Commons:Administrators/Requests/Darkweasel94

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nomination withdrawn by the candidate. --99of9 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkweasel94

Vote

Darkweasel94 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 17:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating Darkweasel94 for adminship here on Commons. They are an active user, particularly in venues such as village pump, and are always ready to help editors. They have a sound knowledge of copyright issues from what I see, and are active in nominating images for deletion, and the like. Darkweasel94 would be a valuable addition to the admin group here on Commons. russavia (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination. darkweasel94 17:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support as nominator russavia (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Taivo (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Túrelio (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, good impressions--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not very neutral in many recent discussions; may mature later. JKadavoor Jee 17:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that admins are allowed to take sides on things, right? Are you saying that, for instance, every admin who votes here as either  Support or  Oppose should have their rights removed for not being neutral? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See how Lady Justice depicts justice as equipped with three symbols: a sword symbolizing the court's coercive power; a human scale weighing competing claims in each hand; and a blindfold indicating impartiality. I wish if admins are voluntarily willing to refrain from aggressively participating in discussions. Instead, they should try to monitor and guide the discussions in a healthy manner, helping the non-admin participants to express their opinion without fear even if they are minors in the community. Nowadays, all I see is blind attempts from the dominating group of admins to make any decisions according to their blind will; neglecting any opposing voice. They are repeatedly trying to shut down any opposing voice or force them to quit. My opinion will be same, if these type of behaviour is from people on the other side. I know we have a few admins like Cecil; but all I see on top of hers talk page is "If people here hide behind No censure to violate the personality rights of others without any bad conscience than this is not a project where I like to contribute my images." :(
I don’t care that de-crat request. But I’m more concerned on darkweasel94’s stand on Courtesy deletion matters. I think he gives little respect to our valuable contributors. JKadavoor Jee 03:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that's accusing Russavia of such stuff should go kick rocks. I supported Russavia in his de-crat request, but he isn't nominating me for adminship, so by logic such a statement is wrong, albeit if you're like me, you'd probably want to care for something other than tools, like categorizing files or uploading some awesome, diverse photos. At least adminship isn't an obsession and a load of nonsense like it is on the English Wikipedia, so let's not turn it into that. WorldTraveller101 22:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing Russavia? Where you see it? I don't see much problem with him; more nuisance are his blind supporters. He has a difficulty to hear the voice of people like me because of the noise those people always creating around him. :) (It seems you are a new user here.) JKadavoor Jee 02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I put this comment under the wrong  Oppose vote, I meant the !vote of Jebulon, but it doesn't matter. I wouldn't call 6 months very new either...I've done plenty of work here. Either way, I still dislike the accusations of russavia buying support from supporters or whatever garbage they posted, but I have work to do here, so let's move on now. WorldTraveller101 10:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You are welcome. BTW, I don’t think Jeb also accused any; although he presented his opinion in a humorous way. He is a very experienced editor here with nearly 3000 own media uploads, including 73 featured, 1929 quality and 393 valued images. He knows every corner of Commons better than you and me. That doesn’t mean I underestimate your contributions. Everybody is important, including you and me. Better say no to “kick rocks”; and try to learn from them. JKadavoor Jee 11:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Wow, an actual RFA! I hardly remember how these things work, they're so rare! I guess I just put in a little green support button for a good nominee like this one. I see votes from a Russian and an Estonian above who would make good admins too. INeverCry 18:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Yaroslav --A.Savin 18:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Kadavoor --High Contrast (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Oh dear me no. In my experience, Darkweasel94 fails to see the big picture or to understand people rather than things. He might do ok when all that was required was the application of copyright law to some straightforward deletion request on a picture of an object. But I think he'd struggle too look beyond the pixels, bytes, wikirules and laws and see the people who uploaded the file, who drew the diagram, who own the video or who were in the photograph, and try to understand their position. I don't trust that he can respect anything other than his own, at times rather rigid, point of view. He would do well if arguing-for-the-sake-of-it was an Olympic sport. For these reasons, though Darkweasel94 may be a valuable contributor, I think he'd be a terrible admin. Colin (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if he argued on your side, or JKadavoor Jee's, etc, he'd make a great admin right? He supported Russavia in the recent de-bureaucrat, and opposed the deletion of the Pricasso pic, so you guys are opposing him here. Tell it like it is. INeverCry 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've no idea how Darkweasel94 commented on either of those two incidents nor do I care. My experience is mainly (though not entirely) from the Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed discussion. And before anyone judges my behaviour there, let me point out that it isn't me running for Admin, nor am I ever likely to. Stop playing politics, INeverCry, it makes you look bad. Colin (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened? He didn't agree with you guys there either? INeverCry 20:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are people I respect who !voted differently in that discussion (and in the others you mentioned). Really, all this "us" and "them" stuff makes you look foolish, INeverCry, and Commons could very much do without it. We need to move on. And to do so, we need admins who can appreciate and respect different points of view from their own, and who can look beyond the letter of the law or the pixels on the screen. Darkweasel94 is not that person. Colin (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that it's all a matter of opinion. You obviously disagree with Darkweasel, and he obviously disagrees with you, so I suggest you leave it at that. If anything, you coming here to assert the superiority of opinion is rather foolish. -FASTILY 20:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Em, I haven't asserted any superiority of opinion. I think I'd be a terrible admin too. My point isn't that I disagreed with Darkweasel in that discussion, but the nature of the way he disagreed. It makes for an awful admin. We need wise owls. Colin (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. INeverCry 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So everybody who supported him on the de-crat discussion is offered a free admin flag? Darkweasel94, Taivo ... Can we expect a crat request of you by him soon? Being impartial is not enough; out act should be impartial without any marginal doubt. That doesn’t mean he should nominate me as a proposed admin to prove his impartiality. :) JKadavoor Jee 04:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody even want free admin flags? Most of the people I ask about becoming admins tell me to kick rocks. As for a crat nom for me, anybody who came to me with one of those would be told...to kick rocks. INeverCry 05:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralI have to log off, but I would like to support, albeit I have not gotten to look closely at concerns. WorldTraveller101 21:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure; any admin/crat/steward can express their opinion as an ordinary member in the community. My only concern was the aggressive participation, attempting to impose their will on it, if any. (I remember Billinghurst’s comment, "if they are probably aware of that discussion, and partaking of that discussion would pretty well rule them out from acting as a admin/crat/steward.") JKadavoor Jee 03:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No contributions to Category discussion requests, an area you plan to specialize in. If you want to help there, start helping. (You also need a bit more experience in category space to be an admin there IMO). I haven't read through all the other issues yet, but IMO your view of "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is a long way off if you support keeping Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ooooooooo.jpeg. --99of9 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, had to change my mind, as I don't like the "keep" arguments on some of the DR's named below. --A.Savin 06:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which ones in particular don't you like, and why don't you like them? I don't see anything really wrong in the keep votes as they stood at the time. russavia (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first, the third, and the fourth one. To me, an image is certainly out of scope if a) it is not being used anywhere on Wikimedia projects for their purpose, I don't mean user namespace and similar; AND b) the notability of the depicted motif is neither obvious, nor at least imaginable due to inclusion in special categories, galleries etc.. Also, to me an image of a blatantly poor quality is out of scope, regardless if there is a potential usability or not; because the renown of the projects Commons and Wikipedia (which is one of the factors which determine, for example, how many professional external photographers or databases take us serious enough to be willing to donate some of their material under CC-BY-SA) has a higher priority to me than a couple less WP articles without any image or so. The candidate seems to still adhere to their arguments in that DR's and would even have decided administratively like that; so, for my part, I'm not very comfortable with giving them admin flag to decide similar DR's in future. Just my personal view, other people may see it different way. --A.Savin 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the second one was one that I would have preferred to get deleted, personally. Just administratively I wouldn't have deleted it after that discussion, because I think "educational value" deletions are supposed to reflect consensus and kept when there is no consensus. As for the fourth one - perhaps an admin can upload the photos deleted there on some hosting service and link to them here? I really don't remember them well anymore and it's possible that I was wrong. darkweasel94 20:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Consensus is important, but deletions ultimately have to follow policy (in the case of "no educational value" DRs that's COM:SCOPE). Many DRs don't receive any comments or votes at all, and so the closing admin makes the decision according to their understanding of policy. Other DRs will get votes from inexperienced users that may have to be discounted at times if they don't conform to policy. INeverCry 20:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am totally aware of that. COM:SCOPE is however a policy that requires a great deal of interpretation and case-by-case application, unlike copyright issues that are usually relatively clear (and governed by COM:PCP). And I generally would not want to impose my personal interpretation and case-by-case application of what is educational and what isn't on a community discussion that comes to a different result. It's not what I understand an admin's role as. darkweasel94 21:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Candidates are made admins through RFA support votes from community members who trust that person's judgement and knowledge of policy. Admins have to lead and make decisions sometimes: they can't always follow or wait for others to vote and show them the way. INeverCry 21:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No comment --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I share the concerns of 99of9 and A.Savin. I believe that an admin should have the experience, knowledge, and courage to make decisions on their own when needed. Not deleting something that's out of scope just because nobody's voted delete, or somebody has put in a good faith keep vote that goes against policy doesn't make any sense to me, and actually sounds more like a rationale for non-admin closures than admin closures. INeverCry 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Question What do you plan to do with the admin rights? --McZusatz (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I gain the admin buttons (if not, that's also ok, really), I plan to do stuff such as closing deletion requests, especially also category discussion requests (they seem to have a huge backlog), and fulfilling edit requests to protected pages. When other issues such as user blocks come up, I might intervene there too. darkweasel94 19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Can you comment on an example of a deletion discussion which was closed differently to how you !voted. How would you have closed it? -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I can. (Always from the assumption that it was somebody else who made the same comments I made.)
      • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ooooooooo.jpeg - while I understand the delete rationale, and the file really wasn't extremely valuable, I would have closed this one as keep, just as I !voted, because in general I do think that even very poor quality files are preferable to none at all.
      • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fetid basement of Wikipediocracy headquarters.JPG - that one, nominated by me, came with one obviously trollish keep !vote which I would have ignored, and one good-faith keep !vote that didn't really give a reason for its educational value either though. Given however that one user did see, in good faith, educational value in the file (to illustrate the closet door?), and there was nobody else who explicitly agreed with my opinion, I would have closed such a DR as "no consensus to delete", i.e. keep.
      • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thea Gill-Michelle Clunie.jpg - I would have closed this one as keep. It was still in use on eswiki, so "out of scope" cannot apply by definition. It was also in scope to illustrate photo manipulation by itself (for all who didn't see the image: it was a manipulated photo that showed two women standing side-by-side, made from two separate photos of each of them). Given that the description page made the manipulation clear and the women were public figures, and as far as I saw there wasn't anything embarassing about the photo, I also see no real COM:IDENT issues (they were in any case not raised in the deletion discussion).
      • Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Varkeyveliyath - while I don't remember the images exactly anymore, my memory tells me that they did show more or less interesting details of that park. I would have closed this as "no consensus to delete".
      • Commons:Deletion requests/File:StadAmsterdam.jpg - unfortunately I'd have had to delete that one, per Quadell's reasoning and COM:PCP.
    • darkweasel94 09:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I more-less remember Varkeyveliyath. He uploaded half of dozen photos about Kauthuka park. Using some of these, we can show: look, there is such kind of pond and such kind of pit in the park. Such photos have educational value. But the deleted photos could illustrate only ... that visitors of the park are dressed that way. This was not enough, in my opinion. But if that DR would closed as kept or partially kept, then I had no problem with that. From time to time I nominate images, where I am not sure in outcome. Taivo (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember exactly what they showed - I think (I might be confusing that though) the subject of at least some were some intersections of ways in the park, which can be useful to get some feeling about the general atmosphere of the park, and may well have historic value after some decades. I generally tend to be an "inclusionist" when it comes to "educational value" deletions, and if somebody who cares about the topic says in the deletion debate that it is useful even just for enthusiasts of a certain special subject area (such as myself being an enthusiast about public transportation), I'd prefer to keep it when I'm not sure. darkweasel94 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question The following scenario concerns issues of consent -- please don't turn it into a debate on porn or a deletion discussion -- I want DarkWeasel94's comments only. New user "JealousMike" uploads the file "CheatinBrendasTits.jpg", which is indeed a good quality photo of a pair of breasts and nothing more. Another admin renames the file to Breasts34B.jpg and adds it to Wikipedia. As an admin, what would you do and what comments would you make? Consider instead if the username was "PJacksonMD" and the filename "PatientA324PreOp.jpg". -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first filename certainly sounds very problematic COM:IDENT-wise. If I randomly came across that file and noticed that file redirect, I'd definitely nominate it for deletion with the rationale "the original filename plus the uploader's name sounds as if this were uploaded against the subject's will, and the original filename partly identified the subject". The second case is less clear - Commons:Patient images contains some contradictory information as to whether consent is only needed when the subject is identifiable (not really the case here), but to be on the safe side I think I'd file a DR too unless there is an explicit assertion of consent. darkweasel94 09:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal

Given that this doesn't seem to have any realistic chances to succeed anymore and I'd prefer to do more useful stuff than defending myself here for some more days, I'm withdrawing from this RfA. I'm sincerely thanking all participants, both those who supported and those who opposed, because that showed me what I'm already doing well and what I can still improve on. Cheers, darkweasel94 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Darkweasel94&oldid=104577957"