasn't sure I'd make a deletion request. There's nothing more about this I can say... How do you turn this on (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed a difficult question, but it's something about it's panorama. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, you wanted real copyright law here :-) Well I'm not an expert, but the photo was taken in the USA, so according to this, public art is not free. Anything before 1923 is public domain though. In this case, as I've said, the artwork was created in 2004. How do you turn this on (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Impressed! Thanks for taking your time. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"anything before 1923 is public domain though" is not correct; what word would you need to add to make it correct? Эlcobbola _talk 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What a bummer of me, might be wise for me to check up more on this while I'm at it. Thanks Elcobbola for catching that error. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Kanonkas, that may have been bad indenting on my part; I'm curious to know whether Amicon knows what is missing. Эlcobbola _talk 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything before 1923 in the United States. – amicon 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. US was already the implicit/presumed jurisdiction being discussed. Try again? Эlcobbola _talk 15:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I honestly have no idea. As I said, I'm not an expert here. I wasn't aware this was an exam... Obviously if this kind of thing was to come up should I be promoted, I'd leave it up to someone who did know. But frankly, I don't think deleting obvious copyvio images and images with no permission, source or license (what I plan to do) requires an awful lot of knowledge of image law, but mostly common sense. – amicon 17:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's an evaluation of one's ability to be a fit, informed administrator. When one's editing history is on the shorter side (which is fine), it sometimes becomes necessary to use questions to make the necessary evaluation, as the contribution history is not long enough to contain indication of the pertinent knowledge. The answer I was hoping for is published before 1923. Эlcobbola _talk 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Gryffindor case has made it obvious, that commons needs some higher standards for people who want to become an admin.
• First question: Why you have reverted this announcement on the village pump? Mutter Erde (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mutter Erde, please just stop. You have been previously warned for this kind of behaviour before. Also your talk page note should explain your question. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the candidate, not you Mutter Erde (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I explained quite clearly in the edit summary. How do you turn this on (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the comment was leading and and unhelpful, why not replace the comment with a neutral and carefully worded one which does not pre-judge the issue one way or the other?KTo288 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It had already been removed by Mike.lifeguard as inappropriate. The request was already canvassed on several talk pages, and on various noticeboards. I didn't see the point in yet another entry for it, and was simply agreeing with the original removal. How do you turn this on (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So given that you beleive this, would you remove the current message on VP informing users interested in how commons is run to have a look at this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7. Dez. 2008 (UTC)

I saw the message, but didn't understand what it meant. It wasn't as negative and biased as Mutter Erde's notice, but I couldn't figure out its purpose. Maybe to flag my RFA? Who knows. How do you turn this on (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, you put it there? Why? How do you turn this on (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not, should this page only be the preserve of admins and would be admins, or should ordinary users not take an interest in how admins are selected or deselected.KTo288 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Interested people can find the page quite easily, if they're interested of course. Several non-admins have commented here. Seems a little odd to advertise it in my opinion. But that's my feelings. Maybe someone else feels differently. How do you turn this on (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Second question: Why you have tagged this pic for a speedydelete? Mutter Erde (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's marked as copyrighted on Flickr. Why did you mark it as requiring Flickr review, if the Flickr uploader wasn't the creator? How do you turn this on (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Emmm, YOU are the flickr reviewer, not me. See also X Mutter Erde (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • @Amicon: in the future you might be more cautious to work on files that recently had been edited by certain users, because already in the Gryffindor-case certain users considered to put down a "bait" meant to lure Gryffindor into making a (perceived) mistake that they could then use against him.[1],[2] Though this is no longer the Commons I knew, this had to be said. --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the freshnamed candidate not be careful with all pics? ????????? Mutter Erde (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • We do not need more admins that delete perfectly good images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Becoming an admin is important to me because.... take as many words as you need to complete this.KTo288 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it will enable me to help out further in my contributions. How do you turn this on (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)