Commons:Administrators/Requests/GreenMeansGo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 31;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 0 - 97% Result. Successful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 00:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the smartest user on the project, but I can block vandals pretty well. I don't understand everything about copyright, but I can get along okay. I'd like to think I'm pretty good about recognizing when others know better and deferring to their judgement instead of mine. I'd like to think I can be a net positive. If not, that's fine too. GMGtalk 00:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: GreenMeansGo has been continuously active at Commons since about 2017 and has made more than 40,000 edits to the project so far. As an established admin on Wikiquote, GMG has demonstrated that he understands how the sysop tools work and understands the significance of their use. As an active OTRS member, he can be found verifying permissions and requesting undeletion. Having another active administrator at COM:UD, who is involved in the OTRS process, would be hugely beneficial. Green can also be found at Commons:Help desk, where I first stumbled upon him and noted him helping new and experienced users alike. At Commons:Village pump and /copyright, he is also actively engaging in discussions and bringing his experience and knowledge to the table. If I had to sum Green up, I would describe him as a calm, approachable and reasonable editor to work with - these are the defining factors that I look personally for in an administrator. ~riley (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  •  Question: What administrative work do you intend to take part in? -- CptViraj (📧) 00:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CptViraj: I'm only an administrator on one project, but much of my work there involves cross wiki spam and long term abuse. I expect that if I do only that I may be a net positive. I do also have some experience in closing deletion discussions. I have some experience across projects in dealing with obvious copyright violations. I've participated in, but not extensively, requests for undeletion. I'm also an OTRS volunteer, and access to deleted media would make that a great deal easier. GMGtalk 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Is there any issue with this image: File:Вода_Књаз_Милош.jpg? --Krd 08:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Krd: The issue with this image has to do with how much weight we are willing to assign to the image of the building to the work as a whole. The bottle itself is utilitarian. The remainder of the printed packaging is mostly simple textual or geometric arrangement. The building itself is architectural, and even if it weren't would be covered under Serbian FOP.
      We must however assume that the image of the building is copyrighted without having further information to indicate otherwise. It is in color, and is therefore likely to be recent, specifically, first published after 1973 under Yugoslav law. Though the building itself, the en:Residence of Prince Miloš was built in 1831, so it is possibly earlier. It appears to be the same image used here. If we could definitively date that image, it may further clarify the copyright status of the work, but this may be difficult to do as someone who does not speak Serbian.
      Even so, one could make an argument that the subject of this image is the entirety of the bottle, of which a smaller portion is the printed label, of which a smaller portion is the image of the building, and therefore make an argument under COM:DM. It could also be reasonably argued that the image is an essential and integral part of the whole, and therefore not covered under DM. If such an argument were convincing, we would probably need to find a native sr speaker to help us more accurately date the work. GMGtalk 11:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if somebody nominated it for deletion as the building photo, the minerals logo, the gas bubbles printed on the label, etc. together is not DM, would you keep or delete? --Krd 12:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My first instinct would be to reach out to native sr speakers and try to gather additional information. If the image of the building can be shown to be public domain, the argument for keeping the work as a whole becomes much more compelling. My second would be to avoid closing discussions that primarily deal with a language I don't speak, written in a script I don't read, and on which I can do very limited independent research. If no other avenue is available, and no further information is forthcoming, then we should delete the image as a precautionary measure, and restore it pending discussion at UDR, once we can more clearly determine the status of the works of which this image is derivative. GMGtalk 12:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/GreenMeansGo&oldid=384447508"