Jump to content

Commons:Administrators/Requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Requests for adminship

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Theklan

Related requests:

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have been around for many years, and contributed with thousands of images, mine and from archives, and I have seen that admins have too much things to take care of. So I think that it's time to help with those tasks. I have good knowledge of copyright (as far as this is even possible), and experience working with GLAM institutions. My home wiki is Basque Wikipedia, where I'm also an admin and bureaucrat with more than a decade of experience. Thanks for your support! Theklan (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Hardly 'riddled'. Most of them seem to be kept and some downright trollish DRs from an editor who was then indeffed for making them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Why should an encyclopedia show an AI generated image of a dragon while there are hundreds of paintings, scurlptures, etc that could be used instead? --Isderion (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, here are a few questions about common DRs (feel free to answer inline btw), answer with your first thoughts (of course this may change through the course of the deletion discussion).
    1. Someone nominates File:Random logo.png for deletion with the rationale "redundant to File:Random logo.svg". Assume File:Random logo.png is not INUSE.
Redundancy is not itself a reason for deleting. It may be the case that the PNG file has extremely low quality, but even in that case, if the PNG was the original file and the SVG has been made based on the PNG, keeping the original one is a must, as we need it to be sure that the SVG reflects the PNG, and that the derivative has also a provenance. However, there may be reasons to do it, so it can be discussed. -Theklan (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Someone nominates a 1945 WW2 photo was published in 1945 in Germany. Assume the author is anonymous per Template:PD-anon-70-EU.
I'm not an expert in German copyright laws (that's why we also have German admins), but I would assume that if the photo is anonymous, and no ne has claimed the authorship in the last 80 years (2025-1945), the photo is in the Public Domain as more than 70 years for an anonymous photo published in Germany are enough, even with the new law that requires two different countings. -Theklan (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Someone nominates a company logo for deletion with the rationale "copyright violation".
Trademark and copyright are not the same thing. We can have a logo of a company if this is simple enough. Both {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} may coexist, if the company logo is simple enough. -Theklan (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Someone nominates a photo that they made 5 years ago for deletion stating "I don't want it on the internet anymore". The photo's subject is quite obscure and we don't have many photos of that subject. Assume no GDPR or related issues.
When a photo is uploaded you give permission to use in perpetuity, so "I don't want it on the Internet anymore" is not a valid reason for deleting. If the image is not in use, we can delete it as courtesy if there's community consensus, it has very low quality or there's something personal in the image that shouldn't be there; but given that the subject is quite obscure, it has been uploaded 5 years ago (not yesterday!), and it might be probable that the image is documenting some article in any of our projects, the most regular outcome would be keeping it. However, the uploader should know that even deleting it doesn't change the fact that it has been published for 5 years with a free license and someone somewhere (outside Wikimedia) may have used it and copied it with that license. -Theklan (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Someone nominates a photo for deletion stating the data is unreliable and out of date. They provide a link to the correct data but haven't uploaded a file yet with the correct data. The file is in use on multiple projects.
Outdated images shouldn't be deleted based only on that. If we are talking about a map or a graph that should be updated, it should be marked with {{Current}}, but we shouldn't delete the old version, but overwrite it with a new one that reflects the latest data. Also, if the file is in use in various projects, keeping the original might be necessary, because it can be used to show exactly the outdated situation (old borders, for example). -Theklan (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four more questions about possible DRs:
    • Someone nominates the logo of a (notable, so in scope) company or institution because "there is a new logo, this one is old and not authorized for use anymore. It confuses our customers and is constantly used instead of the new, correct logo." There are no copyright problems with this logo, assume it's too simple to be copyrighted.
    • Someone nominates the cover drawing of a 1935 German magazine issue, apparently specifically created for that issue. The artwork is not credited in the magazine, but there is an artist's signature which so far cannot be identified.
    • Someone nominates the cover drawing of a 1935 German magazine issue, apparently specifically created for that issue. The artwork is not credited in the magazine, and there is no artist's signature in the drawing.
    • Someone nominates the cover photo of a 1935 German magazine issue, apparently specifically created for that issue. The photographer is not credited in the magazine, and there is also no photographer credit in the photo itself.
--Rosenzweig τ 10:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Rosenzweig, sorry, I didn't see your comment till now.
  • The first one is quite simple: we even have the old Wikipedia logo, which creates trademark problems and it's used widely in press or even Wikimedia movement posters. The old logo should be kept, because we can use it to illustrate the history of the company, or other historical uses.
  • The second section of three questions is more tricky and, as I said, I'm not an expert on German copyright law. I have been looking at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany, and I would say that the two first options (with and without signature) are not in the Public Domain because "Fine art" objects (not a photo, like case 3) are always "Life + 70 years" if done before 1995. However, I have doubts on the meaning of "known pseudonym", and I would say that not even having a signature would qualify for completely anonymous, making it free. However, as I said, I wouldn't take a decision on thi ssubject, as there are German admins who surely have a better understanding of the law there.
Theklan (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any opinion on the US copyright status of these three and how it affects deletion decisions? --Rosenzweig τ 07:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to my knowledge, in the case of the US this would be a work for hire (apparently created for that issue), so the main issue is publication date. For everything published before 1978, there should be a renewal of copyright after 28 yers, so we should look first to the copyright status of the magazine itself. As it was published in 1935, if the copyright was renewed in 1963, it wouldn't be in the Public Domain until 1935+95=2030. If it wasn't renewed, the work would be in the Public domain since 1963, and the cover would be also free, with a {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag. However, this is only for things published in the US. In Commons we need both. Theklan (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this was not published in the US, so all the rules about necessary registration, renewal etc. do not apply. Instead, the URAA applies, which gave a US copyright to foreign (foreign from a US perspective) works which were still protected in their source country in 1996 (or later in some countries). I suggest you take a look at that. --Rosenzweig τ 09:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. That's what I explained in the last two sentences. Theklan (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests&oldid=1076530121"