Jump to content

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Pi.1415926535

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
 Support = 13;  Oppose = 4;  Neutral = 0 – 76%. Result: successful. odder (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535

Vote

Pi.1415926535 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 22:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I've been active on enwiki for ten years today, and on Commons for slightly over five. At the moment I have slightly under 46,000 edits on Commons, including those on my alt account User:Pi1415926535 (which I use for flickr uploads and enwiki transfers). I spend most of my time uploading images of rail transport in the United States; this includes about 2400 of my own photographs, 900 transfers from flickr, 750 scanned postcards, and other historical images (including the oldest reliably dated photo on Commons). As part of this, I do a lot of architecture-building, including the creation of 2500 categories and moving numerous images into them.

In doing this, I've come across several areas where having the mop would be useful. For one, I occasionally create things accidentally that need deleted, like categories whose names needed changed when I found out more information about a train station. For two, during my architecture-building I come across a fair number of duplicate categories and images that I then tag for speedy deletion. Thirdly, I tag a fair number of speedy-deletion images (mostly copyvios) that I come across. I'd like to be able to perform these uncontroversial deletions myself without taking up another admin's time. At the moment I have over 1500 deleted edits, the vast majority of which are from categories and images I have tagged for deletion.

I don't spend a huge amount of time at DR except when I nominate a non-speedy image, but I do believe I have a good understanding of Commons policies and particularly with US copyright law, and I may be able to reduce the backlog of cut-and-dry nominations at times. Since I am more of a technical editor than a policy/behavior editor, I don't foresee being heavily involved with AN/I or blocking users, unless I needed to do an temporary emergency block of a particularly disruptive user.

I've had the filemover right since September 2011; I've performed several hundred moves and I try to clean out Category:Media requiring renaming every so often. I've only had two minor issues with it: when I moved a file from a meaningless Russian name to a useful English name (where I now realize I could have found a user fluent in Russian to translate), and where I didn't check the file history carefully enough, and a bot had messed up the credits. I believe those were minor glitches and that my overall track record with file moving is good.

Thank you for your consideration! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support sure, why not but please pick a username that is easier to remember :). Natuur12 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Seems like a genuine individual, but only 237 Commons namespace edits will not get my support. Great contributor, but not convinced by their nomination. ~riley (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - You've not participated at all in DR and you also state "I do believe I have a good understanding of Commons policies and particularly with US copyright law" yet you've not told us how you have a good understanding - I could say "I have a good understanding of Pyramids" when actually I know sod all about them - Point is you need to explain how you understand it,
Secondly your name isn't going to be remembered nor is it helpful IMHO - "Pi 1" is fine but "Pi.1415926535" is just ridiculous,
Lastly I'm not seeing any actual need for the tools whatsoever and I believe you being an admin would quite honestly be more harm than good here but that's just my honest opinion. –Davey2010Talk 18:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose More experience in admin-related areas like DR/CSD/reverting vandalism/reporting vandals, spammers, and copyright violaters to ANB/etc is needed. The name is a minor issue, but would have to be changed to something that's easier to find for regular editors who have questions or problems. INeverCry 19:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@INeverCry and Davey2010: I understand your concerns about my experience with admin-related tasks (as I noted, my experience therein and intended use of admin tools is for speedy deletions and technical tasks, but I have not been near as active at DR); however, I don't understand your concerns about my username. I've been editing for ten years under this account with no complaints about the username. At 13 characters it is shorter than many editors of all stripes, I don't believe it is too similar to an IP address or such, and '1415926535' is arguably the most memorized ten digits anywhere. en:User:Pi was already registered when I joined enwiki in 2006, hence why I chose the longer version. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Administrators/Requests/Didym. It seems a bit strange that you resist a name change when even your supporters recommend changing your name. INeverCry 22:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't care about the number of edits on the Commons namespace (although Riley has a point), as long a user is active in hunting copyvios and have an understanding of copyright law, which is this one. I agree with Natuur12 that their answer to Wikicology's question is above average, and on all of the RFAs I have digged on Commons, it seems that this is the only RFA that has a very good answer on copyright. However, I recommend changing your username though, like "Pi.14". --★ Poké95 22:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. I'm satisfied from his answers and I don't think that that kind of questions are useful. The willingness to answer the questions is a good point for him and I also dont see bad interactions with other users.-- Geagea (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - has done a lot of maintenance work over the past years, while staying out of trouble - sufficient experience - has a history of good responding to feedback at user talk page - Jcb (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support per their clueful answers to my questions but concerns about username should be addressed. The purpose of a username is to identify contributors. The candidate username is unnecessarily confusing which make it close to violating Commons:Username policy. In urgent matters where administrator's attention is needed, I can easily remember User:Jcb but find it difficult to remember any admin called User:Pi.1415926535 due to their confusing username. If it's something like User:Pi.1234567890, I don't think anyone would worry about it but User:Pi.1415926535 is confusing. Wikicology (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Working in speedy deletion requests, I have often met Pi. I am quite sure, that (s)he will become a good admin. Bytheway, it is easy for me to remember your username, I have known your username from childhood. Taivo (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support He's had that username for ten years and it would be more confusing if he changed it now. I've worked with Pi.1415926535 for years, both here and on en.wp, and I've been impressed by his good sense and judgement. He also has a strong sense of how copyright law functions which is essential here. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support: Wide experience and he feels the limits of his competence. Good name. For me, it's easier than most nicknames. I have remembered exactly these digits since my childhood. --sasha (krassotkin) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per INeverCry. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Geagea and Taivo. Detailed responses to questions. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 00:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, though commons namespace edits seems not ok, but answers fit me well. --Stang 08:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Trustworthy and experienced. I believe that experience in specific admining activities is not perse a necessity. As long as they can learn. Considering the intelligent replies I have no reason not to support. Taketa (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - every trustworthy contributor should if wished become a chance to serve here as Admin. There should not be only an inner circle of burocrates. The more, such person is a well known contributor. Commons need to be an open, not a closed project. User as Pi.1415926535 staying for that. Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC) PS: I'm more confused by the childish signatures of for example the first three opposers, than the user name of Pi.1415926535[reply]
Marcus Cyron - I'm more confused with the fact you seem to reckon our signatures are childish yet those supporting are apparently fine ? .... Strange logic! .... To be fair tho I'm a child at heart anyway so I'll take your moan as a compliment!. –Davey2010Talk 15:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do educate me on how my signature: ~riley (talk) is viewed as childish. ~riley (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~riley - It contains a squiggly line (or a tilde to normal people) so therefore it's extremely childish , He hasn't even replied to me so I wouldn't expect a reply anytime in this lifetime If I were you. –Davey2010Talk 09:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised my sig (★ Poké95) was not called childish, while INC's was called childish... ★ Poké95 12:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not important for my point. In my opinion it is childish - but at the end it is not of importance what I think here. And it's not of importance for the project. So there should be always the respect for this by all users. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus Cyron - Editors signatures are completely irrelevant here and I have to ask if you believe this to be of no importance then why the hell mention it ? .... The rest of your comment doesn't make the blindest bit of sense!. –Davey2010Talk 15:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are as important or unimportant as user names. And the user name is here in critic. Is this so hard to understand? By the way, it's hard for me to understand, why people blow up the source text just because of their "hello, look at me, I'm important"-signatures. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol Pokéfan95. I think mine seems more childish. :P Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, of all the discussions I possibly expected to take place in the last 24 hours of my RfA, this wasn't one of them.... Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus Cyron, as you know, Wikimedia Commons allows users to customize their signatures in their preferences. Yes, there are rules on customized signatures but I do not see how any of the above "oppose" signature violates this rules. It is unfortunate that many comments include unfriendly sarcasm. Can we just focus on questions and concerns about this RfA? I think this is necessary so that current and future commenters feel that they can participate in the discussion without having to make or receive unfriendly comments. Wikicology (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I would have strongly supported this user if they would have had more contributions (in Commons-ns), but given the knowledge, comemnts and behavior I can see from this user, I tesd to agree with the mases here above me that this is a good fit for the commons' admin team, and I hope to see more of his edits and well thought out comments in future discussions. Josve05a (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why do you insist on characterizing the filename Голодомор.jpg as “meaningless”? Is that due to disregard for Commons’ file naming guidelines, or due to distaste for “foreign” languages? (For the record: the word does exist and its meaning is relevant for the photo in question.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: I don't believe that either of those things had anything to do with my renaming. That image is not of the Голодомор (Holodomor), which took place in the 1930s, but of a wholly separate famine a decade earlier in a different part of the USSR. So the former name was rather misleading indeed. Doing a bit of digging now, this is not wholly surprising; it appears there is a widespread issue of images of the well-documented 1920s famine being used as 'documentation' of the 1930s Holodomor (which the Soviet government tightly controlled information about for many decades). Footnote 14 in this paper discusses that.
Additionally, the purpose of a filename should be to make a file findable by search, to accurately describe its contents, and to usefully differentiate it from others in its categories. At the moment, Category:Famine in Russia, 1921-1922 contains 21 files plus 142 more in subcats. (For Category:Holodomor, incidentally, those numbers are 83 and 266). Even if it was describing the correct event, a single-word filename sharing a name with a large category neither accurately describes the contents of the file, nor provides any clues to differentiate it from dozens of other files in the category. Moving the file was thus justified under two parts of COM:MOVE: "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays", and "To correct obvious errors in file names, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms".
While having the more descriptive filename in Russian would be best (and were I to come across this RM today, I believe I would have found a user to translate), a descriptive and accurate name in any language is preferable to a name that is neither accurate nor provides a useful description of the file. I have tended towards more descriptive filenames over time; were I to see a rename request today I would chose a name similar to 'Девочка и покойная мать во время 1922 российского голода.jpg' (a translation albeit garbled of 'Girl and dead mother during 1922 Russian famine.jpg'. The file rename request and my comment when renaming focused solely on renaming the file for accuracy (as per COM:MOVE) and not because of the language of the original name. I hope this better explains my thought patterns now and then. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Pi.1415926535, for your reply. Your 1st paragraph explains why Голодомор.jpg was indded a bad choice for the filename of this photo; however, I would strongly advice against terming such filename meaningless, instead of merely inaccurate — a few possible interpretations, of the ugliest kind, can be miscronstrued from the use of "meaningless" when applied to “foreign” languages.
Sadly you had to add the other two paragraphs above, in wish you show your defective understanding of what a filename is and what Commons’ file names should be — it is scarce consolation to remind that many admins share that same misunderstanding, although it could be argued in favour of your candidacy (however I’m not joining mine to the votes above, in either direction).
As for the comments on your username, I suggest you ignore them and keep your name as it is: You will be less likely to be bothered by people who are still yet to learn the magic of copy & paste.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Question for the candidate -- Your nomination statement seemed very interesting and I have few questions for you.

  • If I engineer a shot taken by my 5 years old son, who is the copyright older of the work? And why?
  • Would you advise an editor ( let say User:I uploaded it) to write and send an image releasing permission to OTRS on behalf of the subject of the image?
  • Are you familiar with monkey selfie? Per Commons:Copyright rules, who is the copyright holder of these images? The monkey or Slater? Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 additional question-- As an administrator, you came across a file at DR in which the uploader is the subject of the file and claimed "own work". What will you do? Wikicology (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. if the source country is "Nigeria" for example. Wikicology (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note; the questions are actually meant for the candidate. Please do not answer on their behalf. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't but may I suggest changing the source country to the US? Natuur12 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Wikimedia Common does not hosts images from US alone. US is just one of the 196 countries in the world. Wikicology (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have no clear legal iformation regarding Nigerian copyright law, especially not for a complex case like this. Plus African countries and copyright law is a bit of a void. Not much enforcement as well so not much case law to rely on. I don’t mind you asking tough questions but picking Nigeria as a source country isn’t fair. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that Commons:Copyright rules applies to the US alone? And Commons:Copyright rules does not applies to African countries? I am sure that one or more editors here would understand why I picked Nigeria as the source country. There are huge backlogs at DR that need Administrators attention. So, we need more sysop to help there. I don't have any reason to oppose a qualified candidate. I only want to be sure of this candidate's competency before deciding on weather to support or oppose. Trust me Natuur12, my questions are not intended to humiliate or subject the candidate to ridicule. Wikicology (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your questions go far beyond what you can resolve with the help of our overgeneralised summary. This requires deeper knowledge of local law and we only have some specialised information for Europe, the US and some other countries. And regarding the help by child-selfie, we only have a professional opinion for the US regarding that one. Well, there is a non-copyright law related answer that could be given but in order to give that specific answer you will have to have a really good understanding of local law. But I am helping the candidate to much already providing this info. (Though I would be very pleased if he is able to interpertate my reply correctly.) Natuur12 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1: Neither US nor Nigerian copyright law limit copyright holding by age. Since you are presumably the legal guardian of your son, it's not immediately clear (in either country) who has the legal right to release the image under a free license (and that may very well vary by local jurisdiction), but there is nothing restricting him from holding the copyright in either country. The 2014 USCO statement about the monkey selfie is pretty unambiguous in stating that under US law, the taker and not the engineer (regardless of sweat-of-brow) is the copyright owner, so if the photo was taken in the US then your son owns the full copyright. There doesn't appear to be any similar precedent in Nigeria, so if the image is published in Nigeria before being uploaded to the US-based servers on Commons then it's in an unclear grey area.

2: I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Do you mean whether OTRS permission is necessary for an image of an identifiable person taken in a non-public setting?

3: The 2014 USCO statement makes a very solid case that Slater does not own the copyright under US law. Whether a non-human animal or other entity can hold copyright is an unanswered question (and I pity the poor souls who have to deal with this in a decade or two with AI-created works), but given the judge's dismissal of the case this January, and past cases with animal art, it's not unreasonable to assume that non-legal-persons like animals cannot hold US copyright unless the law is amended to specifically specify so. The international nature of Commons makes these sort of things tricky - an image taken in one country, with equipment set up by a citizen of a second, uploaded to servers based in a third country. My experience on Commons focuses much more on historical-based PD rules (like those which affect the historical postcards I upload) and I given the admin tools I would focus more on deletion cases involving those.

4: Unless it's clear that the image was taken by the uploader (like an obvious selfie with forearm in the corner, or a reasonable claim that it is a self-portrait), then the copyright likely belongs to a photographer/artist who is separate from the subject/uploader. The ideal of course would be to determine the actual author and obtain OTRS permission from them; however, the likelihood of that varies greatly. A well-meaning but confused editor whose friend took a picture of them may well be able to secure OTRS permission from the friend; a self-promotional editor uploading professionally taken glamour shots may be more difficult to work with. In any case, if permission from the actual author cannot be obtained, I would delete the file. Thank you for these questions - they were quite interesting to think about. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should also consider project scope. Unused selfies tend to fall outside scope due to lack of educational value, regardless of copyright status. Taivo (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote my above comment from the copyright angle, but I would consider the scope angle as well. Unless it's a single {{User page image}}, used on another project (sometimes a selfie or other self-created image might be the best available, as with Mathew Brady and Parmigianino), or otherwise has merit (for example Category:Wikidata selfies which were uploaded for a specific wiki-related reuse purpose), I would agree that most selfies fall out of scope. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Pi.1415926535&oldid=201476426"