Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lincalinca

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] Lincalinca

Final (28/18/3); Originally scheduled to end 12:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lincalinca (talk · contribs) - I've been a Wikipedia editor since March 2006 and have enjoyed adding to the encyclopedia resource that it is. I'm interested in expanding my capacity as an editor. This is my first RfA and I'm interested in being an Admin, but if I'm knocked back here (hopefully not) I think I'd wait about six months and see what the time serves. I have no interest in moving on to become a Checkuser or Beaurocrat, but would like to contribute to WP:CSD and to a lesser extent WP:AFD and also assist editors in reinstating deleted articles where applicable, to allow us to build the web. As a "delisionist", I believe the term is, I believe in giving most things a fair go. My main interest is in being able to edit protected pages upon requests from the {{editprotected}} function and the like, in order to be able to serve the various wikiprojects and other users, with diligence and giving due thought to the changes being requested. I feel that I assume good faith, most of the time. For the times I don't, I apologise that my humanity gets in the way of me editing like a saint. I have a keen interest in the coding aspects (I'm not fantastic, but I'm getting better at that stuff) and not trying to reinvent the wheel, but occasionally build a better bridge. In summary, I feel I'd be able to contribute to a greater capacity and would look to guide newer editors. lincalinca 12:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly Protected edit requests, WP:CSD and WP:AFD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My graphic design skills and ability to create esoteric and complicated functions where necessary, and to "hide" these functions where able and applicable into templates, allowing a balance of the complicated programming skills required for some functions, while still allowing for anybody to edit. I also feel that I have been able to connect into the various communities to develop the articles, assist in gaining consensus where difficult and improve my own skills.
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: Generally, my conflicts have been related to a matter of opinion relating to design. I usually try to avoid using policy to argue my defence as I would like (and always hope) that common sense can prevail, though differing opinions apply with common sense and even differing interpretations of the policies do occur at times, where the policies are ambiguous or unclear. In these cases, I usually approach my peers, other editors I do know (though I avoid canvassing to bully my opinion across, as I consider that to be disrespectful to the person I have a difference of opinion with) and I try to get a third point of view. Often when I've done this, I've approached 2 people: one whom I generally agree with, and one with whom I've had a disagreement in the past, as I feel it's more productive having a full view of the argument to gain consensus. To the point of "conflict" however, I don't believe anything has ever reached that point, but simply disagreements that I've felt passionately for.

Question from User:Pedro

4. HI Lincalinca and thank you for your request. You say that you would like to work within WP:AFD and WP:CSD. After reviewing your last 2,000 contributions I couldn't see any evidence of speedy deletion tagging and your only AFD contribution I could see was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist polemics. How do you feel your lack of experience so far in these areas may impact on your ability to use the tools wisely as an admin? Pedro :  Chat  13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
A. I don't feel that these are to be my primary areas of dealing. I intend to familiarise myself with deletion before doing the work. I guess you could say I want to make sure I'm ready before I go and start deleting articles. But what experience I have in deletion I feel has been very helpful in my learning in the area. I don't want to just jump in and delete straight away. I'd rather work more on the Protection requests, and reinstating articles and images as appropriate and necessary, should there be an adequate rationale given by the user as to why this should be done, such as was done with the Twilightning article, when it was originally deleted, Chubbles requested it be reinstated, and it was and he and I worked on improving the article to mainspace quality. Does this adress your concern? --lincalinca 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Question from User:Carlossuarez46

5. Hi. Looking at this diff on October 9 last, it appears that you removed an afd notice from an article that was undergoing an afd - that article has since been deleted. Your edit comment was "Songs don't have a notability guideline. removed nom for deletion". Is that your opinion? How is the community to decide whether a song is notable? How are people viewing the article to be informed that it is being considered for deletion? Do you think your action was appropriate? Carlossuarez46 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As I was aware at the time (and have since been advised otherwise) there was no notability guideline for songs. This has been the case since I've been on Wikipedia, however I've since been advised that a new guideline was implemented where songs are now assessed for notability. I admit my change in this case was in error, however this was due to my then-outdated policy knowledge. Upon this being brought to my attention, very promptly following my removal of the AfD, I've since been more prudent with assessing or judging anything that has been submitted for deletion, particularly verifying the appropriate policies in place. --lincalinca 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lincalinca before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - A decent candidate. Yes I often say I like a Wikipedia-space participation count around 400, but 370+ is almost there! Excellent article work, and an altogether good RfA. Best wishes, Lradrama 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - great user, complies with all my criteria. Rudget Contributions 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm just a little nervous that although you have plenty of article and Wikiproject edits you really have very little experience in C:CSD, WP:AFD, RC Patrol etc. etc. However it takes all sorts here, and looking at your user page you certainly seem to be civil, and an excellent article writer. So whilst your experience in admin areas is limited you certainly have the WP:ENC bit - thus I'm happy to support this request. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support The lack of experience in C:CSD and WP:AFD is a minor concern here because you are a great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose support per above NHRHS2010 talk 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support A decent amount of experience, appears to be very civil and it's good to hear you are willing to learn in the areas you are unsure about before you jump in and start deleting. Tiddly-Tom 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - Looks good.   jj137 (Talk) 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support A few concerns, but overall, I think this user is mop-material! PatPolitics rule! 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Clearly has the capacity to make a good Admin... Johnfos 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To be honest, that's one of the reasons I placed CSD as one of my activities, since I can foresee a lot of pages requiring removal due to that. It's also something that prompted me to want to nominate myself. --lincalinca 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Seen this user around: should be fine. Acalamari 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support as a very likely positive asset as an admin. CitiCat ♫ 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Nothing serious enough to oppose. I believe that Lincalinca will be more careful with image tagging from now on, like he stated below. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. I've incorrectly tagged images I've uploaded after I became an admin. It's easy to do. No reason to oppose. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Wide edit range, making this user a probable knowledgeable Wikipedian. Also, per all above. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I checked the editor review (linked in the "Discussion" section). That was more than two month ago; by now, I'm pretty confident Lincalinca has the experience he needs. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, I trust Linca with the buttons. ~ Sebi 01:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support John254 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. I must say, I'm a bit disappointed with you Linc. You said you didn't want adminship - and now you self nom! And you tell me about it when I'm on wikibreak!! If you didn't kick so much ass, I'd be opposing, mate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Hmmm, in general I don't think this user will abuse the tools, but a tad more experience in Admin areas would be nice. Phgao 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Good user--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support The only issue was to do with images, and the user seems to have learned his lesson in that arena. Certainly to be trusted. VanTucky Talk 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Why not. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Dedicated editor who needs to follow the image-use rules but appears to be willing to do so. Cla68 03:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Seems trustworthy and competent. A little more experience in admin stuff would be good but nothing that worries me. Pigman 06:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support good involvement at FA shows dedication and was civil there I recall. Can brush up on Free/Fair-Use image issues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support a good editor, definitely one of the good guys. Agree with Casliber and others, a need to brush up on fair use is evident, but none of us are perfect. The Rambling Man 14:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support All contributions are valid, I'll say. So go ahead Lincalinca :)--NAHID 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Support I hate self nominations on principle, but the only real knock I can find with this editor is a perhaps less-than-ideal understanding of image policy. I doubt there are many editors out there who has a perfect understanding of every policy and guideline. Lincalinca appears to be an enthusiastic, well-meaning editor with a great attitude who is willing to admit mistakes and learn from experience. I trust this editor, and would simply suggest he become more familiar with image policy right away; that would clear up most concerns, I think. faithless (speak) 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - I'm concerned that you do not know very well of the image policy for free images, as a few of the images you uploaded have an invalid copyright: [1] [2] [3]. This could be a problem. RaNdOm26 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    This user uploaded the copyrighted images months ago, just to let you know. NHRHS2010 talk 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm aware of this being a few months but he hasn't made a response about those images regarding appropriate licenses, and I sense that he may still upload images that are unsuitable in Wikipedia as he may not understand the policy. I've found out he has also uploaded a slightly more recent Image (about two months) which is an nc-nd image and should ideally be deleted, and he has tagged with the wrong license. If he does now the license is wrong, he should have taken the initiative to correct it, but he hasn't done it.
    In addition, he has uploaded several non-free images one, two which are unacceptable because they are images of living people, per image policy of replaceability. I am aware that he knows about it per this and this, yet he has still chosen to uploaded them. I don't have the faith for him to have the tools as he is inconsistent with his editing by adding images when he knows they are inappropriate for use, therefore lack of sense of judgement. RaNdOm26 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    I am aware that my tagging may have been inaccurate in some of these cases, and for that all I can say is that I'm sorry. This argument applies to all similarly guided discussion (and, by this I mean opposition). I've been a lazy image tagger in this respect. I have no argument other than to say that I intend to familiarise myself to a greater degree with these policies if I am to be something of an example to others. In my defence, we're all entitled to make mistakes, and because I haven't (I don't think) uploaded a great volume of images, I simply haven't prioritised learning about these issues, but this will end immediately. Until I can completely and objectively state that the correct tagging for copyright, common use or public domain, I will withhold any images I intend to upload, and will follow protocols to the letter when doing so. --lincalinca 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose per this and this; as recently as 4 and 5 October this user was prepared to argue in favour of having nonfree images on the Powderfinger article, and that it was ok to use nonfree images as long as they were "tastefully used". Everybody makes mistakes of course, but such a recent statement which so fundamentally contradicts Wikipedia:Non-free content, one of our guidelines, from someone who states that images are a main focus of their work here, taken with a (seeming) lack of evidence of participation in admin-like work (WP:AIV, WP:RFA, etc) makes me unable to support at this time. Sorry. --John 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not certain that Lincalinca is making the argument that "tasteful" has anything to do with the acceptability. Since the comment was in quotation marks, possibly it was just a referral to someone else's statement? Perhaps the candidate could offer some clarification on this. CitiCat ♫ 02:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    As citicat suggested, I wasn't supporting the use of non-free where class or taste was an issue: I was stating that when used appropriately, an album cover could be used in an article that it not for the album itself, if appropriately tagged and the article provided sufficient discussion relating to the cover itself. The definition of "sufficient" is obviously where you and I didn't see eye-to-eye, and unfortunately there's no specific guideline as to what is deemed "appropriate" (my use of "tastefully" was referring to appropriateness), and the subjectivity was obviously the difference between your stance and my own. Having cleared my head with this mater, I do now consider that it's probably not appropriate based on the lack of volume of discussion of the images in the article itself (especially in the case of Powderfinger, as you mentioned). I do have a very clear understanding as to the legal protocols of copyright, commons usage and public domain, but have found myself having teething problems coming to grips with the vast difference between these laws and the policies here on Wikipedia. I did think it was simply a matter of treating copyright articles the way they can be treated in any other resource, but now concede that the policies are in place to remove any doubt or to mvoe as far out of the grey areas prevalent in the laws as possible. I have very recently shifted my stance on this matter, having "got it". --lincalinca 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying your stance. None of us is perfect when it comes to image policy, and I agree the implementation of policy is not always easy to square with the goal of building a high-quality product. I want to clarify that my oppose is not because you disagreed with me a couple of weeks ago, that would be awfully petty on my part if it were true. It's just that the only two ways I know of to evaluate the quality of a candidate are to go on one's personal interactions with them, or to examine their contributions. That incident in early October was (as far as I recall) my only personal interaction with you so it is all I can go on. Your contributions are good, but there are not enough in administrative-like areas for me to properly judge what you would be like as an admin. I do respect your hard work and integrity, and if you were to be unsuccessful this time I would probably support a few months down the line. Changed to weak oppose. --John 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Not regarding the 2nd comment by John, I'd like to point out that you said that my comments in that debate had, to some extent, changed your thinking. Yet my comments went as far against the fair use policy as Linc's, if we're going to look at it that way. Did they change your thinking, or are you just ignoring that now? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    I've replied here, as I didn't want to clutter up this discussion with the argument about the detail of the discussion the three of us had a few weeks ago and what I took from it. My Weak Oppose still stands, without any disrespect to the candidate, who is a fine contributor, just not quite ready for the tools yet, in my opinion. --John 06:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Replied on your talk page, cheers. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Look at Image:Matt Bronleewe.png or Image:David LaBruyere.jpg, which are nonfree images used to show what living people look like. Or, even worse, at Image:Normie Rowe.jpg or Image:Liam Finn.jpg, which don't even have the right licenses, as the Flickr pages explicitly state that the images can't be used commercially. And these are all uploads from the past two or three months! These examples lead me to believe that the user both really, really pushes it when it comes to inappropriate instances of fair use and that he or she can't tell which images are free and which images aren't. As a side note: Given that I've found these egregious errors with very little searching, someone should really go through his or her upload log, as there's likely to be more problems. -- RG2 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    My two responses to similar statements above should adequately address your concern (I hope it appeases your concern). As to the Liam Finn and Normie Rowe images, I'm not sure about the Normie Rowe image, but the Liam Finn one was changed to non-commercial use after I uploaded it (I've only just become aware of this since it was tagged for deletion). In my defence, I would likely now delete the file were I an admin, considering the change of stance by the Flickr user (though I wasn't aware someone could change the copyright status, but my knowledge of commons is not as strong as reserving all rights or completely releasing to public domain, notably due to the concept of commons or gfdl is newer than these other two methods). --lincalinca 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose. Not very high on the Wikipedia-namespace contributions which tends to indicate a probable lack of policy knowledge, and also the above concerns about image licensing make me reluctant to go any other way. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I intend no offence with this statement, but should my experience in the policy, deletion and project articles (and the like) have an effect on my efficiency or performance as an editor or administrator? Obviously not necessarily as an editor. I don't see it as an issue as an administrator either, though I guess this is a matter of personal preference. There's no hard and fast rule about these kinds of things but one user in the support column indicates very specifically that, though I have approximately 370 edits in the Wikispace and his preference is approximately 400, the quality of the edits themselves granst it more weight (these are my words of interpretation). If you wish, I can dedicate some more time to that side of things, though, as I believe I articulated in my reasoning for nominating myself (and if I didn't, I'm sorry and I'll amend it to reflect as such) I'm an editor with the purpose of building the web. I intend to advise and promote sharing the volume of all human knowledge on one resource. For this reason, I edit the mainspace mroe than anything. It's also why I have no care for becoming a Beaurocrat. I'd rather put my head down and work on articles as well as assist other editors in doing so, and in some cases this will require tools I presently don't have access to. I simply wish to expand the tools available to me in order to expand the impact I can have and the ability to achieve the common goal. I don't expect (even though I hope) that this will change your mind, but I wish to simply make that clear. --lincalinca 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      Yes, it should. The level of 400 Wikipedia namespace edits I require is an absolute minimum - I'd prefer to see closer to 1000 raw edits but over 400 I would at least consider the quality and relevance. I'm not sure what you would like adminship for either. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per John and RG. Jmlk17 07:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above. Epbr123 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Fair use concerns. Daniel 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Fair use concerns me as well. Ral315 » 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. (Not to be counted if it comes down to this vote) Weak Oppose per above though I trust you've learned from your mistakes --Pumpmeup 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    I personally think a comment in the neutral section would be more appropriate if you don't want your vote to be given that much weight... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose– A little more work on fair use rationales on images and you would be good to go. But for now, I'm gonna have to oppose. Ksy92003(talk) 05:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose insufficient real text contribution experience. `'Míkka 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Could you elaborate on what you mean by "real text" contributions? Policy text? Wikiprojects? Or are you talking about the Mainspace? Because I have over 7,500 articlespace edits, and generally I don't just flippantly approve all edits; I give almost all of them thought. I'm not immune to mistakes, but I do generally give a lot of thought to edits and preview every edit, even in the talkspace. --lincalinca 05:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    He's opposing your mainspace contributions. Which is laughable. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more food admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    However in this particular case it seems I have made a mistake: I probably clicked wrong user to look thru contributions. After a review I am withdrawing my vote. `'Míkka 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose based on concerns in answer to question number 5 and the incident in question; regardless of whether one concurs in a policy or whether one believes that a policy does/doesn't exist - in confronting an afd one thinks is unsupported the norm is to chime in at the afd discussion rather than remove the tags and expect it will go away. I cannot predict whether the tools will be misused but the event and what has/hasn't been learned from it gives no comfort. Carlossuarez46 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Per above. ♫ Cricket02 04:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. An important aspect of adminship is to understand, or at the very least, acknowledge NFCC. Uploading fair use images of living people makes me doubt such knowledge. All admins, whether they wish to work with images or not, will need to understand the basic essence of fair use, and what constitutes copyright infringement. --DarkFalls talk 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Your comment suggests I be familiar with NFCC, but as I've articulated, the guidelines set out here are not the legal requirements, they're designed within a buffer to remove ALL doubt, rather than just scrape it. I'm used to working in copyright, having worked in the music industry, proofing, typesetting and graphic design. Not only has it been a hobby, it's also been a job of mine to understand legal particulars to do with copyright and the like. As I explained above, I do admit to having had some teething problems when it comes to the more restrictive versions of these laws in the Wikipolicies. At first I found them cumbersome, but I now understand their necessity, but to state that I don't understand or even ackowledge NFCC is a statement I could easily construe as an insult. I'm going to assume that you were assuming good faith and ask for you to explain what you meant by this to explain your opposition. Otherwise, your opposition isn't clear, as I'm certain that I not only ackowledge NFCC, but I actually advocate and understand its importance. --lincalinca 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I wasn't clear with my opposition, to which I apologize. What I mean with it was that you did not understand, from the examples given above, about the replaceability factor of the NFCC criteria. Unless in exemplary circumstances, fair use images should not be uploaded of lliving people. (An example of a case in which it could be made is in Osama Bin Laden) I'm sorry if you were insulted by the opposition, it wasn't meant that way; but I am not confident from the examples shown, of your ability to deal with copyright and fair use images. --DarkFalls talk 08:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I appreciate the honesty with which this user approaches the questions in this RfA. They are not defensive but very open. However your response to #5 is troubling as are the comments about improper image uploads. I would encourage you to take that six months or maybe even a little less and come back later with a stronger vita. Thanks for applying and please do not be discouraged. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 11:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Carlossuarez46. We can always be wrong about some guideline or its latest version, but the rather recent incident mentioned in question 5 and the answer here somehow convey that you think that our policies and guidelines precede any actual consensus building. This points at the need at indeed spending more time in the areas such as AfD where you would want to work an administrator. --Tikiwont 08:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    I doubt I'd be able to persuade you of otherwise, but cool as that description sounds, my intention is in order to help out. I suppose there's nothing I can do to prove altruism or the positivity of my plight. I guess I would just want the assumption of good faith to prevail. I have noticed you voted in this same way for DarkFalls on his second nomination (the one that passed) and according to the notes left on his, that was not the first either. I'm sure there are those who have used the admin powers to (and I'll try to be delicate about this) rule the roost, but I hope you can recognise that that's not my intention. I do understand if you still advocate your position. --lincalinca 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    He's an infamous RfA troll; ignore him. — H2O —  07:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose due to fair use rationale. Just because pics are on flickr, doesn't mean that they are necessarily free pictures to used on wikipedia. Miranda 10:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This comment has me somewhat confused. I'm not simply randomly browsing Flickr in order to acquire images, I search Flickr specifically for images that are under creative commons for non commercial use and assess each individual image for its appropriateness according to the guidelines. I do admit that some time ago I was of the (mis)understanding that anything there was applicable, but have been well aware that that isn't the case for months now. The reason I believed that was acceptable when I did was that when introduced to Flickr, it was introduced to me as a completely creativecommons and public domain resource and that images on there could not reserve all rights. I'm not sure if this was ever the case, but I do know that that's how it was introduced to me, and I'm now aware that the gretaer proportion of the iages kept on flickr are unacceptable for wp. --lincalinca 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    So which CC licenses are acceptable then? Miranda 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    In short, anything with an appropriate tag on this page, but descriptively speaking, items that allow commercial use, basic attribution is acceptable, images that don't allow to be build upon as long as the image is not modified (i.e. don't build upon means don't build upon). Off the top of my head, that's all I can think of. That said, now that I'm more aware of the policy in place (and as articulated earlier, becoming more familiar daily) I'm still assessing each image I upload according to what I can find as acceptable in the instance. I know now (and didn't only months ago) that images that are not for commercial use are not acceptable. --lincalinca 10:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - Neutral due to lack of some policy experience, though in light of Siva1979 (talk · contribs)'s comments I do not wish to oppose. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  2. Neutral (changed from support) Perhaps I was too quick to lend my support, but all of the faith I had in this editor was dashed with in one fell swoop. It just rubs me the wrong way when an editor is opposed (or neutral-ed) at RfA for one little nit-picky reason. I hated when I saw it here, but I hated it even more at Hit bull, win steak's RfA. You would withhold support over the fact that an editor doesn't have a Featured Article under their belt, but have no problem nominating yourself, when it's been shown that you have trouble understanding image policy? This doesn't sit right with me; I'd say that an understanding of policy is more important in a potential admin than something as trivial as not yet having an FA. In the interest of full disclosure, I did support Hit bull, win steak, but don't know the editor personally and have never interacted with him. But it seems that you're holding other potential admins to a much higher standard than you hold yourself. Simply put, I no longer trust this editor's judgment and initial concerns over his understanding of the image policy have been intensified. Regarding these concerns, he noted above that "I intend to familiarise myself to a greater degree with these policies if I am to be something of an example to others." Perhaps he will do this and in a few months my misgivings will be assuaged. I certainly hope so, for the reasons I initially mentioned when I supported. LincaLinca has the makings of an admin, but I believe that he is not yet ready. faithless (speak) 07:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't believe my judgement of another person's RfA should have an affect on my own. This is my opinion, but the whole reason we go through a manner of reaching consensus in RfA rather than having a bot make the decisions is that subjectivity is at play. Should a person have a full and complete understanding of NFCC before becoming an admin? Possibly. I believe I have a great understanding of it and am delving more deeply daily to familiarise myself with the matter. Should a person have contributions that expand wikipedia towards the goal, of providing Wikipedia's "best work"? There's no criteria for RfA, but this to me is an expectation. Please note I didn't oppose hbws, I simply believe despite the volume of work done, for a fuller perspective, I believe s/he needs to have either a handful of GAs to credit or at the VERY least an FA. As I said, I wouldn't be against him/her becoming an admin, but reserve giving my support as I see this as a crutial part of administrating. In summary, you see NFCC as important, as do I, but I see contributions towards the spectrum of Wikiwork as being important, and achieving Featured status to me is very important in fulfilling a contribution to the greater scope. I don't expect to change your mind on this, but I do find it a shame that my judgement, which is based on my opinion which I believe I delivered in a civil manner (if not, PLEASE let me know), has caused you to lose faith in me. For the record, chances are that hbws will achieve Adminship. I'm hoping the gravity of my statements, either way, encourage the user to contribute in this way. --lincalinca 08:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - because I so don't get the answer to question 5, from Carlossuarez46 (ie why not say it was a blunder to remove the notice, but instead start talking about the notability policy in question?) but it seems to be a bit harsh to oppose because of this. Greswik 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To clarify, it was a blunder, but doubly so: I mistook the afd for a prod and was unaware of the newly written notability guideline for songs. --lincalinca 02:21, 2 November 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.