Commons:Administrators/Requests/Stifle

 Support = 14;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100% Result = successful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Stifle

Vote

⧼Edittoolbar-help-page-link⧽: Stifle (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end 10:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose Stifle for the position of administrator. A successful sysop at the English Wikipedia since 2006, Stifle possesses sufficient experience and knowledge to be an effective admin here at Commons as well. His contributions are predominately related to OTRS, though he does preform various maintenance tasks and often participates in community discussions. The user also assists with the deletion of problematic files. I'll keep this nomination statement brief, but overall, I think he'd be a great addition to the team. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I gratefully accept the nomination. If appointed, I intend to continue with OTRS work, both in the permissions and Sister-projects:commons queues (where I will no longer need to bother other admins to undelete images that have been deleted for want of permission, and will be able to quickly delete copyvios), help at DR/RFU, and respond to requests for images to be transferred to local wikis where they have been deleted here but would be accepted fair use elsewhere.

Some of my recent DRs relate to works that are free in the source country and not in the USA. I am aware that there are substantial differences of opinion on how Commons should operate with regards to such works, and undertake not to take any administrative action in that area while the matter awaits resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support - I have seen Stifle around quite a bit. He seems to be quite knowledgeable with copyrights – I have found myself referring people who I am unsure I can help to him – and is active on Commons and OTRS. The tools would help him quite a bit, I imagine, and would be a definite positive for the project. NW (Talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support gets it. Rocket000 (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - I've seen his fine work both here and on the en wiki, and see no reason not to support. Ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Seen him around both here and on enwiki. Trusted and expieranced, should make a good admin. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Very active OTRS volunteer, I've often seen him put requests on COM:UNDEL because he could restore or even see the image himself. Adminship would definitely be a plus for him, and for the community. –Tryphon^☂ 07:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support: --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Very knowledgeable about images. Tiptoety ^talk 23:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ok, no problem. Pmlinediter (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, absolutely. Stifle has an incredibly wide knowledge of copyright and licensing. He is one of the most active OTRS permissions respondents, and would find the tools useful in that field. He will be an accurate and active administrator. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I know some of the quality of Stifle's work on Wikipedia and feel he will be a good Admin here. I hope, though, that you will have enough time to devote for the Commons project...because Wikipedia consumes an unbelievable amount of one's time with the constant vandalism and edit wars there. That is 1 reason why I edit much less on wikipedia nowadays. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Per Leo. MBisanz ^talk 14:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very active OTRS volunteer. Sp5uhe (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question: You have commented on the Abuse Filter in the village pump. Do you plan to work with it as an admin? --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  I do not expect to do a huge amount of work with it, although I will contribute if needed. I am an abuse filter editor at enwiki where I've made use of it to some extent. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Question: Are you aware of the Deletion policy and the Superseded images policy? --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes I am. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: I find it good that you oppose the Flagged Revisions. I admit that for some time I thought they were ok, but after watching them for some time on de.wikipedia I must say that vandalism should be fighted elsehow, not with such an extension where all new users get demotivated. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Flagged revisions is something being proposed at en:wp, at least for now, and I don't recall it being seriously proposed here. That said, would you oppose flagged revisions here as well? ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I would be neutral on flagged revisions here. On enwiki, my primary objection is that it would create an unmaintainable morass as reviewers would not be able to catch up with the edits being made. Here, there are fewer arguments against because there aren't as many contentious editing areas, although that then may suggest that flagged revisions won't be needed. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Have you read COM:MELLOW and the counteressay? What do you think of them? ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have read them, but I'll take some time to reread them and order my thoughts before replying to your second question, if that's OK. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think staying mellow is simply a wise precaution and principle in a multilingual collegial environment with many users of different experience levels. The counteressay makes the wise point that not everyone is always on your side and, to borrow the terminology from English Wikipedia, you should assume good faith only in the absence of a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)