Commons:Administrators/Requests/Matrix

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 21;  Oppose = 4;  Neutral = 1 - 84% Result. Successful. --Krd 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matrix

Related requests:

Vote

Matrix (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (Activity: Talk Commons DR)

Scheduled to end: 17:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Matrix. I would like to request administrator tools to handle copyright violations, deletion requests and to generally tackle the admin backlog. I've been an active member of Commons, having done ~7K edits whilst attaining licence reviewer and filemover and helping with various backlogs such as Category:All media needing categories as of 2017, Category:Media requiring renaming, etc. Feel free to ask questions below. Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes

Comments

  •  Question You are a license reviewer since April 2023 but you only have 236 patrols logged. And you made some problematic overwrites in the past. What do you say on this? GPSLeo (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GPSLeo: Generally, I've been focused on other maintenance tasks, such as some I've pointed out above (categorisation, importing files to Commons, etc.). When it comes to actually patrolling, I like to focus on quality and not quantity (i.e. making sure that the content is free and not a copyvio, checking scope, etc.) rather than being particularly fast. This explains the large number of redlinks on my patrol log (copyvios).
    Furthermore, I often patrol the File talk namespace, so I usually ensure any comments on the talk page of the file don't go unnoticed by replying, which takes time.
    As for file overwrites, it would be helpful if you pointed out specific overwrites so I can discuss in more detail. Generally I follow Commons:Overwriting_existing_files, and I usually have done acceptable overwrites such as cropping on the subject of an image, adding higher resolution versions or removing watermarks. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 18:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On example is your change at File:Peter Rainier by Thomas Hickey.jpg. GPSLeo (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GPSLeo: Looking at Commons:Overwriting existing files#DO overwrite, my rationale at the time was that this would fall under minor and uncontroversial color correction, since it was a higher-res image that was more vibrant. I also doubt whether this would fall under "digital restoration". Looking back, this change would probably fall under the grey area, since it's unclear whether the change in vibrancy was minor or uncontroversial. It is also important to note that I overwrote this image at enwiki, and then imported it to Commons, and enwiki doesn't really have an actual policy on this.
    However, these days I would now err on the side of caution and upload a new file and tag with {{Superseded}}. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IMO this case is fine. It is the same painting, but in higher solution. I don't see the point of creating separate files here, as the first version would not be useful once the new version is uploaded. Now, if the painting were edited in any way, that would be different. Yann (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with that. This should not be a problem. Mosbatho (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Two other examples are File:Institute of Medical Sciences, Japan.jpg and File:Caboose from Monongahela Railroad no.67 at Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania 115440.jpg where you overwrote with Crop Tool using precise mode. There appear to be more examples of overwrites using precise mode that I could have chosen. Are you aware of the limitations of precise mode? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel like this is extremely nitpicky. I've been an admin since 2005 and I don't even know what you're referring to. If precise mode is so problematic, then why is it the default choice? COM:CropTool doesn't even elaborate beyond "Note that in many cases an inexact (Lossless mode) is completely sufficient and recommended." —holly {chat} 18:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have withdrawn the question on the basis that the guidance page you linked says, "As of September 2020, all cropping is done using lossy mode, even if lossless mode is selected and the tool says that a lossless crop was performed." Precise mode used to be discouraged as it often caused problems with file quality/compression if you left the image with an indivisible number of pixels in a particular direction. However, if both choices are producing the same result, the question is redundant. I don't think "nitpicky" is a fair description of the question though as that implies I was deliberately taking a negative attitude to the candidate. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My apologies. I should have said "obscure" instead. —holly {chat} 18:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question Here are some common deletion request scenarios. What would be your initial decision (and reasoning) for each one? (Obviously, the final decision might change depending on whatever information is uncovered during the discussion, but let's just stick with your first thought.) Feel free to answer inline. —holly {chat} 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Nomination is for a PNG version of a coat of arms file with the rationale "superior SVG version exists now" and all usages of the PNG have been replaced by the SVG. The SVG version cites the PNG version as its source.
    Looking at the superseded image policy, I would firstly assess whether there are any specific significant stylistic differences between the PNG and SVG. If so, I would keep the PNG or defer to the graphics lab to create a faithful reproduction of the SVG. If there is own work involved, I wouldn't delete as it would break the "attribution path" for licences such as GFDL. Otherwise, I would copy the history over using a tool such as fileinfo and then !vote delete. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Nominator asks for a courtesy deletion of their own photo because they feel like the quality is not very good. It is currently unused, but it was uploaded 10 years ago, and when you look in the category, there are no other photos that show the same subject.
    Assuming there are no privacy issues with topics such as GDPR, I would reject this argument due to the sheer time of the image being online and lack of other options at the time for the same subject. If appropriate I would prompt the uploader to upload a better quality image. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Nomination is for a photo uploaded by the person depicted in the photo and it does not appear to be a selfie or a case where the person used a timer, but is claimed as "own work". When questioned, uploader reveals that his friend took the photo and gave it to him, whereupon he uploaded it.
    I would direct the uploader to COM:VRT, asking his friend to email VRT. If there is no response, or the response does not release a free licence, then I would !vote delete. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Nomination is for a photo of an old painting in a museum, clearly PD, but also includes the frame. The photo was downloaded from the museum's website, is properly credited to the museum, and is tagged {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-expired}}, but the source page does not indicate a free license.
    If the painting hasn't been scanned before, and the frame/museum itself is not the source of commentary, it would be easier to simply crop the frame and do some revdel. Policy only allows PD-Art to be used when the image is a faithful reproduction. If the painting has been scanned before I would !vote delete. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Nomination is for a company's logo and the file was downloaded from the company's site. The nominator's rationale is "copyright violation".
    This depends on whether the logo passes the threshold of originality in the US as well as the one in the country of origin. For example, the British threshold of originality is extremely low and many British logos have to be deleted due to this. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Nomination is for a chart that is used across multiple projects and was created by a Commons user who has since retired, and the data for the chart is cited to what appears to be a reliable source. Nominator claims that the source is obsolete and provides a citation to a source with updated data.
    I would !vote keep, since COM:INUSE overrides claims that the data is unreliable. The uploader can create a new chart with the updated source, and local projects can decide whether to use it or not. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question Your answers here compel me, but I know so little about you. I checked your talk page and while there is nothing really negative, much positive isn't there either. Did you run into some disagreements during your wikipedia career? Were you able to solve them to the satisfaction of the ones involved?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Paradise Chronicle: My work on Commons has primarily consisted of categorisation, uncontroversial speedy deletion nominations and regular DRs, which means I don't frequently run into major disagreements. However, one example of me starting a discussion on Commons and helping stop an edit war at File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg was at this file talk page, where consensus emerged to not proceed with a file move, and deal with issues locally on the respective projects the file was in use from. As showcased by that example, I always look to starting discussions and building consensus on the talk page when reverts stack on a page. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment All due respect to @Mateus2019: , but I was not aware admins needed to be special. I guess I should consider resigning as someone who is quite bland and uninteresting. Beside that, I can't run very fast, I'm proper crap at karaoke, a terrible bowler, and while I do look like a painting in an art museum, it's only after some protester threw soup on it.
    My general impression was that admins needed to be a net positive, capable of helping out in a way that wont break the internet, and willing to admit when they were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs) 12:05 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Matrix&oldid=856358042"