Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Errabee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Errabee

Final (71/31/4); Ended Fri, 4 May 2007 17:47 UTC

Errabee (talk · contribs) - When I first registered in August 2005, I edited here only for creating interwikilinks and small things like fixing typos etc. The Dutch Wiki was my main venue then. This changed when I became so disgusted with the atmosphere there, that I voluntarily went into exile :) I started editing seriously here in May 2006.

As I was an admin on the Dutch Wiki (promoted with a tally of 50/1/0 on 17 October 2005 and resigned voluntarily on 24 January 2006) and know what tasks an admin can do, I have no real ambition to become an admin here. However, I find that I could use the tools, because I occasionally need things done that only admins can do. Adminship is no big deal to me, and I won't be upset in the slightest if this RfA does not succeed.

My main interests here are on Russian topics, especially from the 19th century literature and the occasional 20th century writers and their works. I am an active member of WikiProject Russia and WikiProject Biography. I keep an eye on the logs created by WP 1.0 bot for these projects in order to spot editing mistakes or vandalism that have moved articles out of scope for those projects, and try to correct the situation. Errabee 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorsement from 2+1 Wikiprojects

As per the votes cast here by the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian History and Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia, the candidacy is undoubtedly endorsed by both these Wikiprojects.

Additionally, two most active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine (myself included) support the candidate below without reservation. While granted that two members are not authorized to speak for the whole Wikiproject, the fact that those are two most active project members should be noted. --Irpen 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: As I wrote in the introduction, I sometimes need to have things done that only admins can do. These include having articles or categories speedily deleted per WP:CSD (see [1]) for an example where a category was created when {{WikiProject Russia}} had been changed. This category could not be parsed by WP 1.0 bot, causing all articles to be listed as Unknown importance). Other examples include merging histories where two articles have been created on the same subject, (semi-)protecting pages on my watchlist or in my recent edits list that are subject to heavy vandalism, and blocking vandals (for short periods only) that are actively vandalising pages on my watch list.
To tell the truth, I'm not going to be very helpful in reducing backlog or in any XfD (as I said: I have no real ambition to become an admin), but if given the tools, I can clean up any mess I encounter myself, which means I won't be adding extra reports or requests. If admins already have a big workload now, at least I won't add anymore burden upon them.
Of course, if someone needs my help to do an admin task, they can always ask me on my talk page, and I'll be happy to take a look.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: With the substantial help of User:Vidor and User:Dbachmann, I was able to turn Erast Fandorin into a Good Article, with this as starting point. Lately, I've not been very active in the mainspace, as I've spent most of my time helping out in the Spring 2007 Biography assessment drive and after that had finished, I've set up the Biography A-class review department. That was very much needed as people started rating stubs as A-class articles.
I've also contributed significantly to Hoofddorp (old situation), trying desperately to include only those things I could find references for (which unfortunately hasn't been too much).
My editing pattern will not change if I'm given the sysop bit. I'll just be able to do things myself, that would otherwise have required me to tag these articles and wait for an admin to come by.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm still very much disappointed by the way editors from different countries in Eastern Europe behave towards one other, sometimes it's so bad an arbitration case is filed. I believe that if they had cooperated, this Wikipedia could have had a significantly larger number of Good Articles and Featured Articles. As an outsider who cares about these countries, that pains me a lot.
I also feel that the Commons project is a big failure, and that instead of vehemently sticking to free pictures, they should instead focus on how the projects can use pictures that are not free, but could be used as fair use. Take Pablo Picasso as an example: his works only become public domain in 2043; and how is an encyclopedia supposed to explain with just words what development Picasso went through as an artist? That is utterly impossible. The deletion of many such pictures (not just Picasso, but also Henry Matisse, Salvador Dalí, Natalya Goncharova and many others) on Commons has caused me quite some stress, as my common sense says they have taken the wrong approach. And the thing is, these pictures can be found all over the internet, so there can't be any real damage for the actual copyright holder.
Update: This opinion is being discussed at the talk page of this RfA.
Update 2: This new licensing policy (of which I was not aware when I submitted my Rfa), seems to be a step in the right direction, especially point 6. If Commons were to play a role in the second bullet by providing a platform for EDP pictures only to be used on projects with an EDP in place, that would revive my interest and belief in the Commons project.
I help people if I get the impression they made an honest mistake. I have far less patience with people who have been careless by dismissing solid arguments without reading them properly or who rate their own articles far higher than the standards allow for.
4. Someone is bound to ask sooner or later: Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A. I'll answer that in advance, although I think people asking this question should either try to get this included in the standard questions, or only ask them to candidates which they fear might not understand this rule. WP:IAR is a very useful rule that allows admins a bit of leeway, where there sometimes is none due to instruction creep. More specifically, WP:SNOW is a very powerful tool. I'll trust my common sense over any rule, but if they differ too much, I would instead defer the matter to another admin.
5. Totally optional question from User:Grandmasterka: Why did you become disgusted with the atmosphere on the Dutch Wikipedia? What did you take from your experiences there, and what advice would you have for us, if any?
A. At that time, the Dutch Wikipedia didn't have an ArbCom, but obviously suffered from editors exhibiting poor conduct. Admins were applying preventive as well as punitive blocks. Some not totally agreed upon policy said that blocks should be doubled for each offense. Of course, other editors disapproved of this practice, and extensive wikilawyering was not uncommon, claiming punitive blocks should never be made. There was simply no way an admin could do the right thing. Finally, some proposals were made, and the proposals that gained the most support were given to the editors to decide upon. One proposal said that blocks should be voted on for a week and then the user should be blocked if that were the outcome, the other said that blocks should be applied immediately, but if editors disagreed with a block they could sign a petition requesting to unblock the user. If enough people signed the petition, the user would be unblocked. I supported the second proposal, as I thought the first would lead to instruction creep, and the vote would be held in an extremely hostile environment for both the people who contributed as the editor whose conduct was questioned. The second proposal was much easier to implement and created a positive environment as only support statements (to lift the block) would matter. Tension rose to an incredibly high level back then, with an extensive campaign being performed against the second proposal (which I supported). This campaign reached its high when supporters of the second proposal were accused of having nazi thoughts, and the contributor who said that presented himself as a paragon of civility, claiming others (including me) were uncivil. When admins didn't respond to this (I had already resigned as admin), I tried to fight this campaign without much support from admins. Any attempt to expose the user who said that was reverted, until I finally gave up editing there.
I believe this situation cannot occur here. Several dispute resolution strategies are in place, ArbCom handles punitive blocks and not administrators. So while this may not be an ideal environment, I doubt personal attacks as described above could happen here without being acted upon. I believe the Dutch Wikipedia finally established an ArbCom late last year, so I hope that the situation there will improve. Errabee 09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A. I believe blocking should only be used as a last resort. Discussing the matter (warning only in clearcut cases) with the editor that inserts this material definitely has my preference. Further action depends on how obvious the case is. In cases where I am not sure, I would first seek counsel with another admin. Second opinions never hurt. Errabee 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

7. How important is assuming good faith in other users, and how would you make sure to do this?--U.S.A. cubed 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A. Assuming good faith is of the utmost importance. I'd rather err on the side of assuming good faith, than to accuse other people of bad-faith edits. Nevertheless, depending on my mood, sometimes this can be difficult. We are all human after all. There is no way one can be absolutely sure to always assume good faith in others. But my strategy in this matter has always been that when I am tempted to post an awkward message to read it again, and try to imagine how I would feel if I received the message I just wrote. That has changed my mind about some messages on a couple of times already. Errabee 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

  • See Errabee's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I'll come back and comment later... I just thought I should point out that there is one typo in your nomination - the word "typos". X-D Grandmasterka 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Corrected, thank you :) Errabee 09:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Errabee before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

So, uh, what is this about? Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee. It looks like, in October of last year, he tried to withdraw GFDL licensing on all of the images he uploaded to Commons and have them deleted. His excuse for this was then "These photos were taken by a relative of mine" — so basically he lied in the first place when he said that he had the rights to release them under the GFDL? Errabee, can you explain what this is about? I'm really concerned about your understanding of free content. --Cyde Weys 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an episode I'm certainly not proud of. First of all, I've taken all the photographs myself. So when the big deletion was going on of all paintings by artists who died less than 70 years ago, I decided to test how strict Commons would enforce copyright laws by nominating all my pictures, expecting that the majority would not be deleted (which turned out to be a slight misjudgement as all have been kept). And to press the issue further after my request was speedy denied at first, I pretended they had not been taken by me. A clear violation of WP:POINT indeed. Let he who is without faults throw the first stone.
But this process turned up something interesting as well: several of the images I've taken are probably not free of copyright under Russian copyright law. Especially pictures of statues and buildings, even if you've taken them yourself and they are in the open for everybody to see, can only be used for non-commercial purposes. This means this, this, this and this image are probably not completely free, as more or less confirmed by User:Lupo on Commons. However, Commons has decided to wave the issues concerning these pictures for now (see Commons:Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_5#Freedom_of_panorama_and_international_issues), which I can't quite reconcile with Commons' and the Foundation's goals, but so be it. Errabee 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Everything seems alright.--Húsönd 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support Sure, why not? Changing to oppose Frise 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Seems to be a solid contributor with a good understanding of policy. I have no doubts about Errabee's trustworthiness, and I see nothing indicating he would abuse the tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Experienced, trustworthy editor without any problems that I'm aware of. YechielMan 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support for opposing copyright paranoia. Αργυριου (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support good questions, has the experience, no concerns. Sure. —Anas talk? 09:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Terence 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Troppus A great user. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - fine user, so why not? Matthew 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, I don't see any reason to oppose. Matthew 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - I don't see any reason not to support..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Candidate has displayed administrative competency on another project. No reason not to promote. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Struck, as ample reason not to promote has been demonstrated by others. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support it´s okay for me (after a quick check) __ ABF __ 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support, probably not insane - David Gerard 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - Yep - looks fine. Tons of great encyclopedic work. It's interesting to see an interwiki candidate here, too :) Good luck~ - Alison ☺ 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - (This started out as a Neutral, but I decided to change to support.) Good candidate, and I have no problem with his attitude. The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is his liberal attitude to IAR (as highlighted by NeoFreak below) but that isn't a good enough reason to oppose. Walton Need some help? 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    If it makes you feel better, my talk page will always be open for discussion if you feel I applied IAR or SNOW too liberally. I'm certain we can find a common ground on these points. Errabee 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Full support, I know him for his Russia-related contributions and I trust him. MaxSem 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support a well qualified candidate.-- danntm T C 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - "Moderation in all things, including moderation." I don't know whose quote that is, but it seems to fit. Errabee goes by feel, and his feel seems to be on-the-mark. Having a feel for the project is good, but refining one's understanding of guidelines, policy, and Wikipedia's underlying principles over time is also important. I believe Errabee will refine his Wiki-acumen as time goes on. Having the admin tools will certainly give him a definite reason to do so! Besides's his Zen sense, he's intelligent, literate, and cares for the project, and that's what's most important. 'The Transhumanist 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. "Seeking the tools to make your own life easier" is fine if "making your own life easier" is defined as doing things like reverting vandalism. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support: As long as you use the tools not just to help yourself I am fine with it. You have the experience but will you said you needed to make your life easier and hopefully by making your life easier will you help the project.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 04:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I trust you with the tools.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 05:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Experienced.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support A.Z. 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - A well established contributer with good experience, I think he would make a good admin. Camaron1 | Chris 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - Go ahead! (Ga Maar Door!, I think?) Booksworm Talk to me! 11:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I already know Errabee to a highly effective and useful member of WikiProject Biography; that he was formerly an admin on another project and therefore knows how to use the tools is a pleasant surprise to me. Easy support. --kingboyk 13:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support; good question answers, and per experience on nl: -- maybe resigning as admin wasn't necessary, but the situation was very bad there from what was said. Mangojuicetalk 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support; extremly hardworking wikiproject member, a gold standard of neutrality and civility, very thoughtful and helpful. Alex Bakharev 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support The use of the bit to make one's own editing easier also, brick by brick, lessens the burden on others. It's teamwork, and the user knows how to use the tools from another Wikimedia project and that with experienced reading/editing the use of the bit is both helpful and beneficial to the project. Teke 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support: Not enough mainspace edits,[2] but I'm sure that he will take care that later. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Good answers to questions, adequate experience including other wikis. --Shirahadasha 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support I see no reason to oppose him. Shalom.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Experienced both here and on nlwiki, very well-intentioned, good answers to questions 3 and 5, and the current opposition is unconvincing and possibly a little confused. Grandmasterka 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support He says two things particularly that I appreciate. One is the importance of WP:AGF and the need to expend the benefit of the doubt in dealing with people. That goes along way toward diffusing difficult situations. Secondly, his comment that he would seek the assistance of other admins before strking out on his own in WP:IAR situations. No threat here and potential for good work. JodyB 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. --dario vet (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Strong experience on other 'pedias, in addition to this one, makes this candidate pretty much trustworthy. I'm not terribly impressed by the strength of the opposes. Michaelas10 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Experienced and calm - sounds good to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support John254 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Ik zie niet in wat er zo problematisch is aan vrijwillig je adminschap opgeven; als zodanig voorzie ik geen problemen met deze gebruiker. >Radiant< 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. qp10qp 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - Good answers to questions and seams like a very civil user. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. The candidates meets and exceeds what I expect. Vassyana 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  43. Absolutely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. This candidate seems responsible, dependable and perfectly suited to adminship. Plenty of experience and an even-temper. TheQuandry 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. Although no one is perfect, we need non-Eastern European administrators on En-WP who are familiar with the subject of Eastern Europe, and have a good command of the English language. Errabee fit the bill. Dr. Dan 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Great editor. —dima/talk/ 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  47. Unreserved support to the candidate for level-headedness, neutrality, commitment and utmost decency. The hell would freeze before the Errabee would abuse the tools. --Irpen 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Per Dr. Dan if that helps. I also have an account with Dutch wiki, and I know he did not really jump ship there. (the best Dutch translation for "davay" is "vooruit met de geit" by the way) Actually, I feel Errabee's attitude towards Commons is really pessimistic rather than negative - there is no way he will abuse the tools to keep copyright infringements in the project. --Pan Gerwazy 20:30, 2 May 2007(UTC)
  49. Support: I have seen Errabee few time when he has been commenting on improving pages, particularly biographies. He seems dedicated to improving standards - he also seems to like info boxes which is daft but apart from that he seems responsible enough, so he may as well be an admin. Giano 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  50. Strong Support: Very good input to Russia-related topics, a priceless adition to the admin community. --Kuban Cossack 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Qualified editor and sufficiently level-headed to be admin. `'mikka 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support has he actually done anything against policy? People have a right to an opinion so long as they follow the rules. --W.marsh 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  53. Successfully resisted the urge to oppose over image attitude. Ultimately, I am not getting a notion that user would use his sysop tools to BLOCK, DELETE, or PROTECT the Commons or Pablo Picasso. As such, even though I disagree with his stance yada yada, I don't think the user should fail RfA as a result. Since otherwise he is qualified-to-splendid, I am happy to support. -- Y not? 02:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. I have a great deal of respect for Errabee's work on Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - I know how important it is to have administrators who focus on different projects too, so I support the user. --MoRsE 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - dedicated editor deserves this. M.K. 08:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  57. Seeing the IRC-generated opposition by the likes of Kelly Martin, Cyde and Piotrus is the primary incentive to support this brilliant candidate. I know that most IRC regulars hold the view that only IRC-approved folk who contributes nothing to the article space deserves the mop. Well, I'm not one of those guys who hang out on IRC all day long, therefore I feel obliged to support this hard-working and well-intentioned nominee. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support, we need more admins that actually write something, rather than IRC fairies... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support, especially in the copyright issue. IMHO, it is the problem of these who want to become rich by selling wikipedia content to weed out properly tagged non-commercial licenses. It is a 14 minute job to write a perl or java code that does so. For the rest who are truly for free information the "fair use" is not a problem. Mukadderat 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support, conscientious trustworthy editor. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
  61. Support, while I don't completely agree with the copyright issue, I greatly trust this editor.--Aldux 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support - Emmelie 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support, per Khoikhoi. KNewman 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support. Fair enough. Yury Tarasievich 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Great Editor. Boricuaeddie 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This account is seven days old. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • ER, not really: [3]:661 edits, around since March 10th. He's also voted on other RfAs already. --Pan Gerwazy 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You're right. I don't know how I made that error. My apologies to Boricuaeddie and to all the community for getting it wrong. --Tony Sidaway 10:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support. I'm willing to give this editor the benefit of the doubt. Bucketsofg 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support The question should be whether Errabee will be trustworthy with the tools, not whether he has an opinion about images that might differ slightly from the party line. If we want admins with pre-programmed opinions, we should have approved some of those bots that came through. Yomanganitalk 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would have a view closer to yours were it not for the fact that he's attacking our free image repository for being a free image repository.. and for the fact that he lied about the copyright status of his uploads. I'm boggled by the amount of support here, so I suppose I'm missing something.--Gmaxwell 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • From my reading of his comments he's suggesting that there is a failing in Commons that it doesn't allow fair use images rather than attacking it for allowing free images, and, yes, he got frustrated and pushed a point on an associated project six months ago, but he freely admits it's "an episode [he's] certainly not proud of" and I don't see any evidence it's indicative of a pattern of deceit. If there's any reason to suspect he's going to use the admin rights to somehow subvert the image policy, then the RfA should fail, but that idea seems somewhat far-fetched: we're suggesting giving him a few extra buttons, not supporting a coup against the board. Yomanganitalk 10:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support. Based on lookign through everything I persaonally trust this user with adminship.--Wizardman 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support. Back to support, probably should just vote neutral ;-) Changed to oppose upon closer examination. Would probably support next time, when the "copyright/commons" and "Polish nationalism" statements are properly explained. Good editor nevertheless. En-wiki badly needs more reasonable Russophilic admins. I hope Errabee will help to bring some more peace and common sense to the Eastern European corner of English wikipedia. This said, I also hope that as an admin, he will try to set an example, and will avoid making statements like the one about "Polish nationalist movement on wikipedia" [4] in the future. I'm still concerned about the use of non-free licensed content, and the commons comments, though. --Lysytalk 06:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support per understanding of policy and princicples. Peregrine Fisher 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Support. No major objections. —AldeBaer 11:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Change to abstention.
  71. Support Per edit history and answers to questions above. --Minderbinder 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Seems that the user is seeking tools only to make his own life easier instead of a desire to help the community. I'm also uncomfortable with his liberal usage of IAR and the fact that he has already jumped ship from one adminship instead of sticking out the issues and working to make the Dutch wikipedia better. We all get frustrated with wiki-problems but simply walking away from them doesn't show me commitment to the project. NeoFreak 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Because you know much more about nl: than he does? How dare someone invoke their right to leave? Your objection is less than clear upon thought. Furthermore, he wants the tools to write an encyclopedia, which is the only reason to be on Wikipedia. It's not a social networking site or a MMORPG - David Gerard 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, because he hasn't displayed a community oriented thought process in his RFA at all. Of course writing an encyclopedia is the goal of wikipedia but it is the community that facilitates that. He left one wikipedia, as an Administrator, because he didn't want to deal with abusive and nasty editors. Last I checked it was on the shoulders of good admins to defend the community from that type of behaivor. How's he going to deal with problems here? From what I see he'll either ignore them and go on with his own program or he'll just leave again. His only reasoning for the tools is to facilitate his own projects. His editing work seems good but Admins are more than just editors with "bonus" features. NeoFreak 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I probably need to clarify somewhat further. I resigned my adminship for two reasons. The first one was that another admin was (involuntarily) desysopped because of a lapse of judgement, but the comments went a long way towards condemning his view on policy. As he and I shared much of the same ideas about policy, I started thinking that perhaps my support was dwindling as well. Furthermore, this admin was a very valuable vandal-fighting person and I wanted to show him my support. The second reason was that being an admin brought along that I felt I could not speak out as I wanted to. Both reasons combined led to my resignation as an admin on 17 January 2006. I continued to edit and fight the campaign for more than a month, until I finally left the Dutch Wiki on 25 February 2006. Errabee 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    And another point: as I was actively involved in the battle (and yes it was a battle) of the proposals, I could not justify using my sysop bit to advance my position. So I didn't resign because I didn't want to deal with abusive and nasty editors, I resigned because I felt a conflict of interest. Errabee 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm confused by the assertion that "the user is seeking tools only to make his own life easier". That would be so that he can get things done on wiki more quickly and more efficiently, thereby making more effective use of his time and, erm, helping the wiki, then? If he really wanted to "make his life easier" he could go get another hobby. I have no problem at all with adminship candidates who don't promise to zap every backlog in sight; I mean, why should they? We're all volunteers, and if there's a need for the tools and the applicant isn't batshit insane, why not give them? --kingboyk 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose because of statements concerning copyright law. Copyright law exists and this is going to be a major problem if these issues are not properly addressed. Admins. who do not properly understand the ramifications of copyright law are going to create more problems than they solve. Yes, it is unfortunate that we can't include paintings by Picasso, but that's reality. Gretab 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I am uncomfortable with this user's viewpoint on copyright — while Picasso's paintings can obviously be used under fair use, Commons is not a failure and this is the free encyclopedia. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. I was just about to voice the same concerns as MessedRocker, and it seems he beat me to it, hehe. In all seriousness though, his views towards images as evidenced in Q3 is perhaps one of the biggest red flags I've ever seen. It is not in Wikipedia's (or the Wikimedia Foundation's) best interests to give Errabee any extra buttons in which he can implement his shockingly misguided view towards image licensing and the legal issues that come with it. I strongly suggest you all to rethink your estimation of this candidate and also for the closing bureaucrat to take note of this. I apologise for the bluntness, but that answer is completely irreconcilable with the Wikimedia Foundations aims and goals gaillimhConas tá tú? 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Commons has over a million images. It is a vibrant project. I don't see it as a failure at all. But that's a matter of opinion which the candidate is entitled to, I suppose, and I admit my bias since I'm an admin there, and that's not reason enough to oppose by itself. However, the candidate's stated views on copyright concern me. The WMF has a very clearcut policy on copyright and the use of copyrighted images, and the fact that they are all over the internet does not mean that we can use them. I fear that this candidate will not be willing to implement policy in this matter (or in other words, the candidate does not "get it") so it is with regret that I oppose, at least until I am convinced otherwise. See also the comments below by Durin, Tony and Nick, which I strongly agree with. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Reluctant oppose per Lar above and Durin below. If the candidate could rethink their attitude towards core policies of the Foundation before they apply again, that would be very helpful. —Phil | Talk 11:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Must oppose based on your understanding of Wikipedia's and the Foundation's mission. Collecting "free content" is the core mission. (I read your comment on this RFA talk page before opposing.) FloNight 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Concur in opposing, in part because of attitude towards copyright. "(T)hese pictures can be found all over the internet, there can't be any real damage for the actual copyright holder" strikes me as an incredibly naive attitude. DS 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Concur in opposition over copyright issues raised by others above. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. I don't think he understands the point of making Wikipedia a freely redistributable free encyclopedia. His statement about Commons is astounding, not only for the content of the statement itself, but that he brought it up on his own volition in an RFA on en-wiki, where it is only tangentially related, at best. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I believe in being honest and not hiding things, and even though it is only tangentially related, it shows the way I look at things. I think that's better than when I hadn't said it and someone later found out and made a fuss about it. Errabee 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well then, thanks for being honest. That is a good virtue. It has helped us out in determining whether you're a good adminship candidate or not. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - I am also troubled by the view on fair use which seems to run counter to Wikipedia's mission. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I am afraid my previous encounters with that user failed to convince me that we can trust his/her judgement when it would come to wielding powers like blocking or deletion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Doesn't seem to get the concept of free, and too weak on BLP.--Docg 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. User attitudes and statements towards Commonz and views on copyright worries me a lot. Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong oppose "I also feel that the Commons project is a big failure, and that instead of vehemently sticking to free pictures, they should instead focus on how the projects can use pictures that are not free, but could be used as fair use." ... 1.5 million free pictures that can be used for any purpose is a failure? Obviously this guy doesn't completely share our mission. Projects have local upload for a reason. Non-free images need to be as close to their use as possible because while it's acceptable to use some Picasso on the article about him it would be utterly unacceptable to use his work on Paintbrush. --Gmaxwell 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Gmaxwell, Lar, Gretab, Piotrus, etc. above. One of the main strengths of Wikipedia is the focus on free content, allowing use by anyone for any reason and anywhere; Errabee's stance on copyright and free content seems to counteract this goal. When copyright and fair use issues are so important when it comes to adminship regarding keeping or deleting unfree content, I am not sure someone with views that go against the main goal of the entire project will always make the right decisions. — Editor at Large(speak) 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - the Wikimedia Foundation is fundamentally about promoting free content. Fair use is not good enough anymore. Lcarsdata 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. IMHO Errabee is too trigger-happy. That's not a problem in case of a normal user, but in case of an admin it might become a huge one. //Halibutt 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Gretab, etc. Describing Commons as a failure because it doesn't republish copyright-infringing material has to be either bad confusion about copyright law or a demonstration of an agenda to use Wikimedia servers to fight the law by breaking it. We don't want either of these things in an admin. Jkelly 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Gmaxwell, Lar, EaL and others. Wikipedia being free is fundamental. Bryan 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I should probably block this guy then, huh? He's obviously out to ruin Wikipedia. --W.marsh 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Gmaxwell and Lar. Candidate's ideas are fundementally incompatible with creating a "free encyclopedia". There is a real need to cut down on the amount of frivolous fair use images on Wikipedia. I am not reassured by the candidate's responses here or on the talkpage. WjBscribe 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. If someone does not agree with the purpose of Commons to host free images only, that's not enough for me to oppose, though it's certainly something that would cause me to withhold support. But his lying on Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee, trying to pretend that he did not take the photos when he was upset about Commons' policies (which he admits in the Discussion section) makes me oppose. Arguing, being upset, sure, but not lying about it. ("Let he who is without fault cast the first stone," he says, but I've never subscribed to that philosophy, considering that it would completely stifle criticism everywhere: hardly a healthy result. Judge, and expect to be judged, without stooping to throwing rocks at each other.) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per copyright concerns. Also, in my experience Errabee has been a divisive force in some sensitive matters, including the whole "nationalism" issue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, with regret, per Gmaxwell, Lar, Jkelly, WJBscribe, and others. ElinorD (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I'm also quite troubled by Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee. ElinorD (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Not comfortable with your strong opinions on copyrighted images, per everyone above. Daniel Bryant 05:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per concerns above, especially the issue mentioned by Mindspillage. Timichal 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. I must oppose this request because of the concerns about this user's stance on copyright issues as expressed by many people above. Images and media are becoming an increasingly important part of admin work and people with this sort of stance shouldn't be in a position to be doing that work. --bainer (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per discussion and answer to question 3. Sr13 (T|C) 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose not necessarily because he takes a stance on image copyright that is not mainstream (if he has no intention of working with the administrative tools on images, that's a null fear), but because he lied. Sorry, trust is absolutely vital on an anonymous project such as this, and lying to make a point is something that will turn me off every time. -- nae'blis 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Weak on BLP. Frise 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Polish nationalism movement = dangerous bias in admin. LUCPOL 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Would you mind elaborating a bit more? —AldeBaer 16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. —AldeBaer 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral As per comments above, user did "jump ship" on previous admin. I don't speak Dutch, and my only other language is pretty bad German, so I don't dabble in the other Wikis, so I don't know how they're run, thus I submit a neutral vote instead of an oppose, to give the benefit of the doubt. Jmlk17 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per answer to question one. Real96 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I'm not fully satisfied based on the answer. I think it would be ideal to assume good faith all of the time, but I won't hold that to an oppose, either.--U.S.A. cubed 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Not user he understands BLP. Uncited negative material must be removed immediately. Being nice to the user concerned and assuming good faith is important, but secondary.--Docg 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC). Switching to oppose, per other concerns
    May I ask what uncited negative material that you are refering to?--U.S.A. cubed 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Just uncited negative material in general. BLP is a very serious thing that admins must know and be willing to enforce. It is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 talk 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Libel.Real96 10:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per the copyright concerns, which is a shame because Errabee strikes me as a very sane user and I'd support otherwise. – Steel 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Moved to neutral because I don't want to oppose this guy. – Steel 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Abstain from voting, but wish to comment
(Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers)
This nominees stance vis-a-vis copyrights and fair use is completely unacceptable. Our goal is to build a free encyclopedia. We are not here to create such a work with all sorts of clauses, conditions, and exceptions. This nominee completely misunderstands our purpose here. Commons a failure? More than a million free license media files and it's a failure? This nominee needs to go a long way to convince me they are actually committed to the real goals of the project, and not their notions of what it should be. --Durin 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I completely agree with Durin on this. We should not consider promoting as administrator a candidate whose commitment to our core policy of producing a free encyclopedia is in such serious doubt. --Tony Sidaway 10:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Amended to recommend promotion, Tony Sidaway 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Having read Mindspillage's comments, I must now oppose promotion. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not much more I can say that Durin and Tony haven't already said. I just can't agree with the comments on Commons, if anything, it's usefulness is being undermined by fair use images (usually lacking rationale and having no reason to exist) on local Wikipedia's making use of the free work on Commons difficult at times. If the closing crat goes for numbers, count this as a very strong oppose. -- Nick t 10:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm more than willing to enter into discussion, but I won't do it here to avoid having a very long chain of replies making a mess out of this process. All I want to say here is that if any crat thinks my stance on copyright is enough to close this RfA as a failure, I'd prefer that they snowballed this RfA. There's absolutely no sense in wasting people's time on reading my RfA and checking my contributions if there's no chance I'll get the sysop bit. Errabee 11:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • (It has been said that I'm no stranger to threading things too deeply on the RfA page itself, but I hear you :) ) As I said, my oppose is reluctant... You seem a thoughtful and serious candidate with many good qualities, perhaps discussion on the talk page of this RfA would be a good place? If not there, then where do you suggest? ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Seems as good a place as any. I'll start right now, but unfortunately, I don't have much time right now, so don't expect speedy answers, sorry. Errabee 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Errabee, with no disrespect intended, I think you should withdraw this nomination until such time as you are committed to the goals of this project. --Durin 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No disrespect taken. But I think you misunderstand me, as I am committed to the goals of this project. I think we only differ in the way these goals can/should be reached. As I've already said, if any crat thinks my stance on copyright is sufficient to deny granting the sysop bit, please snowball. But as long as there's a reasonable chance I'll get it, I won't withdraw. Sorry. Errabee 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Might be informative to read Simetrical's 2nd RFA. [5] His position on fair use was almost identical to your opinion. I think there was broad consensus at that time that this opinion is not appropriate for an admin. Even Brad Patrick, Foundation General Counsel at that time, made a comment about how this stance is not compatible with Foundation policy. FloNight 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • This licensing policy , recently adopted by the foundation, seems to indicate otherwise. For me, this is a step in the right direction. Errabee 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You do realise that the resolution outlaws non-free content on Commons completely, and brings it under severe control on all other projects? --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Errabee, you do realise that this does not say what you think it says, don't you? And as for Commons ever allowing fair use, I just don't see that happening without a massive shift in the very pillars of what the WMF is all about. Fair Use is something that is put up with, not something to be embraced. That's clear from what WMF says, over and over. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
            • For the moment, it seems that Commons is indeed out of scope, and that the projects indeed have to control sharply themselves. That's why I describe this as a step in the right direction, and not as the ultimate solution. However, EDP is something the Foundation is willing to support and set up in the individual projects, even if it means that the Foundation has to put up with it. That is more or less also my opinion: use free work where available, but fair use under strict conditions if not available otherwise but needed to illustrate articles. I believe that when enough projects have EDP in place, Commons can start to play a role for EDP pictures. Obviously, the current structure of Commons won't do, but I'm sure that some changes in the software and perhaps a new namespace for EDP pictures will allow Commons to host EDP to which all projects with EDP in place can link to, while projects without EDP won't be able to link to them. That way, you can disallow media uploads on the individual projects and have stricter control on the use of Fair Use itself. Errabee 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
            • And yes, I do understand that using Commons (or a new project like Commons but for EDP media) would require a new resolution. Errabee 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
              • The Foundation has no intention of allowing Commons to host non-free media. Individual projects may have an EDP for those limited cases where the media is necessary and there is no reasonable alternative. But the Commons is supposed to be a repository of free media, and furthermore the non-free images would be media out of the context in which its use would be fair use if hosted there. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Your last point is a very good one. I don't know what can be done about that (if anything), but I hope lawyers will come up with something (one can always have dreams). Nevertheless, I think that adoption of EDP by the Foundation (albeit grudgingly) is a good step. Errabee 02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I think we're roughly on the same page here although our perspectives are different in that I see the main problem for English Wikipedia as the rampant abuse of non-free images (which is being taken care of thanks largely to the resolution) whereas you put more emphasis on the absence of a good framework for controlled use of necessary non-free images within the law. That's good, and thanks for clarifying. You're otherwise an excellent candidate and I am now recommending that we promote you. --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • I think that is an excellent summary of my view on this issue. Errabee 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it quite alarming that per Kat's posting on the matter, this nominee actively lied about image status. This accusation comes from a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board and is not to be taken lightly. This juxtaposed with the user's stated position vis-a-vis copyright...I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario in which it would be reasonable to flag this person as an administrator. This is clearly unacceptable. --Durin 01:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • While Kat's posting indeed raises serious concerns, I do not think it should be taken "officially" as reflecting Wikimedia Foundation board's position or opinions; rather, I think Kat has expressed her views as a regular member of the community. Timichal 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Kat's opinion is no more important than anybody else's opinion (she's no angel her self...), regardless, can you provide a verifiable citation he lied? or are you just speculating? Matthew 08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Errabee said here: "And to press the issue further after my request was speedy denied at first, I pretended they had not been taken by me." [6]. So he's not just speculating... WjBscribe 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not suggesting that Kat's opinion weighs more heavily than any others here. I am suggesting this is not just a drive by willy-nilly comment, such as "oppose: less than 3178 wikipedia space edits". It's serious. --Durin 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll restate my position of fair use that I clarified in several posts:

  • Pictures are needed to illustrate and clarify text. Text in itself is in many cases not enough to convey the encyclopedic content of articles.
  • If no free pictures are to be found, and pictures are necessary for a good understanding of the article or for lending credibility to the article, non-free pictures may be used under the fair-use clause.
  • Fair use can only be used under strict conditions: a detailed statement of why the picture is used under fair use on that particular page is absolutely necessary.
  • If non-free pictures are used in places where no statement can be made as to why it is used, the picture should be removed from the article. If that means that the picture is orphaned, it will be subject to normal deletion procedures.
  • If some legal concerns can be overcome, a centralised framework (like Commons) for fair use pictures should be set up. In this framework, specialised access rights could be approved, assigned and watched on which pages on which projects non-free pictures are allowed to be used. If that is set up, the local upload can be abolished once all local pictures have been centralised.

I believe that this position is in no way juxta-posed to the licensing policy adopted by the Foundation in March, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Errabee 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.