Commons:Administrators/Requests/Pokéfan95

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Bureaucrat note: Nomination was withdrawn, closing as unsuccessful. --Krd 13:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pokéfan95

Vote

Pokéfan95 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 10:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn

Hello Commons community! I am nominating myself for adminship. Recently, INeverCry has resigned his adminship because of health and drama issues. Because of this, we are now back to a large DR backlog which INC has been dealing with a long time. I would like to volunteer my time to fight this backlog. I believe I have sufficient copyright and scope knowledge for such DRs.

If I would be elected as admin, I will help at:

  • The neverending DR backlog
  • Copyvio hunting
  • Admin noticeboards
    • For AN/U, while newly elected, I will not participate in complex cases (like Russavia, Colin v. Fæ) as an admin but as an ordinary user like I am right now. I will deal first with simple cases like edit wars.
  • COM:UDEL
  • Cleaning User:CommonsDelinker/commands, as it seems that no one is removing category move requests which are already done.
    • I will also help moving file renaming requests by filemovers to the main page, which Ymblanter has been dealing.
    • And I will try reducing the backlog of other file replace requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, which has been long abandoned.
  • Protected edit requests

I do not promise to be very active like INC and Jdx though, but if I am elected, I will do my best for the sake of the community. If you will oppose me because of activity, that's fine.

I am a native speaker of Tagalog. I noticed we have only one admin who knows Tagalog, who is P199. I believe that we need another admin who knows Tagalog for backup and to answer questions by Tagalog users. I also speak English in a near-native level.

For the sake of transparency, I was blocked by Natuur12 because of ad hitlerum attacks against the WMF. I apologized and requested unblock 1 day after, and it was granted by Zhuyifei1999. My LR privileges were also removed by Krd because of my bad judgement. I also apologized, became careful with my actions, and requested back my LR privileges, and it is granted by Scoopfinder.

Any questions or critiques are accepted. Thank you for your consideration. ★ Poké95 10:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • I'm slightly uncomfortable that Samsara voted here after Pokéfan95 opposed their licence reviewer request earlier this morning [1]. This is the first time that Samsara has ever voted in an RfA, further raising my concern about the vote here. Nick (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I didn't know about Pokéfan's "past", but hey, s..t happens to everyone. I rather cannot say anything wrong about him. --jdx Re: 11:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Samsara --DCB (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose to inexperienced. His judgement is often flawed. rollbacking the uploader because he/she used an incorrect format for example. And still, I don't believe a user who didn't know that calling others Nazi’s isn't acceptable only a couple of months ago lacks the cultural baggage to become an admin at a multicultural project like Wikimedia Commons. Also, this user continued to close admin requests after he was given clear hints that he should leave them to admins. And then there was an incident regarding public logging of IRC logs in March earlier this year. Natuur12 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my rollbacking of that uploader is very wrong. I was tired and lazy that time, due to work in real life. Admins must not be lazy and exert more effort as possible (I don't mean don't use gadgets nor tools that make tasks easier). There are also more examples of my wrong rollbacks. I apologize for that behaviour.
For the Nazi part, I learn from that and became more careful with my words after the time I insulted Elvey with "grammar na...". Yes, I did that, and you may ask him to confirm it. I sincerely apologize also to Elvey for insulting him. If you don't believe that I learned from the Nazi part, I respect that, but I would like to say, that no one but I know who and what I am.
For my closing of admin requests, may you kindly point me out a policy, guideline, or community consensus saying that non-admins are not allowed to close and clerk admin requests? If you would point me out such consensus, I would be happy to stop my closing of DRs, uDRs, clerking and closing of admin and crat noticeboards, and clerking of RfCU. If not, it would look to me as you are pushing your own POV. Oh, and arguing with your description of your "hints" as "clear", those were sarcasm. Sarcasms of course are not always clear to everybody.
And yes, I published IRC logs from #wikimedia-commons, which is of course wrong. I published the IRC logs due to the trolling of an admin. This is one of the weaknesses of not allowing public logging, which is trolls taking advantage of this restriction so that their actions will not be taken on-wiki. I don't discourage disallowing public logging though, as this is very useful for confidential and sensitive channels such as #wikimedia-commons-admin. ★ Poké95 10:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't know the difference between the grammar Nazi meme and calling someone an actual Nazi there is still a lot to learn. And regarding non admin closure's. Wikilawyering isn't going to help you. We elect certain people to do a certain job. They have to undergo a community vote to prove that the community has enough trust in them to do that job. There are siuations in which a non admin closure is acceptabel, namely when a request is non controversial (withdraws) but edit wars for example aren't non controversial. Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Natuur12, as a native British English speaker, I had never heared of the term "grammar nazi" until you suggested it was a meme here. I Google for it and find it is largely used in forums where careful, professional and respectful communication is not a priority. I can't say I like the term and would never consider using it when there are plenty unoffensive alternatives such as "pedant". Sticking another word in front of "- Nazi" doesn't fundamentally change the intended insult, and people vary widely as to how offensive they find it. I'm not sure why you think believing there is a difference is a necessary piece of wisdom for an admin. As for the confusion over who is permitted to close certain topics/requests, it seems more useful if you were to help document consensus at the appropriate page or policy rather than argue about it. It doesn't seem very AGF of you to call this wikilawyering, when in fact there could well be a genuine lack of clarity about what is permissable, and you might be holding more certain opinions than is really justified by practice/experience. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time nor the energy to have a long debate about this but grammar Nazi (taalnazi) even is a common word in Belgium used by respected newspapers to describe that someone is annoyed by flawed spelling and grammar. But yes, it isn't a phrase that should be used at Wikimedia Commons. You are by far not the only one who dislikes this meme. (For more information about the meme in general see here. I will start a VP debate about non admin closures later. If I forget, please let me know. Natuur12 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose after reading Natuur'12 oppose !vote and looking into the diffs i am concerned. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose My observations have mirrored Natuur12's. Inadequate judgement and communication. Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Why not? Of course, we need someone to deal with DR backlogs. Wikicology (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral the user is generally helpful, but I cannot support at the moment due to past incidents --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose concerns about their interpretations of policy, plus the concerns of Natuur12. --Rschen7754 02:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I want to give Pokefan the benefit of the doubt. As much as I believe Pokefan is willing and keen to help out in backlogs, I am unable to support because I am concerned with what Natuur12 brought up. He might need more improvement in his judgment and communication skills before becoming an admin. I might consider supporting in the future. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'd wish more wisdom, but he's still better than some long-term admins... --A.Savin 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I believe that is plausible that the word "Nazi" does not have the same connotation in the Philippines as it does in Europe and the United States. However, the answers to the questions are not inspiring enough to override the concerns raised by others here. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Natuur12. WJBscribe (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support After reading his response as I thing that matter is over now. An immediate response may more effective though. I well remember the incident quoted by Natuur12 above and not happy with the remaining parts of the unblock request. But I can AGF on "First of all, I am sorry if I say that "Nazi" word, I honestly don't know that saying that word is a serious offence." as s/he is from Asia and that word is not much offensive here. But he should be very careful in future as even I was told "it's the reader that is important to understand and their reading of modern English" than what intended to say. It's a difficulty of a multi-cultural project like Commons. And per A.Savin too. Jee 02:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others, I have concerns about Pokéfan95's judgement. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support While the user has had problems in the past, their replies to the questions below demonstrates their willingness to help. I suggest the community take a chance knowing the past problems. We shouldn't condemn users for past actions and I would much prefer dealing with users with imperfect known pasts than perfect pasts where areas of conflict will not be known until the admin flag. I would not mind coaching the user for a while if the user and the community agrees. I know this has not been done before but given the reservations above, I think it can be a worthwhile compromise to consider. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I asked Pokéfan95 some questions by email, to minimise any drama issues surrounding some past events, and was impressed by his replies. We disagree on some areas, and Natuur12 does highlight some genuine mistakes which are reasonable to consider as concerns for future. He is young, which has its issues, but also a hope that he will grow wiser, whereas us oldies are a bit stuck in our ways. I would advise him to always look for community consensus before any possibly contentious action, to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence otherwise, and not to do admin actions while angry, tired or involved. I think he is here to improve Commons, so would like to give him a chance. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - please not that power for people who don't know, what a Nazi is. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - There's a time and a place to use the "GN" term and it certainly isn't here ... not ever ... not even as banter!, That aside there are some serious judgement errors here aswell, All in all I too would agree they're too inexperienced at the moment, I would suggest retrying in about 5 years when that comment would hope have been long forgotten, –Davey2010Talk 23:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I cannot support Pokéfan due to Nazi comment and block on the current year. But I believe, that people can become better. He comes from Philippines, where the Nazi thing is not well known; he is young and probably becomes more mature. Generally he is helpful and wants good. He answered questions well. I can support him in 2018 or later. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Useful links: User talk:Pokéfan95/Archive3#Your account has been blocked and Commons:License review/requests/archive/14#Pokéfan95 (removal)
  • I just had an interaction with this user at Commons:License review/requests on an honest request that I thought had some chance of being declined. A very short time after my posting, the user jumped into the request with a question that seemed to have no bearing on their subsequent assessment. Furthermore, they made assertions about my level of competence with copyright ("advise you to familiarise") without, ironically, having familiarised themselves with my history at various administrative venues on en:wp, as well as en:WP:FPC, which they could have easily found out about via details available on a page linked in my request (my talk page) and a very recent granting of autopatrol. Alternatively, they could have asked and, based on my activity profile, received a reasonably quick reply. In conclusion, I believe this user jumps into situations without due diligence, and has poor communication skills, which is not what you wish for in an admin. Samsara (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Samsara, you criticise Pokéfan for not themselves investigating your abilities/flaws thoroughly before casting their vote at LR, and yet your oppose here seems to be based on a single interaction today. I don't see any evidence you have attempted to discuss the matter with Pokéfan on their talk page, to try to resolve your differences. Pokéfan asked you participate on "copyright-related DRs" in order to demonstrate your competence on Commons wrt licence review matters, and I fail to see how the history you mention above is relevant to that. I think it is fair for you to raise this as a concern in the comment section [to which others may investigate further], but not to oppose on the basis of one fresh issue. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think casting aspersions on an editor without any evidence to back it up is pretty bad, and that is exactly what Pokefan allowed himself to do - I'll repeat the quote, in full: I advise you to familiarise with some copyright policies and guidelines. Casting aspersions without evidence should never happen, not even once. I worry that you come close to falling into the same camp as Pokefan, as I have reported image copyvios in the past. [2] Samsara (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You selectively quote. The remainder of the text is " and participate (or create) copyright-related DRs of suspicious files". You don't seem to be taking this advice in good faith, but as an incompetent attack on your abilities. I suggest if you are still unhappy about this, that you first discuss with Pokéfan on their talk page. This isn't really the place. -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, please see this: "To become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons. A reviewer is required to know which licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons and be familiar with restrictions that may apply, such as freedom of panorama." There is no additional pre-requirement to apply for that right; everything else told to him are just personal POVs. Jee 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jee, that page also says "Please note that as of 21 February 2012, image-reviewers may not review their own uploads unless the account is an approved bot. This ensures that at least two individuals, or one individual and a bot, have checked that the license choice is correct. Reviews by image-reviewers on their own uploads will be considered invalid." and it seems that reviewing his own uploads was the only thing Samsara intended to do. The question "Do you plan to review your own uploads?" appears to be a standard one. Seems an obvious rejection, though I admit I am not familiar with this area of policy. -- Colin (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, as an experienced user/EN admin Samsara is well aware of it. Or at least s/he take time to read everything advised to him. It is us we hastily asking questions to him those he already aware/acknowledged. (Note that LR is just a harmless right compared to sysop; it has no additional rights like to see deleted contents etc. There is no logic in declining such a request coming from an experienced user. Especially he well stated what his intentions are.) Jee 14:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pokéfan95 asked two questions and got one reply. There is thus possibly the confusion there that Samsara intended to upload his own Flickr images? Or prerhaps the community do regard Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr as a bonus for already-practicing licence-reviewers rather than a feature to be requested on its own. Uploading invalid content from Flickr is not "harmless". My point is that we have spent longer discussing this issue at an RFA than Samsara spent discussing the issue with others before retracting his LR request and voting negatively here. It seems he is guilty of the same flaw he accuses Pokéfan, and we have wasted enough time on this minor issue. I suggest someone collapse this distraction. -- Colin (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Did you deliberately drag out this discussion, including ad hominems directed at me, just so you could now ask for the entire section to be collapsed? Samsara (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing for "apparent inability or unwillingness to properly investigate" on an RFA where you display an "apparent inability or unwillingness to properly investigate" is hypocritical and unfair on the candidate. I think it would be fairer if you were unwilling "to properly investigate" that you should not have voted. Your bad faith allegations do nothing to make anyone warm to your case. -- Colin (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just recap here for a minute, Colin - you are in no position to throw stones at others after you broadcast the completely unwarranted accusation, it seems that reviewing his own uploads was the only thing Samsara intended to do. without any evidence or subsequent retraction when you were shown a diff that showed the exact opposite. I'm starting to think we need to take this to AN, as it doesn't seem to be getting any better with you. Samsara (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Samsara, you were asked two questions "Do you plan to review your own uploads? Are you going to use this privilege for the sake of Flickr Upload Wizard only?" and you replied "I would be happy to use it for only that purpose and file a separate request if that ever changes." I assumed, from the single response, that you had combined both questions into one "yes" response. It now appears you did not in fact respond to the first question and I misinterpreted, and Jee has pointed us at the discussion on your talk page which made it clearer. We are still in the position that your request was declined for valid reasons, and you have not presented any evidence that Pokefan has "Poor communication skills and apparent inability or unwillingness to properly investigate". Since this has deteriorated to the point where you are being nasty and making threats I will be unwatching this page and have no further desire to continue this discussion. -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, the opposite rational is "Poor communication skills and apparent inability or unwillingness to properly investigate." From his talk page, we can see how intelligent and competent he is in his conversation with Zhuyifei1999. I suggested him to look for LR when showed a symptom to leave as the complexity of the review procedure is affecting his productivity. He is coming from EN where more documentation and transparency is encouraged. "Commons is far less concerned with writing massive amounts of documentation of minutiae of accepted practice than enwiki." is not an excuse. I don't want to comment further; nor wished to vote. But Pokéfan95 usually shows a willingness to accept his mistakes when pointed out. Hope it here too. Jee 15:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure why seeing how intelligent and competent Samsara is on his talk page has anything to do with Pokefan's RFA. -- Colin (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sidetrack this again, but the scope of what is expected for a license reviewer is quite distinctly different from any other role, on any of the projects, as the ability to do it properly depends not upon an ability to negotiate 'community determined' policies, but an understanding of relevant legal concepts. That is reflected by the criteria for the right, which is quite different from any other role... it can be granted by any reviewer, but the standard is simply 'no severe objections'. Samsara's request seemed to be not for the purpose of the right itself, but simply so that he could use 'upload from url' for Flickr files... that is not the point of the role at all, whatsoever. Pokefan's opposition there was well founded, and well explained, IMO. Reventtalk 15:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would indeed question the wisdom in bundling the tool up with the license reviewer right, but apparently, that's what was decided. If you can explain the logic in it, I'll be all ears. Samsara (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off-topic again, but my understanding is that it was setup that way as a limited test, and then 'abandoned' with that as the status quo. Reventtalk 15:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on user's talk. Samsara (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I never expected this situation. In response to Samsara, I didn't knew you are an admin in enwiki, which of course would need knowledge in copyright. I apologize if I didn't recognized your knowledge in copyright. My oppose vote was based on your rationale and recent contributions. Looking at your rationale, it seems that you are requesting the LR privileges just for uploading images using the Flickr Upload Wizard. As Revent said above, that's not what the tool/privilege for at all. LR is for users who are trusted to review an image's copyright status and willing to reduce the license review backlog and copyvio files present on Commons. And looking at your contributions, most of them are Flickr uploads. I didn't saw any DR. I felt a bit disappointed when you go slapped me an oppose vote without discussing the issue with me. And I don't saw any AGF here, and sadly this is commonly happening all over Wikimedia wikis, especially here and on enwiki. ★ Poké95 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

 Question 1: In a recent discussion you have voted to de-admin me over my invalid vote on an OS election as well as over my admin action. How would you process an invalid vote if you see in an RfA. Would you revert it? Would you block the user? Would you file a case under user problems? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For question 1, I won't revert an invalid vote in an RfA unless if it is obviously inappropriate and/or trolling. I would politely ask the user in question first whether their vote is serious or not, or if obviously a mistake, politely ask the user to fix their vote. I will not block the user nor bring it up to AN/U of course. If they blatantly disregard my comment (not by ignoring, but by reverting my edit without an edit summary or personal attacks to me), I would first talk to them on their talk page, then if it doesn't work, then finally AN/U. I would never block them since I am involved. ★ Poké95 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that you do not become involved just by talking to a user whom is making disruptive edits in your scenario. But I am more curious of how you would hande a non-controversial invalid vote, as in where a user makes no disruptive edits and just decides to cast an invalid vote. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, but I would really argue that when being boldly reverted one would actually be involved. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Maybe, but I do feel that if someone is acting in a disruptive manner, you should be at the liberty of stopping it without a restriction of number of admin actions you can take. If someone say inserts inappropriate content to a noticeboard, you should be able to revert them AND block them. It is of course on a case by case basis. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Question 2: What is your approach towards admin accountability? Particularly if there is disagreement among two or more admins over an admin action. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For question 2, I will stay neutral as much as possible. I will find first what caused the disagreement between two (or more) admins and when found, think of a solution which would benefit for both sides. And if there is too much heat in the debate, I will make them cool down first before applying the solution. ★ Poké95 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, you mention And if there is too much heat in the debate, I will make them cool down first before applying the solution. - does this suggest you would make use of or endorse the use of 'cool down blocks' ? Nick (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't use "cool down blocks". Ever. They are not very helpful at all. Look at Colin's block by Ellin Beltz for example. It was meant as a 'cool down block', but it worsened the issue (Ellin apologized for that FYI). Although blocks are meant to be preventative, there are other ways to prevent the buildup of heat in the discussion. One of these is the verbal method, which is also the initial tactic to calm down a user. Example is Hey, please cool down/calm down you two/all, making the discussion hotter will not help and just worsen the your disagreement to each other. Instead, have a calm and constructive discussion to solve this problem you guys have. ★ Poké95 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokéfan95: So you would not interfere with any level of hostility between two users? Even if they are edit warring over multiple pages? What if the user ignores your warnings and simply removes everything you or someone else puts on their talk page (which acknowledges they received the message but promptly disregarded it)? When would you block the user? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I would interfere, but the block would be used only for last resort. If they are edit warring over multiple pages, of course, a warning will be issued to both parties. If the user removes my warnings, I won't take any action as long as they don't continue edit warring or any inappropriate action in the warning. If they continue, then a short block (3 days) will be issued. In short, warning before block (except for obvious vandals, sockpuppets, and persistent spammers). ★ Poké95 02:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, how would you handle the issue if you are among the admins in disagreement? What if you were the first one taking the admin action? What if you are the one overriding. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
If I would be the first one taking the admin action, I will not revert the admin who override it. Doing so is wheel-warring, which is unacceptable. I would discuss first with the admin I opposed with calmly and politely, for a good solution to be made for the both of us. If I am the one overriding, and in case they reverted me, I will not override it again, and instead, kindly ask the admin to revert back their action themselves and constructively discuss. If they didn't reverted my override, then I will explain to them politely why I override their action. ★ Poké95 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a breach of protocol in my view to revert an admin action without talking to or at least making a note of the other involved admins to avoid misunderstandings, but this may simply be my opinion here. Overriding admin actions without discussion would strongly suggest that the original admin action was so blatantly problematic that it did not require a discussion. Would you not seek community oversight/review in such an event? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I would seek community oversight if the action is very problematic, and if it affects the whole community. The community needs to be informed about this, so that we could have a discussion on how to clean up the mess if there are damages and/or a solution to prevent this from happening. ★ Poké95 02:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you would override the admin action that is not very problematic without a discussion? Discussion I mentioned above would be with the admin you are in disagreement. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of a reason of overriding an action which is not problematic. Not even without a discussion. ★ Poké95 10:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Question 3: Belgium did not have FOP until recently. Now that Belgium has FOP, we have incentive to re-process these old deletions. Would you be interested in undertaking such a task? Bear in mind not every file is undelete-worthy as we get atomium shaped cakes. To generalize this question more, would you deal with such issues as they arise. How would you process them? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For question 3, I would be interested in this task, however I must be careful in undeleting a Belgian file because as you said, not all are eligible for undeletion. I would prefer an undeletion request for this task for admins to review each file. ★ Poké95 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An admin would be reviewing each file. Admins can see deleted files without undeleting them. The undeletion process is intended to bring the file to the attention of admins but we generally do not see a review by multiple admins. Are you suggesting we should use the undeletion process instead of just reviewing something like Category:Atomium related deletion requests? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know admins can see deleted diles without undeleting them. Using either of the methods depends on the file. If I am not sure, then an undeletion request is on the way. But if I am 100% sure that the file is eligible and is not controversial, then I can undelete it alone. I just only personally prefer an undeletion request, but if a review by multiple admins is not needed, then I would be happy to just review it alone. ★ Poké95 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the questions. Greatly appreciated. ★ Poké95 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I restructured your response to facilitate more of a conversation around the questions. I hope that's OK. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks White Cat. ★ Poké95 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Question 4: Let's imagine, that a file with Spanish-language name gets deleted. A user, who is administrator in es.wiki, but not in Commons, asks you to temporary undelete the file. What would you do? Taivo (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the eswiki admin states that he will transfer the file to Spanish Wikipedia locally, then I would temporarily undelete the file and ask them to notify me when they are done. If no reason is given, I will politely ask them first why they want the file temporarily undeleted. No rush is needed in undeletion. ★ Poké95 10:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the nature of the file and the reason why it was deleted. If the file was a blatant copyvio, there is no reason to undelete irrespective who is requesting its undeletion. If it's a fair use image and you are sure that es:wiki accept fair-use image, you can temporarily undelete so that it can be transfered to es:wiki. Wikicology (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+ if the file was deleted simply because it bears a spanish name, it should be speedily undeleted because Wikimedia Common is a multilingual project. The es:wiki admin is of course free to transfer it to es:wiki if wish. Wikicology (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) After reviewing m:Non-free content and accessing es:Especial:SubirArchivo, it seems that eswiki doesn't accept any local uploads which also means they don't accept too fair use images. If I am allowed to change my answer, it would be no, regardless of reason and the position of the user on eswiki (if the deletion is wrong, then I would file an undeletion request instead). ★ Poké95 10:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I do not believe Spanish Wikipedia allows local uploads so this question was based on a false premise. :P Mind that there is always the possibility of the admin to locally upload the file on behalf of the local admin whom would process the file description page locally.
@Wikicology: I would ask you to allow Pokéfan95 to reply to the questions directed at him. You are doing Pokéfan95 a disservice as we want to hear the users remarks.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that Taivo would oppose this RfA because you felt I answered the question for them? Taivo is a very intelligent user and I think they know when a question is answered correctly. I don't think their assessment would rely on my comments. Besides, Pokéfan95 already answered the question directed to them before my comment. Thanks for the heads up. Wikicology (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikicology: That is quite irrelevant. Point of RfA questions is for the candidate to answer. While a conversation among third parties is fine, it is best to portray opinions as such. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@とある白い猫: I think that the possibility is absolute zero, because based on the community consensus there on 2006, the decision is to delete all local uploads and move the free ones to Commons. So it means, no one can really locally upload files to eswiki, even admins. ★ Poké95 02:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokéfan95: Right but there are many other wikis where local uploads are enabled. Particularly de.wikipedia where they tend to ask for local uploads of simple corporate logos that are just above the US threshold but below German one. So I think you could reconsider the question for German or English wikipedia on how you would process such requests. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Then my original answer to the eswiki case would be the same for dewiki and enwiki. As long as the admin on that wiki states that they want to locally transfer the file to their wiki as fair use, I will temporarily undelete the file for them and ask to notify me when they are done (in case they forgot, I will redelete after 1 week, which is actually more than enough). The same too applies to wikis that accepts local uploads and non-free content. ★ Poké95 10:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw here correct answer. You should not temporary restore the file, because es.wiki prohibits fair use. Permanent restoring is sometimes possible, preferably via COM:UDEL. Actually I have sometimes restored files without COM:UDEL, if the request comes from OTRS member and he uses magic words "OTRS permission has arrived". Taivo (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the community don't have trust on me as an admin yet, so it's better if I will withdraw this now. I am happy and contented with the result, no I am not joking nor sarcasting, I am happy and contented because I know now how much trust the community has to me. And the opposers don't think I have learned from the "Nazi" part, and I respect that. I apologize, again, to the WMF for my offensive words against them, as I really disagree and frustrated with their actions that time (and I still disagree, but I don't want to participate on that drama again). I won't and will never say that word against any user or body, ever. And if I do so, feel free to place a 2 week block on me and all alternate accounts. I hope one day, we would have more admins, who are willing to reduce the admin backlog, and at the same time have good behaviour which is needed by all admins. Diligent, trustworthy, kind, friendly, hardworking, willing to accept and apologize, and not afraid to fight fear against socks, vandals, and LTAs. Furthermore, I hope that we would reduce admins who are sarcastic, hot-headed, dramatic, aggressive, and trollish.

Thank you to all of those who have participated in this discussion. If the backlog is still high and we are still insufficient of good and willing admins after a year, I am planning to run for another RfA, one to two years from now. Have an advanced merry Christmas and happy new year everyone. ★ Poké95 12:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Pokéfan95&oldid=226780581"