Commons:Requests and votes/OsamaK

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 29;  Oppose = 12;  Neutral = 1 - 69% Result = unsuccessful. Unfortunatly political considerations and cultural differences took their toll in this case. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OsamaK

Vote

Links for OsamaK: OsamaK (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Today i was checking some user's and their contributions so i was checking OsamaK work here i was thinking that he is already admin here but after checking i saw he is not .so hereby i would like to nominate him to for adminship here.he has more 6000 edit and more than 7000 deleted edits here .so i am pretty sure he would be a very good addition to the admin's team.And he his also sysop and crat on arwiki --Mardetanha talk 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trusting, Mardetanha. I accept, and I'll work hard for the project.--OsamaK 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

For the sake of fairness you should to the same with File:Anti Japan.svg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there are many other similar logos in Category:Anti logos. Should all of therm be deleted? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but those which are clearly hate/political-propaganda and thus out of the projects scope, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your own rule or a written policy? If it is not you cannot ask me to follow it, otherwise I'll be called 'illegal'. There are so many 'political-propaganda' images there.--OsamaK 19:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not the place to discuss this. But Spacebirdy tagged a couple of these images for speedy deletion without consensus on this subject. --ALE! ¿…? 12:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand, let's apply this rule on all flags or simply not, Israel, Saudi Arabia, United States, or others, have no spacial method to work with. Mutter Erde, Kjetil r, Syrcro, Herrick and other Israel flag guys: I'm not the only supporter of keeping this flag: Rama (as an admin) is one. It restored by admin Mattbuck after a request by Mike.lifeguard, who is the third supporter admin in this issue; So tell me if there is any conflict between admin tools and this image. Wikimedia Commons is a place for serving user page images, and No Israel was one. No Israel thing is summed up here. Delete all or keep all, no matter.--OsamaK 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about this image can't be seen the worst kind of insult, respect for religions is much more important than respect for the states and logos, {..}Wikimedia is not Israelis and atheists foundation, Wikimedia Foundation is for all. On the one hand you demand respect for religion, on the other hand you make propaganda against Israel. How should I trust you? sугсго 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed anti-x stuffs, Some think that we must respect states, and we can do whatever else, I just said that Commons allows even anti-religions images, therefore anti-states must be allowed. (which are less sensitive)--OsamaK 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the second image has been uploaded in May 2007, before your account even created, the point is that I was just started editing for Wikimedia, and have no much information on this task. I'll fix it later.--OsamaK 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose based on anti-Israel flag. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Support. I totally support OsamaK, who is a dedicated Wikipedian, neutral and just. I have worked with him for the past 16 months and have voted for him once before.
    I have more than 25,000 edits in the Arabic Wikipedia, and have uploaded quite a number of photos and images here at Commons (You could check this out). So I assume I have a high level of understanding of the policies that govern our operations.
    All of OsamaK’s practices and edits have been neutral, including the creation of the Israeli no flag, which is simply very much like items in this category Category:Anti logos. This is most definitely no proof that he adopts this policy, otherwise he would have used it himself in his personal pages.
    The Image was created in Jan 2008, how come no one objected since. Why now, is it because of the voting.
    I challenge all, if anyone could come up with one single act of none-neutrality, that OsamaK has created while being a system operator or a bureaucrat.
    Osama will be an asset to Wikimedia Commons.--Producer (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blah Blah Blah. You should inform yourself before you want to do Osama a favor. The Image was created in Jan 2008, how come no one objected since. LOL, see this:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:No_Israel.svg.
Btw: I am considering a deadmin of 2 admins. mattbuck, who has undeleted Osama's flag, because another admin named Julo has closed a DR on his self created Anti-Israel flag as "kept". This was mattbuck's reason to undelete Osama's hate propaganda too. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. A look at his edits here amazed me. I have a few images uploaded here, however I am a Sysop at WP Ar and check tens of images daily over there. I believe the image in concern above or any other of the images here could not be easily accepted by many people, however these are images that exist in the real world used by a wide range of people (regardless what these people think) and i dont see any of them out of the scope of the commons project for the time being. When we have a policy for deleting most the images over there in that Cartegory which represent the others openion I belive OsamaK will be the first one to execute that policy. --Ciphers (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Osamak is an excellent adminsrator in the Arabic Wikipedia. His contributions here show that he is capable of doing the job. There are many anti-states images here, this images are used in userboxes and in various articles.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I agree with WJBscribe. As for the "illegal" (really?) and "deeply offensive" (not censored?) image, what about File:Flag of the UK crossed.png or File:Anti EU flag.svg or File:Anti-UN.svg or File:Socialism-no.svg? The diffs which have been advanced in opposition seem like weak stuff to me. So I  Support this candidacy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support because of File:No Israel.svg! Why? Because this is what freedom is about. Everybody should be able to express his/her views or shoudl be able to create whatever image he wants as long as he/she stays within the legal limits (which here is the case). BTW: Although OsamaK uploaded this image. It is not used anywhere and especially not on his user page. So please all, calm down a little bit and reconsider. --ALE! ¿…? 12:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Osama upload an unused pic? Just wait for a week. Or wait until eternity. Mutter Erde (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No! None should express his political opinion in such a way here. This is Wikimedia Commons. We want to bring people together. Not to support this mess. Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter Erde, there is no need to comment on every opinion that is differnt from yours. So Please, if you have any comments, there is a comment section further down. --ALE! ¿…? 19:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is we? You? Mutter Erde (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you think you're argumentation is more worth than ours? Little bit arrogant, don't you? Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he thought his argument was less valuable then yours, then he would adopt your argument. J.smith (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Well, Maxim: I definitely didn't agree with your action and still, I simply friendly asked you to do something about it and you didn't, I went civilly to COM:AN, asked admins about their options, and finally, it has done successfully for me. Can anybody see any attacks or breaking policies by me in this issue? Kanonkas: Give me one example of 'taking things personally' to discuss about, I'm always cool (or trying to be as possible), See previous discussion with Maxim as an example for that; Otherwise it is a very wide sentence, should mean nothing alone. PD thing is very clear, we discussed many times before the issue of PD sources, and I stopped tagging while doing that, and we got nothing but time losing, Also, many and many photos I've tagged are now deleted for this reason, that's meaning that there are many agreed admins. Policies are clear, Wiki can never ever forget.--OsamaK 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this, OsamaK concurs with Commons policy that explicitly states that the source must be given and that this information is to be given even if it is not required by the license or copyright laws. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source was given in the image. If he had bothered looking at the image before tagging it as {{Nsd}}, he would have seen where and when it was published. --Kjetil_r 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect as source either an URL somewhere from the Internet, or a citation where it was scanned from, or a statement that it was scanned from an original print. Even if this is not important to determine its legal status, it is helpful to know where a particular image came from. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that certainly would not hurt, but the lack of such information is no reason to tag an otherwise perfectly fine public domain image as “no source.” --Kjetil_r 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I had very long list of unsourced image; yeah, I tagged some book scanned page wrongly, and should be fixed, but this is a very rare case. I've added a thumb of each image, and I'll be careful about this mistake. Such mistake should mean nothing, I already tagged many images in the perfect way.--OsamaK 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is good enough for me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my opinion that any votes based purely on an opinion on ONE SINGLE BLOODY DELETION REQUEST should not be counted. It's very clear that the anti-israel issue divides the community, so whoever has looked at that page could be denied on that basis by 50% of the community. If people can't come up with any other reasons to deny an RfA, it sounds like they have no real objections to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are trivializing the issue. It does not surprise me that people are put off by the attitude exemplified by the Anti- flags. In an international project like commons I find it sad and disheartening to find this crap. Whether that is a reason to delete it is an entirely different question which has nothing to do with this RfA. I just don't think admins should advocate it, and as such the issue is pertinent to this RfA. --Dschwen (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, you have some point I guess, though I generally feel that a single action/opinion is unlikely to be a reason not to give someone adminship. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deeply agree with Dschwen (international project, sad, disheartening). Although it gives me an inconvenient feeling about this request, I'm on the other hand not able to support or oppose it, because I don't know Osama well enough to judge over his general work. --Elya (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Osama

  1. Why have you tagged William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905): The Difficult Lesson (1884)? Mutter Erde (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter, Do you really want to have a fair clear conversation about my past actions, or is it just a usual polemic? AFAIK, The Difficult Lesson is not the book name or such thing which could be a source; Well I didn't do anything wrong, neither Polarlys -who restored my edit-: basically the image has no source check its "Source" field right now, but I had no enough knowledge on how to tag many images and noticing the uploader. Polarlys didn't restore my tag because he think it's wrong, he did that because I tagged many files without noticing their uploader, this mistake has never been again. I'll not talk about PD source, there were many discussion about it in village pump and you were a part in some of them, and you know for who they ended. You are welcome, go now, open a new discussion, I'll join you, but don't tell me that I'm wrong while tagging PD-olds. Don't open this topic here, this is a RfA, nothing else.--OsamaK 10:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear users though i am not very pleased with anti Israel flag or any other anti flag .but to be fair Osama has done a very impressive job in commons and one single image is not a reason to oppose a user --Mardetanha talk 15:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting due to lack of contribs, but !vote. I fail to understand how the flag controversy can affect this rfa (you may see my point if you know how much I disagree with his 'bad-vista' sequel). What matters here is his help to Commons (and Commons' need of his help). Санта Клаус (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/OsamaK&oldid=36532480"