Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pvmoutside

Pvmoutside

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (14/14/3); Scheduled to end 15:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Pvmoutside (talk · contribs) – I've been an editor since 2006, and I've been spending most of my time in Wikiproject Birds and lately some in Wikiproject Fishes. My efforts have been to keep taxonomy pages up to date, although I have done some reverting of vandalism, and other edits that are incorrect (see Goldfish for a recent update.Pvmoutside (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The reason for my request is so I can have the ability to delete redirects if a species page is locked if the page needs to be moved (see a recent edit I've done on Pomarine jaeger). With that and other edits, I would request another admin for the delete and move, and all have granted my requests. By becoming an admin, I would no longer need to bother them. Any controversial changes have been always discussed prior to my changes. I have a current request to admin Casliber for 14 fish species page moves that could be done by myself, so Casliber could be involved with something else Cas could be more interested in doing. If granted adminship, I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Best efforts were collaboration on the bird article, a cleanup of goldfish. My tendency is to make articles up to date and accurate as possible given it is a volunteer effort.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: So there was some pushback on my statement of my perception of no recent edit conflicts. So let me try to explain a bit more. I have had discussions with other editors over controversial edits. They normally start with a questioning back and forth before we both reach consensus. If no consensus is reached, then I usually take it to the wikiproject for a larger consensus discussion...And, I do not stress over any of those discussions..Pvmoutside (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Ritchie333

(note, I have supported, this question is intended to strengthen the support from other people and avoid opposes; don't answer if you don't want to)

4. A brand new user creates an article. It reads : "Bazz Ward was a great roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz." What actions, if any, would you take?

A:

Additional question from User:Drmies

5. Pvmoutside, a few admin colleagues are in hot water right now. One current case, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise.2C_again, boils down to whether an admin can unilaterally unblock someone who was blocked indefinitely following an AN/ANI discussion (as some argue, "de facto-community banned). What do you think? I'm not necessarily asking for a grand exposition of policy--I'm interested in your judgment. Thank you.

A:

Additional question from Ahecht

6. It sounds like your primary reason for requesting adminship, swapping a redirect with its target page, could be done with the Page mover permission by performing a round-robin page move. Do you have an actual desire to work on page protection and user blocking, or would becoming a page mover be sufficient for you?

A:

Additional question from Newyorkbrad

7. Would you be willing to address the concern a couple of people have raised below about your edit summary usage, but setting your preferences (as I have done) to prompt you for an edit summary when you forget to include one?

A:

Additional question from Glrx

8. You uploaded a picture of Representative Stephanie Murphy on 11 January 2017. You identified the source of the image as https://www.facebook.com/RepStephMurphy/ and claimed the picture was public domain: that is, that some person had waived copyright. The copyright holder is not identified. Who holds the copyright? Where is the public domain grant?

A:

Discussion

• Links for pvmoutside: Pvmoutside (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for pvmoutside can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. support pvmoutside will be using tools for gnome-work. He is sensible and has the best interests of the 'pedia at heart. I highly doubt he is going to do anything untoward. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
2. support Thanks for being willing to take on these additional responsibilities. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - seems like a thoughtful user who engages in productive discourse and will make use of the tools. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Normally, Cas's OK would be enough for me, and I support giving the bit to gnomes who don't have a history at the drama boards, WP:AIV, etc. but who want use it for maintenance. That might be a tough sell to the normal RFA crowd, but I like it. Plus thru-hiking the AT counts towards a support too. My only concern is the stated willingness to help by "blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing". I wish pvmoutside would reconsider that; I won't oppose over it, because they seem like a clueful sort and they seem pretty unlikely to be too aggressive, but that's not a great area for a new admin to offer to wade into without any significant vandalism fighting experience, or dispute resolution experience, or familiarity with blocking "norms". If you agree not to block anyone without checking with another admin first, at least for a while until you're more familiar, I'll make this a full-throated support; right now it's a bit more hesitant than normal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   That is the plan......I offered the other services in a way to best help Wikipedia. I know even experienced admins have trouble over blocking and unblocking editors....I would check with other admins before taking any action I am unfamiliar with....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   Well then, "full-throated" it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Support - Pvoutside is one of those editors doing great work in the background that no one ever hears about. Specifically, they have a BS degree in wildlife biology and their editing definitely reflects that. They've created over 900 scientific article stubs for various animals and 2600 helpful redirects. The admin tools would assist them in their article creation by allowing them to make non-controversial deletions and page moves to improve this space of the encyclopedia. Pvmoutside is responsive and civil in explaining their actions to others as can be evidenced by their userpage and they can be counted on to avoid controversy. I think Pvmoutside would make a great addition to the admin corps.--v/r - TP 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Support clear understanding of role and responsibilities w/ no indications of misusing the mop-and-bucket. Dlohcierekim 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Support with reservations With over a decade's tenure, a clean block log, and extensive and nontrivial taxonomic gnome work, the candidate has demonstrated a need for some admin tools and a reliable temperament. I have reservations about his ability to communicate clearly with other editors (e.g. in Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_37#Requested_edit and User_talk:Pvmoutside/Archive_1#Alectroenas_nitidissima), as well as his "fluency" in WP policy and conventions (e.g. User_talk:Pvmoutside/Archive_1#Lists_of_Caribbean_reptiles_and_amphibians, User_talk:Pvmoutside#IUCN_updates); however, I do not believe these problems will interfere with his using the tools as stated, and he seems unlikely to go too far beyond this remit. FourViolas (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Seems trustworthy enough. Welcome to the team :) WaggersTALK 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
9. Support I had concluded at the recent WP:ORCP that I would support an RfA, and the concerns about Q3 were addressed immediately. No other issues. A lack of experience with obscure template formatting is something that can be learned "on the job" and is easily fixable anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
10. Support, but... an RfA might get ugly fairly quick, and my reading of Q1 is "I want to be able to overwrite redirects, and since I need to show I will be a useful admin I volunteer for some dirty work". As hinted to in the general discussion below, the first part seems to be covered by the page mover user right, which would probably be granted without much noise, so I would suggest that Pvmoutside withdraw the RfA if that is all they need. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
11. Support. This editor will make good and careful use of the tools. I've never seen anything to give me cause for concern, no reservations at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
12. Support: No issues overall and per my comment at RFAP. Good luck with the mop! KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
13. Support notwithstanding my comment below. Candidate's most serious misconduct is evident in a few unpaired bracket and disambiguation link notices in their talk archive, none of them recent. They've created over 3,600 (!) articles and another 2,600+ redirects, plus 400-ish templates in their 10+ years. 90,000+ edits, 82% of which are in article space. Lack of participation in administrative functions is apparent, but I don't see any cause to be concerned about carelessness on this candidate's part. As Ritchie333 observed below, they're able to recognize when they've made mistakes and work quickly to correct. Good luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
14. Support: Superlative content work, low drama. I'm not sure why adminship is required for a motivation that seems covered by WP:PAGEMOVER, though. I'd be glad to have clarification about that, purely out of curiosity. Given the tenure, I don't think adminship would be inappropriate even if that's the only part of the tool they are really interested in. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Support - Pvmoutside has an excellent knowledge of the moving policy and if they do move into other areas, it will be slowly and with the advice of other, more knowledgeable admins. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Support: Anyone with this experience of content creation (how many articles?!), with no real drama and a very collegial approach, should almost get adminship automatically. While the page mover right might be sufficient for the main stated intention here, having access to the rest of the toolbox should be of benefit and I see extremely low risk in granting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Support. Discussion here so far shows that the candidate is a trustworthy editor who has done a lot of content work. The nomination and answers demonstrate a clear benefit from getting admin tools. (See also my analysis in #General comments below on why this editor deserves more than PMR.) Deryck C. 17:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Support' No apparent difficulties. As with most admins, I suspect that once you start with the main work you want the tools for, you'll soon start using them more broadly. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Support per DGG and Boing.Kablammo (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Support as a net positive move for the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Support candidate is a net positive. In my opinion, the lack of need for the tools is irrelevant and the mistakes in transcluding the RfA hardly disqualify the candidate. Lepricavark (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
8. Support as a net positive. Not transcluding correctly, while maybe a high-visibility mistake, is (I think) practically irrelevant. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
9. Support - don't see any issues at all. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
10. Support I must say, this is not your 'average' RFA candidate. I get the point that he has barely any experience in the traditional admin areas, but what he does have is thousands of edits over a decade of editing experience, which is more than enough in my opinion. Let's face it: he's not going to suddenly become a prolific AFD closer, blocker or page protector. What I am sure of is he will tread carefully, and continue as he has always done so since 2006 - edit, create, write, discuss, collaborate. Should he feel the need to venture into those areas, I know he will do so with extra caution. With the addition of some extra tools, that I am sure that will come in useful from time to time, I'm sure this candidate as an admin will only be a net positive. Aiken D 19:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
11. Support Long-time dedicated editor. I don't doubt that he would be careful as a new admin, and would learn as he goes. Daphne Lantier 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
12. Support per Floquenbeam. Andrevan@ 21:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
13. Support Find the oppose rationals weak. Editors have too much of a habit of looking at bare statistics and blowing up minor mistakes in an attempt to find a reason to oppose instead of looking at whether giving the editor the tools will be a net positive. Nothing gives me any doubt about that and I couldn't care less that they struggled to transclude this properly and I cringe when I see the usual "no need" !votyes trotted out. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Tentative oppose. The candidate has given a good reason for the tools, but the botched RfA insertion gives me pause.[1] O Fortuna raises the issue below, but the candidates's response "....I did read the instructions, and I thought I was entering information correctly" just makes me more queasy. I pawed through some parts of deleted (not archived) user talk page, and I land here.[2][3][4] I don't like even mild issues (no harm, no foul) erased.[5][6] Look at User talk page history for deleted topics. Not being careful, not following directions, and not paying attention are not a good mix. I'll need more time to look through things, and I hope to change my mind, but .... Glrx (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose: Seeing the issue that happened, plus the fact that a few of his requested actions can be just done with WP:PMR. I just feel that it's unnecessary to promote this user to admin so far. I'll be waiting to see the response to Question 6 to see if that'll change my opinion. —JJBers 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC) (Changing to full oppose)
3. Oppose. Zero activity in administrative or tasks or areas, zero need for the tools, zero edit summaries, deletes rather than archiving many important talkpage posts [7] (I'm not talking about bot notices), absenteeism at AfD (has only participated in 9 Afds in 10.5 years and 95,000 edits) [8]. "The reason for my request is so I can have the ability to delete redirects" is absolutely the weakest RfA rationale I have ever seen. This is a very strong no for me. Although this is a very good content creator and encyclopedist, this is not administrative material at all. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   The edit summary tool shows about an 80% edit summary rate. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose – You're a workhorse content creator and you've clearly made Wikipedia a better place over the last decade. If adminship were an editing award, you'd have my vote. I'll be frank, though: this nomination seems extremely rushed. Yesterday you posted your nomination statement directly to the main RfA page without following any of the instructions about creating a subpage and transcluding it. That's the kind of mistake you'd expect from a WP:NOTNOW-caliber user. Your main rationale for requesting the tools seems to be general housekeeping like moving pages over redirects. That's a perfectly good reason; for this purpose, the admin tools still provide many benefits over the page mover right. However, in an effort to appease the WP:NONEED crowd, you've appended your statement with an off-hand remark that "I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages". This was a mistake. Since you've indicated a desire to work in just about every major administrative area, you'll be expected to show experience in those realms. You want to work in blocking, but you've never edited AIV or UAA. You're happy to help with page protection, but you've never edited RFPP. I think you can probably guess where this is going. Normally I'm willing to overlook a lack of time spent at admin noticeboards if there's extensive behind-the-scenes work of a different nature, like building up WikiProject infrastructure, but your last 250 projectspace edits go back to 2007. Adminship is very much a learn-on-the-job deal, but not exclusively so. Per Glrx, neglecting to satisfy attribution requirements and then sweeping plagiarism warnings under the rug is not a good look for a prospective admin, especially when done multiple times. Finally, I think your on-wiki communication practices could stand to be improved. In particular, your edit summary usage is comparatively low; while this doesn't matter in many cases, like when replying on a talk page, large removals of article content like [9] and [10] need to be explained. I'm sure you wouldn't deliberately abuse the tools or cause any serious damage, but I'm just not satisfied that you're ready for this particular role. Sorry and best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Firstly, the candidate's inability to transclude the nomination properly worries me, and secondly, mainly per Softlavender, you have zero experience in administrator areas and I cannot support a candidate who has little experience in admin areas. Sorry. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. It's reasonable. I just want to say that we have made transcluding RFAs to be a huge pain in the ass. I'm a software developer and I fudged it on both of my RfAs.--v/r - TP 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

6. Oppose, per Julian. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Softlavender and Juliancolton. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose for now. I am impressed by this editor's work and not concerned about a number of the issues raised, like transcluding. I am concerned about some of the issues raised by Juliancolton regarding communication, though "sweeping plagiarism warnings under the rug" dramatically overstates the problem. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   Hi Gamaliel. How so? Anyone is free to remove just about anything from their talk pages at will, but the candidate has blanked warnings (both templated and hand-written) about providing attribution at least four times ([11], [12], [13], [14]) between August 2016 and April 2017, apparently without acknowledging them or addressing their central problem. This doesn't leave a bad taste for you? It's possible that I'm overlooking something, but a quick look suggests to me that the attribution concerns were valid. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   I share your concerns about this and voted oppose partially on this basis, I just disagree with your phrasing, which implies deliberate deception about something which might be more charitably attributed to ignorance. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

9. Oppose I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages. The candidate has hardly any experience of any of these areas: there isn't any record of edits to AIV, UAA, RFPP etc, or tagging pages for deletion, or significant participation in deletion processes (Pvmoutside has taken part in a handful but not more than that). Based on that I wouldn't trust Pvmoutside to take admin actions in any of those areas. They aren't rocket science but there are things you need to know, you can do damage if you make mistakes and there are plenty of people who wouldn't be trusted with it. It is important that admins know their limitations and avoid performing actions in areas where they don't have the necessary skills (or at best tread very carefully). I suggest applying for the page mover user right instead, which s/he would very likely get and which would take care of the main reason for requesting adminship. Hut 8.5 19:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
10. Sorry - while you're clearly a good, committed editor I think you need to brush on what admins do/need to do. GiantSnowman 20:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose I could have overlooked the mistake when forming this RfA regardless of the seemingly rushed nature of the nomination. I really could have. I can't overlook the lie in response to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's comment.[15] They did not read the instructions. That much is painfully clear. Anyone who even glances at the instruction page should be able to understand that nominations are on subpages. Even brand new NOTNOW editors understand that. Saying that they did look at them instead of just owning up to the mistake is unbecoming of an administrator. You must be able to admit when you are wrong if you are going to have the mop. Saying that they will learn as they go is also iffy at this juncture since that would require actually pausing and taking the time to read instructions. Sorry --Majora (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose - I never like sitting here in this spot; especially since your creations and expansions have been very good. But there are things pointed out above that give me pause. The consistent use of edit summaries (especially with content removal), proficient experience filing AIV, CSD, and RFPP reports, as well as solid participation in AFD with detailed rationales - are basic hoops you need to jump through before I consider someone for adminship (based on your statement regarding what administrative areas you want to work in). Your follow-up statement offering also to help with blocking users, protecting pages, and deletion comes with very little experience contributing to these areas as an editor. You're doing good work, but there look to be basic and essential hoops that you haven't made it through that candidates are expected to be proficient at. Sorry. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Juliancolton and Majora....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose. File:Tom Suozzi.jpg was recently uploaded by the candidate under the {{CC0}} license. It simply isn't freely licensed at all. It happens to be public domain for a different reason, and I've fixed the file description page, but falsely claiming an image is licensed a particular way when it is not is a hard no from me. It's not just a simple mistake to select a free license when the image has never been licensed at all. It borders on deceit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Well; this wasn't a good start. As the edit summary says: perhaps should have read the instructions. And I'm sure CasLiber is correct that the tools won't be misused- but understanding instructions is a pretty important part of wielding them. And I have to say, Q3 is rather- weak? A good nominator would probably have prevented that :) Sitting here for now. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   Saw that. There are so few RfA's these days that I felt a bit of awkwardness in setting the thing up was not a problem, as it's becoming a lost art. Dlohcierekim 15:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   Sorry O Fortuna....I did read the instructions, and I thought I was entering information correctly.....I think I have fixed the information you require.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   As far as I can tell, the RfA was transcluded prematurely, and Pvmoutside did a "quick scramble" to fix the issues. That actually strengthens my support rationale. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I'm convinced; but thanks all for the replies. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not convinced either. The RfA subpage could not be transcluded because it didn't exist. The botched edit to the RfA page was 20:36 1 May 2017.[16] Majora reverted it at 20:39.[17] This subpage was created at 20:45.[18] Glrx (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning oppose. While I don't have huge expectations for admins (unless they made mistakes that indicate bad judgment or clue problems), I don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has even problems following the RfA instructions and writes his nomination directly on WP:RFA. Adminship is not a big deal but we should at least have candidates who we can expect to read and follow instructions in areas they are not familiar with. Also, admins should be able to communicate, which imho includes always using edit summaries to explain edits. The candidate's edit summary usage is fairly low, not even explaining 2 out of 3 minor edits in Main Space and not a single edit to this very page. The candidate's explicit declaration that they plan only to use the tools in a limited area stop me from opposing at this time. I might reconsider when I had time to review the candidate's contributions more thoroughly. Regards SoWhy 20:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Well... I would likely !vote weak support if the candidate would confine their work to page moving and only move out after reading multitudes of policy pages multiple times, or reporting things to AIV and such before using the tools in whatever area. The oppose vote of Majora is something to take a look at, certainly. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• pvmoutside is rather [YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER], in my opinion. Mélencron (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mélencron: Not sure I understand you? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed by nominator. Mélencron (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Candidate appears to need the tools to move pages over redirects. A WP:PAGEMOVER can do this as a round-robin move, yes? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: yeah, quite effectively --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Several editors suggested that the candidate's rationale for requesting adminship would be fulfilled by performing round-robin moves as WP:PMR. I disagree with this analysis, because the candidate specifically requested to be able to delete to make way for move. Although moving the existing page to an arbitrary location in draft-space achieves the same result in article space (assuming public visibility of the deleted page history isn't a concern), it is not the same thing. The candidate's statement didn't say it out loud but I think candidate would also benefit from being able to WP:HISTMERGE given the kind of content work he's trying to do. Deryck C. 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Any user should also be able to move a page over a redirect if it doesn't have any significant history. I know that's not the same thing, admins can move anything over anything, just pointing it out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

---

• @Glrx: As a point of copyright law, "waiving copyright" is legally meaningless in many jurisdictions. The law is not that clear in the United States on this matter, but in the UK, for instance, courts have ruled that "releasing something into the public domain" doesn't carry legal meaning and certainly isn't irrevocable as required of all free licenses on the English Wikipedia. To functionally waive copyright in a way that is binding internationally, one must release it under a license such as CC0, which states that you irrevocably declare that anyone may use the image without any conditions to the extent allowable by law. You still hold the copyright, but the license is a defense against infringement for anyone who uses the image. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)