Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Admrboltz

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 14;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 0 - 93% Result. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admrboltz

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Admrboltz (don't ask me how that's pronounced) has been an active user of Commons since 2005, contributing productively and reasonably since then to achieve an editcount of around 2500 edits – a very respectable number, especially for such high quality of additions and tweaks. His editing history does show a few breaks and lulls in activity, which is completely understandable when you consider his other roles around Wikimedia. A long-term admin on enwiki, Russell is a member of the OTRS team and has been entrusted with the 'image-reviewer' right here on Commons. From file uploads and maintenance to staying in the loop by way of the project-space, his experience with Commons is thorough and reliable. He and I have corresponded for at least a couple years regarding a potential nomination for adminship here, and I remain confident in his abilities to help the project, a confidence boosted by a willingness on the candidate's part to work on the deletion backlogs lying around the place. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A graciously accept this nomination. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • One wonders how long it takes to find an example of a mistake from five years ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of seconds. Open the Gallery, hit 250, and observe the tag column. One wonders how that sort of reply is at all helpful, and how (in)judicious one who would make it must really be. Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. My point I think was that what happened half a decade ago isn't very relevant, but then I am biased I suppose. Your response to both my comment and the candidate's good-faith attempt at a response are quite unbecoming of an admin, FWIW. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You believe that your reply was acceptable? Did it in any way address my points, or was it an attempt to disparage implicitly my motives? Disappointing that it read that way. Strawmen aside: 5 years ago would indeed be irrelevant if more recent files were free of errors. The others I identified are from 2011; where is evidence that understanding has improved? Эlcobbola talk 22:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My comment is intended to be read as a harmless, facetious attempt at getting a serious point across. Your calling me "injudicious" is far more personal in nature, so I'm not sure why you're getting so upset. Either way, all I'm saying is that it seems a bit unreasonable to tack something so out-of-date onto a list of concerns to make said list appear superficially substantial. Since the list of potentially problematic files do not share a specific mutual issue, I disagree that the 2006 file makes your objection more persuasive. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are more problems than the ones I listed. I consider failure to distinguish between p.m.a. and publication to be one of the largest problems on the Commons, and included it for that reason. That you believe it was "to make said list appear superficially substantial" is troublesome. I find unreasonable and injudicious not dissimilar - perhaps you should reflect on what is becoming of a 'crat, as at this point I think we shall have to agree to disagree. Эlcobbola talk 22:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The difference is that I didn't call you unreasonable, whereas you clearly suggested that I as a person am "injudicious". I have no reason to call you unreasonable. I've never met you. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I found your suggestion equally clear (i.e., only an unreasonable person would look for something from 5 years ago). Again, did your reply address any points? Would you read it as more than slightly dismissive if our positions were reversed? Эlcobbola talk 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what I said at all. Please reexamine my comment. And in the interest of fairness, I left and intend to leave the candidate to address specific copyright concerns. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Seattle world fair stamp.jpg -- Your wrong. Read Stamps of the United States#Copyright-Note up to 1978. The stamp was released in 1962, which makes it a work of the US Government. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, {{PD-USGov-pre1978stamp}} redirects to {{PD-USGov}} --Admrboltz (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't aware everything on the Commons was correct. Would you characterize that redirect (from only several weeks ago [2]) as unilateral, or the result of thorough discussion and understanding? Perhaps you could explain why the USPS can claim copyright now if it's indeed part of the federal government. (Hint: it's independent, thus the reason PD-Gov cannot apply. Observe the copyright notices on its site. See those on any actual federal government sites? Nope.) Эlcobbola talk 22:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The USPS at the time was the Post Office Department, which was headed by the Postmaster General, a Cabinet level position, making the POD a Government Branch. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Independent agencies are still part of the US federal government. That they are set up outside of the bureaucracy of the Cabinet departments does not impact the copyright status of their works. the EPA is an independent agency, but we have {{PD-USGov-EPA}}. Imzadi 1979 → 22:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the sake of argument, let's say the USPS is federal. We know they hold copyright on post-1977 works. Where is the provision that allows them to override USC 17 § 105? Эlcobbola talk 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per the Domestic Mailing Manual: "The USPS secures copyrights in its philatelic designs and certain publications. The designs of postage stamps, stamped envelopes, stamped cards, aerogrammes, souvenir cards, and other philatelic items issued on or after January 1, 1978, are copyrighted by the USPS under title 17 USC." According to Fishman, Stephen (2010) The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More (Fifth edition ed.), NOLO Publishing, pp. pp. 142–3 ISBN: 978-1-4133-1205-5. , "The U.S. Postal Service has been legally entitled to claim copyright in postage stamp designs since 1970, when the former Post Office was remade into an independent corporation. However, the Service did not begin to claim copyright in its stamp designs until 1978. You'll find copyright notices on sheets of stamps published during or after 1978." For the sake of transparency, I am not a lawyer, but Mr. Fishman is. That the USPS has a quasi-public, quasi-private status and it is allowed to claim copyright now does not invalidate the fact that pre-1970, it was the Post Office Department, a Cabinet-level entity of the federal government, and that post-January 1, 1978, stamps, etc. are copyright. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Admrboltz&oldid=358267356"