Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kritzolina

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 35;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 0 - 95% Result. Successful. --.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Kritzolina

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 17:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all you wonderful people, I have been pondering this step for a while and I am still not completely sure if it is the right thing to do - but today I feel like being bold and offering some of my time and my experience in the Wikiverse as admin on Commons.

I started my Wikilife in early 2014 on the German language Wikipedia and soon after started also uploading pictures here. I learned A LOT since those early days, even though I am no longer at an age where you usually learn quickly (yes, you can find my year of birth on my userpage). Still ... as a volunteer I improved my skills in photography, I learned how to use templates, found out about all the stupid and creative ways wikis can be vandalised and about the difficulties of conflict solving onwiki and for a while I became an administrator on the German language Wikipedia.

I did take on a different hat within the movement and started as a Trust and Safety Specialist in 2017. As a result the German language community asked me to stand up for re-election for adminship in 2018. I decided not to do so, because I started to feel conflicts of interest in certain cases. But I kept learning things in this other role, which might be relevant also as an admin on Commons - I learned a lot about policies for online communities, especially behaviour related policies onwiki. And even more about the needs and also the amazing resources of wiki communities around the globe. I also learned quite a bit about different laws that might be relevant here on Commons and how they are applied and weighed against each other - even though I have to admit that copyright is not my strongest point.

I still wear the hat of Wikimedia staff member, but as I switched from the Trust and Safety Team to the Community Development Team, I don't feel that there is a real conflict of interests anymore. But this is one of the reasons I am unsure, if this request for adminship is the right thing - feel free to let me know if you think otherwise!

Even if I did not participate a lot in the meta spaces here on Commons, except around the monthly photo challenges and the QI and FI process, I have had an eye on the various administrators noticeboards and on the deletion requests and I couldn't help but notice that there is always a considerable backlog. This brings us back to why I am writing these lines today.

I can offer a few minutes on most days, sometimes a lot more. I will use that time to look at those noticeboards and deletion requests. There are a lot of requests or cases I don't feel competent to immediately take action. There are a few where as an admin I would like to weigh in on a decision we hopefully can take together. And there will be some requests I will feel competent to just decide on my own. Hopefully I will continue learning.

If you give me your vote, know this: As every human being, I will make mistakes, even where I feel competent. I will be happy to admit those mistakes and help undo any damage done, if possible and of course provided I also see my actions as mistakes. Sometimes we might have a discussion, if something was truly a mistake, or if we just have different opinions on what is "the right decision". And rarely, like we all, I will have a hard time to understand how something that seems so normal and logical to me can be a mistake. And I will cling to a mistake. I hope you will be patient with me in those rare cases. Kritzolina (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

But I would like to see them demonstrate their understanding in admin-related areas. Comments like those at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adolescente recibe nalgadas.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breno Saar dos Santos.jpg, without a strong record elsewhere to balance them, make me inclined to oppose. Brianjd (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you're saying that suggesting we delete an extremely low quality snapshot of a child being spanked, uploaded by someone with no other edits anywhere, is evidence of bad judgment? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t look at the other issues. I only looked at the reasons presented at the deletion request page: low quality and out of scope. And I thought that deleting the file using those reasons alone would be bad judgement. I did change my vote to delete based on later comments. Brianjd (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Your statement stresses self-doubt regarding copyright and reflection following errors, which I find unusual (not bad!), but I ask for insight in your thinking: how would you go about determining whether File:Arjuna meets Krishna at Prabhasakshetra.jpg can be accepted as free content on this project? Hekerui (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this question, I like the image it pointed me to! Well, at first glance I see that the image is widely used, so it is in scope and it shows a PD-license, which of course, if it is correct, is a good thing. Now the important thing is to determine, if that license indeed is correct and also to figure out what is the problem with the missing parameter in the license tag. Those two are connected as we have an unknown author and no birth date is given. The only date we have on the file page is the date of acquisition, which is 1965 - if the painting was created at that time and the artist was young then, they could still be alive. Which of course would make the image definitely NOT in PD. But this looks more like a historical painting and we do have a source-link that looks interesting enough to follow. While we do get a name of an author (of the book or the image is not immediately clear to me, but probably of the book itself), we still have no dates. Now I start looking for who is the uploader, because they perhaps could give the missing information - and discover that this image was uploaded by a sock of a globally locked user, which of course looks suspicious. Again, from a quick glance it does not look like they were locked for copyright violations, "vandalism" and "crosswiki abuse" as rationale for locking seem unrelated to the problem at hand. But after these steps I am at a point, where I would probably look for an admin (or an experienced user) who knows more than I do about Indian culture and languages and who could help me determine, if this is indeed a historic image that can be freely used under the PD license, or if this is more likely a modern painting where we have to then seriously doubt the PD. Another route to go down would be to research more at the Robarts library at the University of Toronto, as they digitized the image or write to them and ask them for information on licensing - but I doubt I would realistically do this. So asking around is the most likely route I would take after those first steps. Kritzolina (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad at all. I had hoped for something more structured, as in explaining how you would apply COM:PD systematically, but the steps are there. Verisimilitude is good. Also, have you familiarized yourself with COM:URAA? It's a topic with results that baffle sometimes. Just making sure you are aware. Hekerui (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could you please explain whether you see any problems for File:Stained glass windows in Propsteikirche Dortmund 01.jpg in regard to COM:DW? Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @AFBorchert, you caught me here - this picture probably should be deleted as the FoP rules in Germany do not allow derivative works, while commons licenses allow this. Would you be so kind as to delete both images I took of windows in this church, while I look for more simlar images I took, or should I place an official request for deletion? Kritzolina (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Thanks for the response. I am wondering, however, why you are pointing to the section about the “Prohibition of alteration”. COM:DW is primarily not about alteration but about photographing a copyrighted work which makes the photo a derived work. What do you think is exactly the problem of this photo in the context of COM:FOP Germany? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course COM:DW is talking mostly about us as photographers, but the undelying concept, which is explained in the first paragraphs also applies to all the different ways this photo could be reused (and altered) by Commons users. Someone could take this picture and print it on a T-Shirt for example - and do alterations. I assumed that taking the image was fine, as I was on publicly accessible grounds, when I took them - but reading up in more detail now, I see that churches are specifically mentioned as not being public spaces. So I am learning, thank you for that chance! Kritzolina (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, interiors are not public spaces in regard to freedom of panorama in Germany. This is not restricted to churches but in regard to all interiors. At Commons, we have per-year undeletion categories below Category:Undeletion requests which allows us to restore such cases when the original artwork enters the public domain. When do you think this will be the case for the artwork depicted in this photograph? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have to research and get back to you later, thanks for making me aware of this (now that I see it really stupid) mistake! Kritzolina (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I will help you here a little bit: This stained glass window is a work by Joachim Klos (see here). --AFBorchert (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I had just figured this out as well - so we have the 70 years after 2007 and could undelete the pictures could be undeleted on January 1, 2078. Can I ask you to please do the deletion(s) accordingly? Kritzolina (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a case of speedy deletion. I have opened a regular deletion request which also includes other photos of the stained glass window in this church. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kritzolina, what are your observations with regards to de minimis in this case? ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand why you bring this up - the window clearly is the main subject of the photo. Can you clarify? Kritzolina (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if this sounds an unrealistic question but I felt to know more why you won't apply de minimis in such cases (because the other work forms probably a lesser part of this whole image. (I might differ in assessment) ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought the de minimis issue exactly for the same reason that @AFBorchert has stated above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Based on your focus on mistakes and corrections, What would you say would be your not-so-best contributions? How have you tried to remedy them? ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The easy answer is - see above. I also tend to make small spelling mistakes which require moving images to a different file name later, so I am really happy to already have filemover rights and as a result can do the moving myself (example diff). Also when I started, I was not aware of how problematic it can be to take images of book covers. I learned as some of my images were deleted and as a result was a lot more careful about taking pictures of people with books and asked someone to blur the cover of a book in this image as one example. Kritzolina (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Currently you do not have any additional rights but file mover rights and you only have two edits on the admin noticeboard. Why do you think you need admin rights when you never needed patrol and revert rights or admin help in the past? --GPSLeo (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @GPSLeo, different people do things differently on our projects. With my current workflows I definitely don't need any extended rights, except the file mover rights in a few cases. I can imagine adding new workflows, if community thinks I should have administrator rights. Those would expand things I am doing currently - looking at noticeboards and deletion requests more regularily and making decisions there, where I feel competent to do so. At the moment I personally do not feel attracted to other workflows, which would make me use patrol or revert rights, so I am not applying for them. Kritzolina (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question more on German freedom of panorama. What are your thoughts on Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg and which of the two will you follow: the latest ruling by lower regional court at Frankfurt allowing drone photos or the more-conservative ruling of Bundesgerichtshof (federal court) that still does not allow aerial photography? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @JWilz12345, this is definitely a case I would not weigh in at the moment, but just read and learn from what others said. That said, I will have to read carefully and in more detail, before I can answer here in what direction I might be leaning. So you will have to be a little patient here, it might take a bit before I come back to you. Kritzolina (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this was not as lengthy as it looked at first glance - so here are my thoughts:
    1. As for the de minims question: I absolutely do not understand how people can think this applies. Trusting that we are indeed talking about the image that is still hosted on Wikivoyage, the building in question is clearly at the center of the image and larger then the surrounding cityscape. So it is the main subject of the image.
    2. Regarding the question of FoP and whether we should go with the ruling of the Bundesgerichtshof or the ruling of Landgericht Frankfurt, we absolutely should abide by existing law. And a ruling by the BGH constitutes existing law until a new decision from that court has been made. While the legal landscape is indeed changing in regards to FoP, this change is still very much unstable and uncertain and the risk of a negative court decision by a different Landgericht or an appeals court is very high. There is even the risk of a negative BGH decision for an image like this, as the copyright holder might go all the way. Personally I fully understand people who support taking such a risk and who try to push the change of law with uploading and then defending such an image. But in my eyes administrators have a responsibility to uphold existing laws, not only for the sake of the law itself, but also to protect uploaders who might face substantial financial demands and have to go through stressful court proceedings, if we kept an image like this.
    Kritzolina (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Two things: One should always check for freedom of panorama in such cases. Spain does have freedom of panorama (COM:FOP Spain), but (like many countries) not inside buildings, so it does not apply to this work of art inside a church. Second, Spain has 80 years pma for authors who died before 7 December 1987, so this is still protected until the end of 2063. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that last one, thanks for making me aware! Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kritzolina&oldid=737439916"