This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.
When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights!
Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.
It is preferable if you give reasons both for Support votes or Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Purge the cache. Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.
Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
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.
talking about legal questions relating to GLAM activities in 2018......about personality rights at Wikimania 2016......and about EU copyright reform at Italian WikiCon in 2018
Hello, and thank you for allowing me to put myself forward as an administrator.
As a media and IT lawyer from Hamburg, Germany, I have been a Wikipedian since 2005 and have been contributing to Commons since 2006/2007. Between 2014 and 2022, I was also a member of the board of Wikimedia Deutschland. Adding to my professional background, I was a legal fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation during the summer of 2013, and one of the privacy ombudspeople from 2014 until 2017. Over the years, I have been active on several Wikimedia projects in the field of copyright and personality rights – some of you may have seen me talk about these topics at Wikimanias and WikiCons, or in the copyright forum over at German-language Wikipedia. You may also have seen me file or contribute to occasional deletion requests on Commons, most of them relating to copyright-related issues.
My most relevant contribution as an administrator would probably be my experience around copyright law and personality rights, both from my 'day job' as well from my regular contributions in these areas a Wikimedian. Actually, my doctoral thesis on German and European copyright protection for works of applied art was inspired by a discussion on Wikipedia and Commons. Accordingly, you would certainly see most (if not all) of my activities as an administrator around legal questions relating to photos and other media on Commons.
In summary, I am hoping that while I may currently not be one of the most active users on Commons, my legal experience will prove useful to the Commons community. Thank you for considering my candidacy, and please let me know if you have any questions. I can respond in English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish. --Gnom (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No recent activity in admin releated areas, not shown what admin rights are intended to be used for, and the mentioned intended activities don't require admin rights at all. --Krd 17:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think it would be good if they had the mop. Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Copyright expertise will be valuable. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Oppose similar as Krd. Reading your CV, I also believe you might be a good admin for commons, but maybe you should also be editing a bit more. I'd likely support if you were to run after you've made some impact in the discussions around copyright.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The candidate makes a clear case for useful past experience but doesn't present any need for the tools. An expert on German copyright law would be quite useful on the copyright noticeboard or in related deletion discussions, but neither role requires admin rights. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I agree with above commenters. Copyright expertise is valuable, undoubtedly, but you could first show your skills by participating in RFDs, requesting speedy deletions, reporting copyright violations, etc.. Had you started that way, I would have supported wholeheartedly. Bedivere (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Obviously a decent candidate but without real involvement in community/admin issues it is not possible for me to support sadly (looks like 4 DRs have been created in about 6 months). Herbytalk thyme 08:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral his recent activity looks ok.--RZuo (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)--RZuo (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. Concerns with limited recent experience in admin-related areas -FASTILY 10:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Edit count way too low after 17 years; you should have had at least 30K edits by now. 20upper 13:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not trying to influence your opinion, but how do you come up with this number? Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are requirements that must be fulfilled if an editor genuinely wants to become an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. Every admin should have at least 10,000 edits. If an editor has edited on Wikimedia Commons for five years or fewer, 10,000 edits is a reasonable criterion. I would anticipate roughly 11–20K edits after 6–10 years, above 20K modifications after 11–15 years, and 30+K edits after 16–20 years. If you are serious about Wikimedia Commons, you should be able to meet those standards with ease. Even though I've only been on the site for a year, I've participated in more DRs than they have. They must establish a reputation in that field if they want to use their admin tools there. 20upper 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you but IMO this is completely insane. Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I would like to have you as an admin here. We need everyone who is trustworthy and knows our policies and especially copyright laws. To address the concerns: If we make the requirements for new admins to high we will never get enough people so manage the huge workload. GPSLeo (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per above, furthermore we have plenty of administrators who are less active than the candidate and maybe some of us are even less competent than the candidate. At best they will help, at worst I am sure that no irreparable harm will be done with the tools. Thank you for volunteering. Christian Ferrer(talk) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support looks competent to me, it's all that matters. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support, mostly per Christian Ferrer, very low activity in administrative areas but has good knowledge, I think they can be very helpful to the project, but I hope they will actually use the rights (as said in answer to my question) and don't just hold onto it. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support He can definitely use more experience in the areas he wants to work in. I appreciate the willingness to discuss things in a reasonable, well versed way though and the experience will come with time. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I learned the hard way that Gnom doesn't care about right and wrong when it fits the agenda. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am sorry, but I don't think that this candidacy is a good idea because of the rather low edit count. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I am amazed by the remarks about edit count above, I thought we had evolved past such crude statistics at least 10 years ago. There are many ways to be embedded in the movement and gain the expertise needed for some admin tasks that one million category edits would not give. Ainali (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, per Ainali, GPSLeo, Christian Ferrer, we have too many admins and users not knowing nor caring about copyright and licenses and many useless and reverted edits of some voting here, so the quantity as such is a false criterion Oursana (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Trustworthy user with valuable expertise in copyright issues //Martin K. (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. With fewer than 50 edits on Commons in the month leading up to this nomination - and most of those being trivial changes, like edits to file categories and claims - I'm not convinced you have enough experience on Commons to act as an admin. Your contributions to copyright discussions are certainly appreciated, but have been fairly infrequent; if you can make that more of a habit, I'll happily change this vote on a renomination. Omphalographer (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think we really need more admins, specially people could help with the massive backlog of open DRs we have. He seems to be a good fit for taking some burden out of that massive amount of work. I don't care he can't dedicate 8 hours every day to commons, any small help from experts and trusted people like him is valuable. Amir (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This project definitely needs more admins. Trustable user, lots of legal knowledge and the will to help. It‘s absurd not to accept such offer. NNW 18:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I believe his expertise will definitely benefit the project. --XanonymusX (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Seems to be active on the content side of Commons, and their planned area of administrative work (dealing with copyrights and personality rights) seems to be well within their expertise. Their explanations below on German FOP indicate to me that they will take their role seriously on Commons and that they will use the tools in accordance with community norms. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 03:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Surely a valuable asset, beneficial to Commons as a whole. Arjoopy (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Understands copyright, will not misuse the tools, trusted user. Good enough for me. Julle (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Paradise Chronicle. I'm willing to support if the candidate become more active and gain more experience on administrative stuffs. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: In which administrative areas do you plan to work? -- CptViraj (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @CptViraj, thank you for your question. I am planning to help with deletion requests relating to copyright and personality rights – I also wrote about this above. Does this already answer your question, or is there anything else you would like to know? Gnom (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a flugelhorna clarinet
Responding to some comments above, here are some examples of my 'work' here on Commons.
I regularly file and contribute to deletion requests relating to copyright. Here are some examples:
I recently helped writing the page Commons:AI-generated media, and have given three talks about legal issues relating to AI-created images in the German-language community.
I started the "Wiki Loves Music" project, which has lead to the creation and upload of hundres of images relating to musical instruments, including two enwp featured pictures.
Question You are sysop in test wiki, but you have made there only 1 edit. Why? Taivo (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Taivo, good question :-) – I just checked the log: I was made a sysop on the test wiki in 2014 by Nemo bis to learn about abuse filters in my capacity as privacy ombudsman. I then made my only edit on test wiki in 2017 when XanonymusX asked me to help with a music-related project. Is there anything else you would like to know? Gnom (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Earlier this year you added a comment to a closed deletion discussion and were reverted.[1] As you intend to do admin work in the deletion space, do you understand why you were reverted and how would you handle a similar situation in future? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @From Hill To Shore, I should obviously have followed up with the closing admin on their talk page. (I should probably still do that, because there might actually still be an issue with the painting in that picture. @Reinhard Kraasch had initially fixed it, but now it is back.) Gnom (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this specific case (as an OTRS/VRT ticket is involved) I would advise going to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard as the best option. However, contacting the closing admin directly is also valid as they should redirect you if they can't give an answer themselves. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: My thinking is that as far as I understand, in this case, it has already been clarified that the VRT ticket does not refer to the painting, so we do not have a release for the painting but only for the photograph itself. Gnom (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Rosenzweig, I actually discussed this issue at this year's German-language WikiCon at the end of September. You can see both the slides as well as a video of my talk on this page (in German): de:Wikipedia:WikiCon 2023/Programm/Aktuelles Urheberrecht. This allows me to give a rather nuanced answer to your question (with some jokes thrown in as well, I hope you do not mind). Gnom (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually interested in what your take on them is to since I'm involved in the DRs and it seems like an area you'd be knowledgeable about. Sadly I'm not proficient in German though. Nor probably are a lot of other people reading this. So would you mind summarizing your take on it in English for the people in the room who can't speak German, me included? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, here's the gist:
First, the German law on freedom of panorama (sec. 59 of the German copyright act) talks about works located on public paths, roads or squares. However, in the light of the applicable EU Directive, there is consensus among legal scholars that it must be read to simmply apply to works located in the public.
Accordingly, the question is how to define the word public under German (or EU) copyright law. Unfortunately, there is not a sufficient level of clarity about how this term should be interpreted.
Looking at some specific cases:
Starting from a 1907 (!) judgment of the German Imperial (!) Court of Justice, there is broad consensus among German legal scholars that graveyards do fall under freedom of panorama, even if they are closed at night. User:Pajz gathered the available literature on German-language Wikipedia in an epic footnote.
For train stations (including subway stations), the available scholarship is more or less evenly divided, with no court having decided on the issue so far. There is an even more epic footnote for this question on Wikipedia.
For courtyards belonging to public schools, there is unfortunately no available literature or case law that we know of.
The institutions owning these artworks, i.e. the schools or the public transport companies, do not have the necessary rights, we would instead need to ask the (heirs of the) artists for a license.
In a major departure from the existing jurisprudence, a recent first-instance court judgment even allowed a picture of a building taken from a drone (Frankfurt am Main regional court, judgment of 25 November 2020, case no. 2-06 O 136/20). However, experts are unsure whether this is now really the new norm, or whether it should be regarded as an outlier.
In my talk, I ended by saying that this issue currently boils down to how we shoul apply the Precautionary Principle. Looking at the specific wording of our policy – which states that a file should be deleted whenever there is significant doubt whether a file is free to be used lawfully – I would say that looking at the available legal literature and case law, and considering my practical experience as an attorney working in this very field, it is fair to say that there is some doubt about these pictures, but just not enough to warrant deletion. However, I can understand any admin who would interpret the existing legal situation as well as our current policy differently.
I hope that you find this helpful. Happy to answer any additional questions you have.
Interesting. I do wonder why your on the side of keeping the images of the "laying man" statue in the school yard since as you say there's no available literature or case law to draw from in that case. So it seems like a place to apply the Precautionary Principle if there ever was one. Epecially considering the existence of a fence and whatnot. Same goes for the other DRs where fences are involved really, or do you just not think those types of things matter or effect how "sufficiently dedictated to the public" a place is? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also always a big fence or wall around a graveyard (with a gate locked at night) – and there is broad consensus in the available literature that those fall under freedom of panorama. Maybe we also need to consider the fact that in Germany, schoolgrounds are usually open to the public in the afternoon, with kids playing in the yard, clubs and sports teams using facilities, etc. Gnom (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware of the legal opinions on graveyards, but they seem to be an exception and one that as far as I'm aware has nothing to do with fences. Otherwise you might as well say anywhere with trees is a public place because graveyards have them. Regardless, the guidelines clearly say "Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under § 59(1)." It seems reasonable to assume gated fences are a "type of access control." As to schoolyards being open to the public during certain times, it's not like museums aren't open to the public in the afternoon either. But we'll have to agree to disagree. I at least appreciate the answers even if our opinions about it differ though. Your clearly knowledgeable in the area. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is tricky. The available literature does discuss walls and fences around graveyards in detail, which is why I brought them up. Gnom (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.
Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: upload images, update their description and structured data
Automatic or manually assisted: automatically triggered, when upload happens on OsmAPP.org
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): when user uploads an image on OsmAPP.org
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 20 ?
Bot flag requested:(Y/N): N
Programming language(s): TypeScript
Note: Bot is currently in development, asking to be able to test it. Zbytovsky (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion
Do I get it right? Someone adds an image to osmapp and your bot will transfer it to Commons. If so, how is ensured that the license of that image is a) valid and b) meets Commons' requirements? --Achim55 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achim55 Yes, i think you got it right. As OpenStreetMap is also a open data project, we aim to have open licenses. Please see the design of upload dialog. I tried to write it the best I can, but I welcome any suggestions. It will add images with direct link to OSM feature, which means also proper map coordinates and category (eg. castle, guidepost, school, bridge etc.) Zbytovsky (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko Well, I didn't think of that, thanks for bringing it to my attention :-) As we are a map application, it is pretty easy to inform users based on country of the object. I created a mockup here - it would show up for the "NO" countries. Do you think it is sufficient for the beginning? I don't expect many users soon, but if it turns out to be an issue, it is quite easy to be more restrictive, or eg. check if there is a building in 1km, etc. Zbytovsky (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'll be OK for beginning, but will be good idea to extend database (Wikidata is perfect place to share with WLM if organizers will finally comprehend the need to do so) to include information about sculptress/architects, so it'll be possible to allow what is in public domain. There are also countries with partial freedom of panorama, where photos of buildings are allowed, but not of works of art. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I can reach out to WLM once this become an issue. Zbytovsky (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question! My general approach with these things is to be extremely conservative – imo the V1 bot should be purely additive, and any conflicts should be flagged for manual inspection.
Then a couple of things might happen:
The existing SDC looks wrong, so I make a manual edit from my account to fix it. e.g. I’ve already been looking at the use of source of file (P7482) for Flickr photos in the SDC snapshots, and I found ~200 cases where the URL points to the Flickr URL’s profile (/photos/{username}) rather than the photo itself (/photos/{username}/{photo_id}). Those got dropped on a queue and I’ve been gradually tidying them up by hand – opening the files in question and making a manual edit from my account to point to the more specific URL.
The existing SDC looks right, so I work out why the bot is disagreeing. Is it a bug in my code, have I interpreted the data mapping wrong, is the data mapping at odds with the community approach to SDC, is the bot missing some bit of info on the Flickr photo. But the bot won't do anything on its own.
There might also be cases where the existing SDC is wrong in large numbers and we'd want to write an automated fix, but that's somewhat risky and I’d want to be extremely careful before doing that. Two possible examples spring to mind:
License versions. Flickr photos use CC 2.0 licenses, so that's what the bot will write into the SDC. But what if it finds a Wiki Commons file which links to the 4.0 version of the CC license? That sounds like an easy candidate for a fix buuuut I think there are Flickr users who leave descriptions on their photos saying "I license this as CC 4.0". A human copying their photo across would notice that; the bot might not. So in this case the bot would likely leave it as-is to avoid deleting info.
Date granularity. Flickr has different levels of granularity for "date taken". Most photos are DDMMYY, but there are some which are MMYY or YY or "Circa YY". If there are lots of cases where there's an imprecise data but the SDC claims it's a full DDMMYY, we might consider automating that. (It's pretty obvious when this has happened – Flickr always returns a full timestamp from its API, but it sets all the unknown values to 0/1. So a YYYY becomes taken="1950-01-01 00:00:00" takengranularity="6".) The bot could be written to fix these. But I don't know if that's a widespread issue in practice.
If/when the bot does start editing existing SDC claims, I'll make sure we document those with examples – and if there are cases that seem contentious, I'll bring them back for community discussion before actually implementing them. Alexwlchan (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 I’ll probably get to making some test edits early next week, and I’ll link them here for inspection when they’re done. Alexwlchan (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it’s been a couple of weeks and nothing has happened on this.
I am planning to get back to this bot eventually, but right now I’m prioritising getting the “uploader” part of Flickypedia working. Once that’s done, I’ll come back to the Backfillr bot. Alexwlchan (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tasks: Upload up-to-date maps of Italian municipalities. There are about 8000 municipalities, boundaries are updated yearly by the national statistical agency. Here is an example of image that will be uploaded, the description will be automatically updated for each municipality: [2]
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: upload several images automatically
Automatic or manually assisted: automatic supervised (through OpenRefine)
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run each year
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): I don't know the edit rate allowed using the new OpenRefine function for uploading images. As fast as it can, i suppose.
Just to clarify: Is this to upload as a new version, or to overwrite? If the latter, is there a consensus to do so? I see that those borders include photo credits to the individual photographers, and these are from a respected archive, so I'd just want to make sure that there is agreement that this is desired; I've seen similar situations go either way. Clearly more useful in Wikipedia articles without the borders, but it's not clear to me that we don't want also to host a version with the credit line on the image. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thought is to overwrite. I've not seen any written consensus on the matter, but in practice that's what has been done for years in this category. I think that implies a silent consensus, considering these captions have been digitally added by the archive and provide no additional information not already in the description. Beao (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make some example edits. Krd 17:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Krd 13:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any more information or discussion needed? Beao (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[3] Why is this updated so often? Krd 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Images with watermarks" category is very big, so the retrieval of file usage statistics is batched to a fixed number of images every hour to avoid performance spikes, and I update the gallery after every batch. Is updating gallery pages too often problematic? I could do it less often (I'm thinking if images are not removed from the category), and also avoid doing it when nothing changes. Beao (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please at least don't update when nothing significant changes. Krd 07:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the code to update only on changes now! Beao (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appears to me that there are still too many edits or the statistics pages. (Or is there any relevant work done on these maintenance categories?) Krd 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the code a couple of days ago and did some extra runs to confirm that it worked, and since then the non-changing categories haven't updated. But yeah, I'm also removing watermarks! Beao (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support votes or 
Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Neutral
Weak support, mostly per Christian Ferrer, very low activity in administrative areas but has good knowledge, I think they can be very helpful to the project, but I hope they will actually use the rights (as said in answer to my question) and don't just hold onto it. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Question: In which administrative areas do you plan to work? -- CptViraj (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Aicurzio_(province_of_Monza_e_della_Brianza,_region_Lombardia,_Italy_2023).svg){kind=link}
Centralized discussion
