Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (5)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 24;  Oppose = 12;  Neutral = 1 - 66% Result. Unsuccessful. --Krd 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1989

Related requests:

Vote

1989 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 19:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am a contributor for over ten years and I was an active administrator from 2019–20. If I were to hold the role again, I would continue closing DRs, handling copyvio and speedy requests, dealing with spammers, etc. I feel I have addressed my actions that led to my clouded resignation and later events on my previous requests already. If I missed something or you want a newer perspective, let me know. 1989 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Changed to support. Last time I gave an AGF-pro (we need hundreds of admins more ...), why not this time. Just stay away from conflicts. ;-) --Mirer (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are losing more then we are accepting at this point. Someone needs to make a list of reputable users and ask them to apply. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Question Today you marked File:Jembatan teluk lais musi banyuasin.jpg for speedy deletion as a file containing derivative elements without evidence of permission. What aspects of the file do you see as derivative? From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole picture really. It looks like a screenshot, and the information provided by the uploader was quite vague. It was also unlikely this image was released under a CC 3.0 license, as there was no proof of that. If the image is in the Public Domain, they would need to provide verifiable information. Also, a speedy deletion would mean the file being removed ASAP. The tag I added gives the uploader seven or more days to resolve the concern regarding the image. 1989 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping that you would either acknowledge the image has no derivative elements or identify a derivative aspect I may have missed. In this case {{Dw no source since}} appears to be the wrong option and {{No source since}} would probably have been better. It may seem like a minor difference as they both allow deletion after 7 days but the key difference is giving advice on derivative elements when there aren't derivatives is likely to confuse editors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Screenshots are considered derivative works. 1989 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing in the image to indicate it is a en:Screenshot. It is a simple photograph sourced from an unknown medium. Whether the uploader scanned it from a physical source, saved it from a website or used screen capture software to extract only the photograph (and no other aspects of the screen) doesn't make much of a difference. With a single item subject to copyright, there are no considerations of derivatives regardless of source. It is simply a matter of the licence for the single item in the file. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Do you apologize for things like this [1]? And can we trust that things like this will not happen again? GPSLeo (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It was in the heat of the moment, but like Rubin16 said, I should have not reacted so quickly. There are moments like that where I wished I could have logged off. During that time, I found the threatening message repulsive as I don't think I've done anything so bad as to get reported to WMF. It also didn't help that earlier on, I had told them to leave me alone. I felt during that time maybe I needed something stronger to help them get the message. However, a simple "stay away from my talk page" would have been sufficient. I later realized from that point moving forward, especially after the ANU drama, that me and A.Savin should avoid each other at all costs. As for if it would happen again, very unlikely. It should be the first and last time I tell someone to fuck off. 1989 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GPSLeo: Please note that a) there never was any personal apology for the f-word summary, and b) this edit is only one single example out of the long track of hatespeech by 1989 against me; including demand of my ban in the discussion linked above, and also the block of mine is part of that. It's been always a puzzle to me what have I done to deserve this. --A.Savin 23:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure your cognizant of this already, but the deletion request back log really needs to be dealt with. So it would be great if you continued to mainly work on closing deletion requests if or when you get the privileges back. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. 1989 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question In your last Rfa you said to me that I was "lucky", I quote: " (...) being lucky to keep their bit". 1/ I never felt lucky of that outcome as I already said, and I still don't feel "lucky", I would give a lot for a different ending of that story. 2/ to think that the result of a Rfa or a Rfda is the result of luck is somewhat insulting towards the community vote. Hence my very simple question: when you have writted the statement for this request, and when you answered to your colleagues above, are you sincere? or do you count on "luck"? The question is very simple and expect a very simple and short answer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Christian Ferrer, I'm being sincere. 1989 (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989_(5)&oldid=840156616"