Commons:Requests and votes/Nick 2

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

Nick


 Support = 12;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 1 + 2 people who essentially "abstained" :) - 75% if you count one way, 92% if you count another way. So guess what, this one isn't just a nose count, it's another one where judgment is required. oh goodie, why do I always get these? There were significant concerns raised about Nick's temperament and judgment by several people (I myself asked a question intended to show my concern) so it comes down to this, is the community satisfied with Nick's answers, and satisfied that Nick will be able to be a good admin? That's a judgment call... but looking at the comments by many, I'm satisfied that the community generally thinks he will be. (more personally, (and I didn't count this in my evaluation!!!), I'm personally satisfied he's taken the point on board and will try hard and will accept feedback more graciously, and if he doesn't I'm going to remind him of what he said here...) Promoted. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

Well, I requested adminship a month ago in an effort to help Commons deal with deletions and other copyright issues. I was rejected because a couple of people were concerned that I didn't have the necessary experience on Commons, so I've been busy over the past month tagging images (mainly complicated derivative works) for deletion, dealing with Freedom of Panorama problems and generally trying to advise on images that need to be deleted and those that don't.

I've also written an essay on Flickr, how to spot copyright violations and other problematic images on the project, and I hope to move that into the Commons namespace shortly (there's a little extra to add) and I have had encouragement from users over the page. I'm a fairly experienced user at Flickr, quite handy with a camera myself, and I don't like to boast, but I'm quite knowledgable when it comes to image copyright law and of course, policy on the Commons.

I also understand that I've ruffled a few feathers over the past few weeks, and I'd like to apologise for my part in what has been some rather bizarre episodes. I realise I will need to be a little less forthright in my opinions and views as this is a multilingual project.

However, I believe that the experience and knowledge that I bring to the position is of benefit to the project. I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia, a contributor to Commons, and I have access to the OTRS system. I will have been an administrator on the English Wikipedia for a year in February and have had access to the OTRS system for a similar length of time, so this is certainly not a vanity request, I firmly believe that I can continue to help, and be of more benefit with the additional tools, than without. Nick 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support - I have seen Nick on en-wiki and I consider him trustworthy and reliable. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There is no question of trust here nor of the fact that the user comes from en wp even if they think it is an issue. My problem is with attitude. To vote in an RfA just over a week ago with this edit and its rationale does not indicate to me someone who has the approach that I see as required for an admin in collaborative working in Commons. I would say I have seen some good work from this user and had been leaning towards support but the attitude is just unhelpful I'm afraid and I see the potential for difficulties. --Herby talk thyme 08:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please consider my vote suspended for now. I find this difficult - I see Nick doing valuable work, I personally feel Nick is abrasive. I'd like to be able to reconcile those poles. Not for the first time I find pfctdayelise's words wise & I'm going to think about it and would urge other to vote on how they see Nick's work rather than anything else. Please do not vote per Herby as I currently have no vote I might even support! --Herby talk thyme 18:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Herby. __ ABF __ ϑ 09:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Support with really much AGF. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious  Support. There can be no doubting Nick's skills, commitment or willingness to do good work here. The work he has done at COM:DEL since his last RfA and this one has been excellent. The only question remains on his attitude. Because of his apology, I look forward to Nick communicating in a less confrontational way. Nick is potentially a great asset to Commons and I prefer to have him on-side than not. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose — I have no doubt in my mind your work would be great as an admin, but being an admin is not about deleting stuff like a bot. You have to deal with users who have an attitude as bad as yours and don't even understand your language. I'm sorry, but I don't see you willing to work well with newbies who are just trying to pretty-fy Wikimedia projects with some media, but don't know how to do it. --Boricuæddie 15:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, I think that your inability to handle a petty dispute with a newbie can lead you to abuse your tools, as you have at en.wp. However, I'm not a fan of evaluating admin candidates because of their contribs to other wikis, so I'm not opposing because of this. --Boricuæddie 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, applying Pfctdayelise principles, here you have Nick's comments on Boricuaeddie arguments:
Hi, I noticed your recent comment concerning an allegation where you allege I have abused the administrator tools on the English Wikipedia. I am most concerned by this and would appreciate diffs to show your complaint. This marks the very first occasion where someone has alleged I have abused the tools and I would appreciate feedback in this case. Thanks in advance. Nick 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've looked at the diffs you provided, and from what I can see, there was no abuse of the tools (and nobody else thought there was either), we had a clear difference of opinion regarding blocking users for making inaccurate reports on usernames, and you reduced the thread to a personal level with "If you can't do this and you think everyone who makes an erroneous report is acting in bad faith and looking to destroy Wikipedia, then you obviously are not fit to have admin rights." - I still consider such comments unnecessary and inflammatory, especially considering the discussion was over a simple difference in opinion. Nick 16:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole story about Boricuaeddie incident with Nick in the English Wikipedia is here. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I have serious concerns about whether Nick is likely to have the "mellow approach" we favour here. I wonder if a bit more time passing since the incidents which he is apologising for would be helpful? Nick, what do you personally think, will you be able to take counsel to calm down on board amicably? ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a conscious decision before submitting this RfA to improve the way I interact with other editors across all the projects I'm involved with. I can do mellow just as well as I can do aggressive, it's just a case of making the decision to do mellow more and aggressive much less, and that's a decision I've already made. Nick 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Nick_2&oldid=33102574"