Commons:Requests and votes/N

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

N

Closing early ... After some communication with the candidate and some introspection, I'm taking it on myself to close this early. It is not likely that there will be consensus to promote at this time. Prolonging this doesn't seem in the best interests of anyone. I would strongly encourage N to take the feedback received on board, spend a bit more time working with commons folk and perhaps try again later. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links for N: N (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

N has been around since June 2007. He has made a ton of edits, with plenty of experience in lots of areas including uploading new images, participating in admin areas such as deletion requests, the village pumps and noticeboards, and of course image tagging/nominating. He's very knowledgable on areas relating to image copyright, unlike many admins, and from what I've seen of him he will make a great addition to the admin team. Majorly (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accept the nomination. I must say rather bashfully I don't consider myself "very" knowledgable.. I just try to read the relevant texts when necessary. -N 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I should just withdraw this train wreck. I don't know why people say I'd be hasty with the tools, I mean I enjoy being being bold in discussions, but that's the point, in discussions you are only one voice, and someone else makes the decisions. I would not use the tools in the same way, when you are the ultimate authority. -N 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Strong  Support as nominator. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)I feel awful for doing this - I've never gone back on a nomination before, but the opposes here are pretty compelling, and they sadden me. Consider my position abstained. Majorly (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose N does not exhibit the traits I look for in an admin. Very active on COM:DEL, but sometimes causes more work for us than is necessary. I'm sure he would make heavy use of the tools but I do not feel comfortable with that. He's indiscreet and rash in his actions concerning deletion and copyright issues. He does not take the time to look into things and acts on impulse and misunderstandings instead of discussing things beforehand. To highlight a few of my reasons (some are deleted edits, sorry non-admins): Tagging deletion requests with speedy deletes while insulting the nominator.[1][2] Marking images as lacking permission or nominating them when it's pretty clear there's no problem. Either a misunderstanding of what licenses really mean or to merely point out the faults of others.[3][4][5][6] On the other side, nominating obvious copyvios for regular deletion.[7][8][9] Doesn't demonstrate he's knowledgeable about copyright laws, and while admins aren't required to be, he does make it appear that he is and I believe his misunderstandings would also affect his decisions as an admin.[10][11] Renominating that flag while all the other discussion was going on. Creating an offensive username to make a point.[12]. Some more diffs/DRs to help illustrate my reasons for opposing: [13]&[14][15][16][17] Sorry for listing so many examples— I don't feel any of them in themselves are reasons to oppose, but taking this users contribs on the whole, there is good reason. (Nothing personal N.) Rocket000 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's take this one by one. Asking for deletion of Image:Maome.jpg on religious grounds is vandalism, plain and simple. Such users constantly blank and nominate these files for deletions on such grounds. This is not consistent with Commons ideals of freedom of cultural works. Go back and read freedomdefined.org if you have no clue what I mean. Asking for deletion of images where the user said the work was "fair use" is appropriate. Fair use is not acceptable on Commons, and we routinely delete images where there is a difference between the tagged license and the uploader's intent (such as saying "non-commercial use only"). If someone uploads a file as pd-self and then says they are granting you fair use to it, how do you know whether they truly understand the license they are granting? In the case of Image:SD_Dop04a_Textil_m_lad_altartavel_bryssel_1509.JPG, the closing admin agreed the law on the matter is "stupid" and there have been debates on Commons over whether to enforce the pd-art policy in countries where it does not apply (and in cases such as the Mona Lisa, Commons outright ignores the policy). The image was from 1509, it is reasonably debateable whether a publication right should lie to it. The last set of diffs you give prove nothing, they are standard Commons operations. -N 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you feel they are, that is why I oppose. Many people misuse the term "fair use", most likely because of en.WP excessive use of it—they really mean "free use". When someone says "fair use granted as long as long as you credit me" they obviously don't understand what fair use means. Nominating these shows that either you don't understand what it means also, or you're doing it to point out the misunderstandings of others. As for the Mohammad nominations, I agree they're not appropriate grounds for deletion, however, that's not how we deal with them and calling someone an vandal and Muslim extremist doesn't help. (I don't see how nominating on religious grounds is any different then from political or cultural grounds, BTW). We don't ignore our PD-art policy because of date or subject of the original. I'm of the opinion that "neighboring rights" is "stupid" too, but I still respect Commons' policy on it. N, as a user, I have no problem with you. I appreciate much of the work you do here. It's not that. It's just that certain characteristics you show aren't ones I think are ideal for admins. Rocket000 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mona_Lisa.jpg. The closing admin basically admitted he was ignoring the PD-art policy. His argument was we need to have a discussion of it on the meta level, rather than argue it in individual image. If we had deleted all Mona Lisa pictures users would be up in arms. But a 1509 watercolor by an unknown artist, well then that's different. Nobody cares about that. That's the point I'm trying to make. There should be consistency in precedent. We should treat one work no different from another just because we like one more. -N 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Believe me, I know we need to seriously rethink our policy on this. I've tried starting discussion on it. I even used my own photoshoped Mona Lisa to illustrate how ridiculous these rules are, but I got us nowhere. We're not on the same page here. Some admins keep these PD-art images, some delete them. I do neither. I tried to change the policy instead, but that didn't work. I understand where you're coming from but reverting someone that was following guidelines is what I was referring to. Rocket000 19:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - no, Rocket000. Requests for Speedy deletions because of such Nonsense are absolute correct. And to cancel own requests is also OK. Youre argumentation doesent work. Marcus Cyron 07:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an argument, it's a rationale for opposing. Your views may differ. Rocket000 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Comment There is a real sense in which I would prefer this to all be left alone. However given the user's wish to leave this live I have to point out that the withdrawal statement saying I would not use the tools in the same way, when you are the ultimate authority shows a significant misunderstanding of adminship to me. Admins are not the ultimate authority they are folk with a few tools who deal with garbage mostly. Particularly on Commons the "glory" goes to the great photographers whose work we have here. Maybe reflect on that before your next RfA - thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are wrong. Admins are ultimate authority. They have the power to make decisions over whether to delete an image, close a FPC, block a vandal etc. The argument that they "deal with garbage mostly" is simple untrue. Admins do have ultimate authority. Majorly (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience dealing with admins on en.wiki, I notice they can make articles and images disappear and block people in dubious cases, and other admins are reluctant to overturn these decisions. They are accountable, but in close cases most admins will go with the stare decisis. -N 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin are suppose to be a conduit of the Community's view. If a decision from a discussion is not clear, it is expected that admins get further input either from other admins or the Community. This works well on Commons, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like everyone is looking over my shoulder whenever I do admin-related tasks. I think any administrator who thinks s/he is the "ultimate authority" is apt to see a lot of criticism and nomination for de-administration if s/he persists. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are only regular users that have some additional tools to help with maintenance. Nothing personal, and there should not be anything personal about it. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:01, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/N&oldid=33084266"