Commons:Administrators/Requests/Mono

• 1 Mono
  • 1.1 Votes
  • 1.2 Comments
  • 1.3 Moved from above

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Mono. I'm an experienced Commons contributor who would like to help with admin tasks. My experience ranges from patrolling recent uploads, participating in deletion requests, checking Flickr licenses, and moving files among other things. As an admin, I would review files tagged as copyright violations, review permissions requests, address vandalism problems, delete files without license, permission, or source and other maintenance tasks.

I am active here and have experience in each field I plan on working in: many tagged files in my deleted contributions, permission requests, etc. I understand Commons policy; I have file mover, patroller, rollbacker and image reviewer rights and more than 4,300 edits.

I'd be more than happy to answer community questions, but I would like to be clear that I do not intend to handle complex deletion requests that don't have precedent.

•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Clearly stated intentions and good history. Sinnamon (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose was desysopped on outreachwiki after fullprotecting his talkpage, then setting up an abusefilter to do the same thing, and also masstagging staff-uploaded images as copyvios. [1] --Rschen7754 04:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Absolutely no plans to do that here, but it's worth addressing - I was never asked to remove any form of page protection before being desysopped on a coordination project. At that community, it is up to the judgement of bureaucrats; I don't want to start any major conflict, so I've backed off to let things cool off a bit. (Additionally, files uploaded to WMF sites without a license tags are copyvios. However, I don't plan on deleting staff uploads here either.) Mono 05:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --McZusatz (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Excellent answers to the questions. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per your answer to King of Hearts's questions--Morning ☼ (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral Solely positive experiences with you here on commons, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this because of the issues on outreach. Trijnstel_talk 22:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per the concerns raised by User:Rschen7754 above. INeverCry 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Experienced contributor with common sense. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose wrong attitude towards other users. Penyulap ☏ 04:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you be more specific? I personally feel that my conduct is both civil and positive in general. Mono 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• people can be nice and avoid conflict in order to get a bit, which tells us nothing of how they interact with users having problems once they have one. The 'talk to the hand' attitude mentioned above doesn't work with volunteers, it destroys the project. I'd like to hear your thinking on your interactions with Canoe1967 (talk · contribs), what was your intention as you see it, and how you feel about the results. Penyulap ☏ 05:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Weak support — Please keep up the positive development and please more carefully check whether your changes break things (also consider users with other operating systems and browsers); especially when editing protected or MediaWiki pages. Thank you for your voluntary work. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support – experienced contributor who, while continuing to learn and grow, won't break the site. Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support no objections --High Contrast (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Geagea (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I do have a life and will be busier during the week. It may take a day or so before I can get back to you on questions. Thanks for your patience! Mono 22:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question How would you respond if File:Apple Inc. Mosaic.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "relies on deleted copyvio"? --99of9 (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That concern is valid, because the derivative is of the same resolution as the deleted image and is still clearly visible beyond the point of de minimis. However, this is a gray area in terms of precedent on the wiki, as no problems have been found with File:IPad 2 Black Front.jpg (my own work) and others. One potential solution for a DR would be to blur the offending graphics like File:IPhone.JPG ad delete the previous revision. Mono 05:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question Do you realize that your status template is currently getting in the way of editing the Comments section of this page? --99of9 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All better, sorry about that. Mono 05:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm using Firefox, and I can't click on the "vote" link at the top of the page because of the status template. INeverCry 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question For an admin, detailed knowledge of our copyright practices is critical. I will now present to you a series of images which may or may not have copyright issues. For each one, say whether it has copyright issues, and if it does, what the specific issue(s) are and what should be done about it (deletion, more research, etc.).

• File:Forest on San Juan Island.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Despite being listed on Flickr as CC-BY-NC (non-commercial use only), File:Forest on San Juan Island.jpg was reviewed by a license reviewer. Flickr users can change the license listed on their image even though Creative Commons licenses are non-revokable, so the license review system verifies this. The image is not a copyright violation. Mono 16:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Milano, Maggiolina, Casa Figini 01.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• This is problematic in multiple ways - we have no assertion of when the photo itself was taken to qualify the photo as PD, there is no FOP in Italy for the building as the architect has not been dead for 70 years, and it seems like the image was just snagged from TinyPic based on some quick research. This case should probably be brought up as a deletion request because of the intricate copyright details to give the community a chance to voice its thoughts. Mono 16:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:LycaMobile.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Based on precedent at Commons:Threshold of originality and my personal judgement, this qualifies as a {{PD-textlogo}}. The text is not copyrightable and the heart area consists of one heart divided into two colors with a transparent heart shape removed from the center. A heart shape (or two concentric heart shapes) is most certainly a simple geometric shape. Mono 16:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Cincinnati-harrison-statue.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• This is public artwork installed before 1923 (based on the description) so the actual work is not restricted by US FOP laws on statues. Not a copyvio. Mono 16:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take your time. Good luck! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, this pretty much agrees with what I would say. For File:LycaMobile.png, I'd argue that it potentially meets the UK's (very low) threshold of originality, but that's a fine line with no right or wrong. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Under Preferences, User profile, Email options, Check the box "Enable email from other users" per Commons:Admin#The_request_for_adminship MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Enabled Mono 19:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How will you deal with and address conflicts? (E.g. about how something should look like) Would you use your admin power to enforce your opinion? -- Rillke^(q?) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Over the years, I have refined the way I deal with conflicts. But I'm always learning and committed to improving relations with other editors. Commons, like most Wikimedia projects, must solve its conflicts based on a common consensus. Attempting to ignore that consensus leads to problems, so editors must discuss their differences in a civil manner. I believe that ideas are important and should be considered fairly, and that clearly points to your next question - it is inappropriate for an administrator to use their rights to enforce their position in a conflict based on their opinion, not established policy and consensus. Administrators have no superior editorial authority and as an administrator, I would never use my tools to hinder a free exchange of opinions. (Or mess with MediaWiki pages without consensus) Mono 22:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question I have no knowledge of the issues at Outreach wiki, but when you say "files uploaded to WMF sites without a license tags are copyvios", do you mean this literally? Can you please expand on your reasoning? --99of9 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean this quite literally, but this position is supported by established Commons policy. The files I tagged on Outreach Wiki were uploaded directly to that wiki and were not marked with any indication of a license. I used the term 'copyvio' for files that were not marked with a license. On Commons, we delete files without licenses (after a reasonable 7 day period) all the time; my deleted contributions will show that I am familiar with this procedure.
• (Commons policy reads "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." and "The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag. All information required by that license must be provided on the description page. The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status. It would be best to do this immediately in the summary field on the upload form.")
• While many believe that works created by WMF staffers are automatically reusable, notable exceptions like trademarked logos make reuse uncertain. As far as I know, WMF work is not automatically licensed under a free license. As a maintenance task, I tagged a group of images without licenses; I did not tag all the images without licenses there as I wanted to make sure there were no objections. Some editors brought concerns to me and I ceased my efforts to tag and eventually delete these files. I've included a quote to the right from a discussion on that wiki about the actual tagging; in this unaltered comment from [2], the local bureaucrat who removed my bit there expressed agreement on the necessity of the task. The objection was the manner in which I went about it as some editors there would have preferred if I had taken a less radical approach. I hope this clears things up, as this issue is rather complex and multi-layered. If not, please let me know what is unclear. Mono 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your detailed reply. I'm glad you understand that images missing licenses are not legally copyright violations, especially if the author uploaded them. So I've now looked into the Outreach batch. Calling them (speedy-deletable) copyvios, even in an edit summary is likely to raise the hackles of many users. My suggestion for the future is: speak nicely to good faith uploaders, and don't exaggerate, even in an edit summary. --99of9 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Next  Question: Has your understanding of licensing changed since December? --99of9 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it hasn't. CC licenses are non-revokable, but for a time I decided to use GFDL 1.2 because of its loophole. The community has expressed displeasure with this practice as a whole, so I modified it back to a CC license. The CC-BY-SA license is more useful for derivative works and standard for interface mockups recently uploaded to Commons. Mono 18:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so if you knew that CC was irrevokable, what was the purpose of the change in December, removing the display of a still-valid license template? --99of9 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping. --99of9 (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No real purpose, which is why I switched it back. At the time, I thought it would discourage copyvios, but I don't really care on most of those images and would prefer they can easily be remixed with more works. Mono 16:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another  Question When you recently started this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Infobox user, did you look at or consider notifying the users who use that template? I can see at least one regular contributor on that list who may not yet even know that their userpage no longer works. If you consider this a problem, how do you suggest it be rectified? --99of9 (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not notify the users with the template transcluded on their userpages. After a spot check of about five, I found that most pages linked to it looked like this one (copied from ENWP and filled with other non-existant links) or ones where it did not display properly because of missing dependencies on other ENWP templates. I notified the transwikifier and assumed that it was not necessary to post a notification on each user's page, as the deletion template should show a notice above the template when the request is open. Please note that I also nominated Template:Infobox for deletion for the same reasons and the DR template is there. Mono 18:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So now take a look at the code at the top of User:Peter_Weis. Do you consider it a problem that his page is now broken, likely without his knowledge? If so, how do you suggest it be rectified? --99of9 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I did not look at that specific page before starting the deletion request, it would not have displayed properly before the template was deleted. I have recreated that scenario with two of my sandboxes (User:Mono/Sandbox is the deleted template and User:Mono/Sandbox2 is Peter's userpage). The pages I looked at when I proposed the deletion were broken like that. You can see that it depends on nonexistent templates like this one which were also deleted through a DR. If the template is considered necessary, it needs to be rebuilt from another wiki. The people who include it on their pages should be notified about the problem; I could do that or the closing admin could do that. The template has been deleted twice now, so I'm not exactly sure recreating it myself and trying to rebuild it again after discussions is wise. Mono 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I do have a life and will be busier during the week. It may take a day or so before I can get back to you on questions. Thanks for your patience! Mono 22:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• people can be nice and avoid conflict in order to get a bit, which tells us nothing of how they interact with users having problems once they have one. The 'talk to the hand' attitude mentioned above doesn't work with volunteers, it destroys the project. I'd like to hear your thinking on your interactions with Canoe1967 (talk · contribs), what was your intention as you see it, and how you feel about the results. Penyulap ☏ 05:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cross-wiki forum shopping is unacceptable. So are repeated personal attacks. If a user wants to be unblocked on ENWP, they can head over there. But bringing the drama to Commons is silly and makes a mess. From what I can tell, you agree with me - your style might be different, but the village pump is not a forum for all those complaining about ENWP. Mono 16:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, how do you feel about the result. Penyulap ☏ 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good that we lost a contributor, but their behavior was unacceptable and warranted administrator action. Mono 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have lost anyone, however, I do not consider it an acceptable solution to dump 50% of the people who get involved in disputes, considering the number of disputes there are, if people are lost on each one, that doesn't bode well for the future of the project. I can't see that chasing people 'flaming torch in hand' off the project(s) is a good idea. Here on commons, you were out front with a torch and losing a contributor with a 'too bad'-style rationale is not good enough.

Not having enough empathy for co-workers is not a good thing for an admin in my opinion. Having basically a disinterest in the outcome, or the person, or what they have to say, to the level you have taken it elsewhere is not a good thing. Hard to come to an understanding with someone who doesn't want to listen unless some force is applied. Penyulap ☏ 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was more clear-cut than that. The user was posting about their ENWP block on Commons, looking for someone sympathetic. I reverted the user, telling them that if they wanted an ENWP unblock, they can follow the instructions of the perfectly capable ENWP admins and use the ENWP unblock system. I don't qualify the user's actions as a part of a Commons dispute, but rather as forum shopping and asking the other parent. Commons isn't a place for ENWP problems and personal attacks on ENWP and Commons are unacceptable. As an admin, I would not have blocked the user for simply complaining about ENWP but the history of personal attacks and drama both on Commons and ENWP is unacceptable. Mono 19:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu

Personal tools  

Namespaces