Commons:Administrators/Requests/Armbrust

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 9;  Oppose = 5;  Neutral = 7 - 43% Result. Unsuccessful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust

Vote

Armbrust (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 08:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. For my 6th nom, I want to introduce a sensible candidate for adminship, Armbrust. He has been an user on Commons since May 2009 and had over 4500 edits which greatly involves in license reviewing and copyvio hunting. He is also a great user at enwiki with 140,242 edits. I think the rights could be useful to Armbrust for deleting obvious copyright violations and unfree Flickr files while license-reviewing. He has accepted my proposal (see here). Thank you Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Morning Sunshine. I gladly accept the nomination. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Reaffirming my vote in light of opposes, many of which are clearly worthless drive-by-votes. I'm not bothered by his en.wp activity; look and see that he's done nothing but good on Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good user. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 13:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Experienced user, but the en.wiki blocks leave me unsure of how this user would deal with disputes and disagreements here. INeverCry 17:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support. I wasn't aware of the long block log on en-wiki, but I trust him here and his answer reassures me enough. Trijnsteltalk 19:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support why not? --Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. Cannot oppose due to excellent contributions to Commons. Cannot support due to ownership attitudes, strongly expressed by the candidate in English Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. Armbrust (whose name I almost always misspell by swapping the r and the u) does a lot of good work, but has a few blocks for edit warring. I'm not sure about his temperament, but I'm willing to give him the chance. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. I'm not inclined to oppose, but the enwiki block log is concerning—not because of the blocks themselves, but because the disputes that led to them show that Armbrust doesn't always handle disagreements well. However, he has done a tremendous amount of good work both here and on enwiki, and he shouldn't be judged purely on that block log. I would have liked to have seen a slightly longer answer to my question, so I'd be interested to see the answer to 99of9's, which may swing my vote one way or t'other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, per Morning Sunshine (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support. I trust his experience in the Commons and per Trijnstel (although the blocks on en-wiki makes me a little worried).Érico Wouters msg 12:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I've wavered between this and a weak oppose. For me there are a few aspects making me feel slightly uneasy. If this application is successful, I hope you will learn a lot from our critical comments. Although you have a reasonable eye for spotting copyvios and problems, for an admin candidate whose main uploads are from third party sources, I would have expected it to be more highly attuned. Even when I specifically asked about some of your problematic uploads, the answers weren't ideal (#1 missed that it was a copyvio, and didn't even go for contacting the "author" or COM:PRP. #2 didn't seem to fully appreciate the legal requirement of attribution). The answer about edit warring policy was very brief, took days and a talk page reminder (despite editing here and on en-wiki in the meantime), and boils down to an assumption rather than precedent or policy. In fact, we have no 3RR, just a prohibition against edit warring, so things are different to en-wiki, and a crucial part of our blocking policy is warnings before the escalating blocks you suggest. Maybe that's what you intended but were unable to convey it with your short answer - so maybe your communication style needs to be improved (also crucial for an admin). On the other hand, what I've seen of the bulk of your work, including license reviewing and tagging, looks good - and this is also quite similar to a lot of deletion work. In the end what made me stay neutral rather than oppose is that I haven't seen any indications on commons of bad faith or a problematic attitude. --99of9 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose those blocks are numerous and spread over years. And the last one is from August, so temperament is in question here. Hekerui (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose That's too many blocks for a sysop candidate. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm a little bothered by the en.wikipedia blocks, though his behavior seems to be better here at Commons. I also share 99of9's concerns in general. But I'm supporting per 99of9's second-to-last sentence - "the bulk of your work ... looks good" and per Tjinstel. Have a shot at it. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose too my blocks for a sysop candidate. Udufruduhu (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There's some very solid support above from very solid citizens, so I don't like opposing this, but given the block log -- 23 reverts on the same file in an hour and a half on August 14, I don't see how Armbrust can be an Admin here. We need people who can deal constructively with problems, whatever the facts of the case. Sure, we have some very difficult editors to deal with, but an Admin's job is to make things work more smoothly, not simply pound away at problems over and over. Enlisting help, or simply leaving it for a day after the first two problems, would have been better solutions. Perhaps he should come back in six months, with a clean record both there and here, and a bit more time spent here on DRs and other relevant work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - reading all this - its hard to support - en behaviour and attitude usually does flow over to here, regardless of what anyone says... vice versa operates too SatuSuro (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per a couple of the above. --Herby talk thyme 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Considering the blocks on en.wikipedia I'm tending to oppose this request, but hence his block log on commons is clean I'm neutral. Give it some time and file for another RfA in a year or so.--FAEP (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Armbrust&oldid=81578510"