Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nardman1

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] Nardman1

Final (3/14/4); Ended 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nardman1 (talk · contribs) - I created my account in 2004 to do some editing on subjects that interested me, but I didn't become a serious contributor until the middle of last year. I look to expand my role in helping the project by using some of the unique tools available to administrators. I know I am somewhat of a low volume contributor but I have a different editing style than many Wikipedians. Rather than focus on tasks such as "clear out this category of unusable images" or "clean up all these articles" what I like to do is examine article and image histories for examples of subtle vandalism or unnoticed deletion of important information or tags, the lack of which later makes the article seem like a deletion candidate. In other words, I like to save worthy images or articles from deletion by finding sources or playing Devil's Advocate for keeping them. See my editor review here. Nardman1 02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a self-nomination. Nardman1 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. It is clear I have some improving to do. Nardman1 01:57, 15 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 do you intend to take part in?
A: One of the things I really look forward to is being able to see deleted articles. A lot of times they were speedily deleted because they looked like they weren't notable enough, or because they didn't have sources. In most cases the judgment that provided this is correct. In others, just a little tweaking can make an article or image useable on the project. I look forward to expanding some of my current pursuits in other areas too, like tracking persistent sock-creating vandals.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions involve focusing on individual items of quality among a sea of other things for deletion and arguing for keeping them. A lot of times people get too caught up in process and say "this has been tagged for 2 weeks for deletion, so out it goes" and don't stop to look at whether it can be saved. On the other hand, stuff that needs to go should be deleted or tagged as such.
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: One recent conflict I kind of let myself get caught up in was the re-creation of the article A Week in the Woods. After a previous speedy deletion, it was re-created in better form, but without what I consider reliable sources. It was deleted again, but taken to DRV and restored. I took it to afd and then the image on the article to ifd. I admit I should have let it go after the original DRV. Even though I still disagree that the article has valid sources and that the image meets our "non-free" criteria, I respect the decisions of the community discussions on them. In the future I will continue to use consensus and input from other editors to guide my decisions, even if I disagree with them.
Optional questions from Iamunknown
4. I notice that you have a userbox on your user page that states, "This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive." What do you define as copyright paranoia? Why do you think that what you define is disruptive?
A. Well, I didn't write the userbox, but I imagine it means sometimes people are too strict sometimes on copyright issues. Especially when they define what is "free" and what is "non-free".
5. Could you give an example in an image deletion discussion where you thought editors were displaying "copyright paranoia" and were disruptive?
A. Disruptive, no. Overly paranoid, yes. See for example this discussion. All of the creative commons licenses protect an author's moral rights. See for instance [1]. In this case I believe the image has a free license, the only restriction being a plain invocation of moral rights, but it's still considered an un-free image. Why do we accept the creative commons licenses with this restriction but not this one image? There is another example here. Consensus appears to be heading towards this being an un-free image. I suppose someone needs to contact the copyright holder and ask, that'd be the only proper way to settle this.
6. How would you have closed this discussion?
A. I'm normally much more pro-fair use than most of the people who normally close deletion discussions. Normally I'd agree with some of the keep arguments in that a copyright holder cannot restrict fair use rights, as these are are statutorily granted exceptions to copyright protections, and NBC is most likely relying on its lawyers by painting the most narrow possible license on its website to protect its intellectual properties. However, given that the image was mis-tagged promotional and argument was made that it hurts NBC's resaleability of its intellectual property I might have closed delete. Fair use should only be used when it either negligibly impacts resaleability of intellectual property or when (ideally) it enhances such by making more people aware of a work, thus broadening its potential audience (people who then might buy the work). Nardman1 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from User talk:Spartaz
7 You recently nominated a newbie's user pages for deletion 13 days after they created their account because they were not contributing to the Encyclopedia. Please can you explain what steps you took to discuss this with the user before nominating the page and what other ways you used to encourage the user to be more productive? Finally, did you learn anything from the MFD - in particular the comments by Riana and the closing admins statement?.
A There was a warning already existing on his (now-deleted) talk page telling the user to contribute. One of the user's first contributions, to the page of a vandal who had been recently blocked, appeared to me to match a pattern I've seen among sockpuppeeteers, they like to leave messages on their departed comrade's pages. I wasn't trying to bite the newbie, I was trying to motivate him to be productive and trying to gauge whether he was in fact a puppet. I respectfully disagree with Riana's analysis. The user plainly was not interested in contributing, he even said it was "boring". If someone is just interested in using the project for socializing, that is a clear violation of WP:UP, making the page eligible for deletion. See also this edit, one of his very first [2]. This is not the contribution of a newbie. If I thought this person was a true newbie I would not have put his pages up for deletion right away.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nardman1 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Seen your work before. I'll support. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Subtler skills like this candidate's are really needed. Stammer 04:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Support - of the concerns raised by the opposers, the only one which worries me is the issue about images. Personally I don't do much work with images, however, so I can't really evaluate how serious the concerns are. I'm therefore going to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt, since the overall record looks good. Walton Need some help? 15:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to oppose. Walton Need some help? 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. All interactions I've had with Nardman have been positive, and judging from such interactions, I'm confident that he would not misuse the tools. Rockstar (T/C) 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Your temper really worries me. I've been known to be brusque at times myself, but bringing edit disputes in front of [Community Sanctions] is serious overkill. You also seem to forget edit summaries a lot-- this isn't a deal-killer on its own, but shows you might need a bit more experience before you get the mop. Coren 05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I think that opposing based upon the CSN post is fair. CSN isn't supposed to be only for discussions of community bans (see the closing admin's statement at the recent MfD for more details) as such a noticeboard would, as some argued and closing admin pointed out, efffectively be "Votes for banning". Ideally the CSN should be where good-faith editors can take issues that do not simply result in community bans; I see no evidence that Nardman1 was acting in bad faith. --Iamunknown 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Since my edit review I've added an edit summary to every edit I've made. As for Captain Scarlet, I dislike the fact that he can just ignore the sock policy and not be punished much at all. I have never been involved with his editorial disputes. Nardman1 10:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The candidate needs to understand policy and the wikiway much more than they do now before they get the mop. In particular I'd like to see much more conversation with users before running to noticeboards and dispute resolution. Interventions on noticeboards are often poorly judged and waste a lot of admin time over inconsequential issues. Wikilawyering over a deleted page Being warned not to shout at AIV Reporting a user for "wikistalking". Additionally, while reviewing the users contributions I noticed a couple of recent instances of reports not being acted upon (and in once case the candidate raised a checkuser as a result!). This suggests their grip of how/when to use the block button needs some work. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC). Trawling further to check I wasn't being unfair I also found this AFD nom that clearly shows the candidate doesn't understand our policies on deletion bearing in mind he acknowledges the awards in the nom. It also appears that he earlier incorrectly tagged the page for speedy deletion under A7 - which doesn't apply to articles about books. Spartaz Humbug! 08:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I asked for the undeletion of Pce3@ij.net's page because I wanted to read it. There's no "wikilaywering" there, besides me asking why it couldn't be undeleted. Yes, I did post an AIV in caps, but that's because I was emphasizing a point. I raised a checkuser in the case you mentioned, and the user was proven to use socks and earned a block as a result. The wiki-stalking one was because I was worried the user was going to file a complaint against me. I was asking the community to see if I had in fact engaged in wiki-stalking. As for the book, I still dispute the sources were reliable. Library associations are not in themselves inherently notable. Nardman1 10:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If you wanted to see the page you could have asked any admin to e-mail you a copy. Instead you wasted everyones time by taking it to DRV. Also, you weren't accused of wikistalking - the user asked you to leave them alone and you raised an AN/I report asking whether users making false claims of wikistalking should be blocked. Clearly you still do not understand the deletion poicy. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • At the time I made the request, the page existed because someone had re-created it by posting a image deletion warning on it, and I was asking for a history-only undeletion, which would have happily resided in the page history not causing any harm. I moved the discussion from history-only undeletions when it was clear more comments were needed. The page was re-deleted mid-way through the DRV... changing what had been a history-only undeletion request to a full undeletion request, which was not my intention. Furthermore if you read the thread I consented to receiving a copy by email and closing the discussion. Nardman1 11:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. No. If this candidate were promoted, it will invariable lead to deletion/restoration wheel wars. TML 09:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would not wheel war. I would instead ask for people's input or drop the matter. Nardman1 10:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • And just like that, by challenging my vote, you've just earned yourself a strong oppose from me. TML 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Why? That's not fair. Do you have any suggestions for Nardman1? He or she certainly cannot improve otherwise. --Iamunknown 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I think candidates have the right to address the concerns of those voting in opposition to them... .V. [Talk|Email] 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Unconstructive (by this I mean accusation without backing evidence) votes like this should not be responded as it most likely will be ignored by the 'crats. Aquarius • talk 17:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely Not - Per answer to Question 5 - totally clueless about what constitutes a free image, we happily accept the CC-BY licence here and more importantly on Commons, in fact we accept all Creative Commons licences which permit commercial use and derivative works, so that includes Attribution and Share-alike licences. I've also witnessed a number of alarming edits to userpages, such as a recent demand that Betacommand cease operating a bot, general moaning that Gen Von Klinkerhoffen had been unblocked [3] without being considerate enough to inform Eagle 101 he was being discussed at both the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents and the Community Sanction Noticeboard. There's no way I can support this candidate at this time. -- Nick t 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Eagle101 started the ANI discussion and the CN discussion was linked from the ANI discussion. This accusation is false. In fact, Eagle101 was the one who failed to notify the other administrator he'd unblocked Klinkerhoffen. Have you even read the cc licenses? They plainly state they reserve an author's moral rights "Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights." And Betacommand's bot was mis-behaving, and was temporarily blocked pending further discussion until it was fixed. Nardman1 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    I consider such a response further evidence of why your unsuitable for promotion at this time. -- Nick t 11:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Sorry but less than 1000 edits to the WP:NAMESPACE over such a long period of time seems a little too low for an RfA candidate, I think you could definitely be an admin in the future with some more solid contribs and possible WP:XFD work, you may wish to consider applying for an admin coach? Regards --The Sunshine Man 14:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose mainly for the Gen. von Klinkerhoffen unblock incident. Sorry, but trying to say an unblock is invalid because the only thing really wrong about it was that it overrode community consensus is just excessive process wonk, a misunderstanding of what a community ban is (and its two definitions), and, to an extent, inability to use WP:IAR. Coupling this with problems with understanding images as raised by Nick and the combative attitude exhibited on this RfA leaves me with a serious doubt about this user's admin capabilities right now. —210physicq (c) 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I'm quite worried about this user's interpretation of blocking policy. In discussion, Nardman1 requested an unshared IP and a school IP to be blocked for an extended period of time because these users were "persistent vandals". The IPs had only received as high as a t2 warning for that particular day. What Nardman1 quoted from the blocking policy refers to the block durations and what duration is appropriate. The blocking policy he quoted: "If there is persistent disruption or vandalism from an IP addresses, the block should be extended (with the 'anon-only' option selected) as long as is necessary to prevent further disruption." This does not say that administrators should block users for long periods of time because they have vandalized. It says that when a user is in need of a preventative block for vandalism, a long-term block can be considered if the user has a past history of vandalism and/or has been previously blocked for that violation. Also, administrators are frequently requested to intervene and resolve disputes between editors regarding a particular article. It is my personal belief that an admin can be of help in these sort of disputes only if they have experienced these sort of conflicts before, or if they have witnessed an edit conflict. Judging from his talk page contributions, I don't see much article discussion coming from Nardman, which gives me no indication that this user will know how to handle or mediate editing disputes in the future. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Opppose Per Physicq210 and serious copyright concerns. Garion96 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose- Per the Sunshine Man- I think you need more experience in WP:XFD and more mainspace edits. Thunderwing 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per concerns mentioned in oppose section. Captain panda 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose - I hadn't realised that this user was responsible for the Bluwiki MfD. The last thing we need is more admins who want to delete people's userpages without their permission. Remember, if they're creating pretty userpages instead of editing the mainspace, at least they're not vandalising. All admins should realise this important point. Walton Need some help? 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - Per user's stand on WP:FAIRUSE. In serious areas like this, there's no such thing as "too strict". Aquarius • talk 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose: A couple things bother me with this user. To start off, as stated by numerous other users Q5 shows a lack of knowledge of the image fair use policy. Next, user's edit summary usage isn't the greatest could be improved, but also, user only has 3000 edits and has had the account since 2004. While they may not have been active until last year as stated in nomination user is a "low volume contributer" which to me doesn't show much need for the tools.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: Per above, but especially given candidate's views on fair use policy. Despite the wishes of many users and widespread practice on the Internet, copyright law is a fact on the ground and not subject to consensus or the personal preferences of laymen.  RGTraynor  23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I am concerned about the claims made at Image:Jiahu Flutes.jpg. Nardman1 originally uploaded this image as fair use, but it was deleted in March. Than he reuploaded with a rather extravagant claim that copyright doesn't apply, even though copyright is (evidently) claimed by the source. His claim is based on the idea that photographs of 3-dimensional objects are not creative works are do not have copyright. This runs counter to our longtime standards as detailed both here and at commons; we have always held that only photographs of 2-dimensional works are protected. All of that may or may not be relevant to this adminship request, but I'm concerned about the editor's attitude toward our non-free content policies. Chick Bowen 06:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a utilitarian object. If you'd like to dispute my legal analysis bring it up at the proper forum. As I read the law, uncreative pictures of utilitarian objects are PD. Nardman1 10:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't agree. I've commented at WP:PUI and that's probably where we should keep further discussion. --Iamunknown 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - I have some objections regarding certain actions undertaken by Nardman (see questions above) but I also see that he could be a good admin, explaining my neutrality - Please leave any queries on my talk page Booksworm Talk to me! 13:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per the Bluwiki MfD - inability to assume good faith, and biting. (I don't disagree with Daniel's closure, but I stand by my statement). Also, seemed to take the LegoAxiom thing a little too personally. – Rianaऋ 14:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I'm just not sure. I believe the user is experienced enough, but the majority of well-respected users here seem to have pretty deep reservations about it. I'm not basing my vote on their opinions; I'm just going with neutrality because 1). the copyright issue(s) stated above, and 2.) their apparent quickness to anger over certain issues. Jmlk17 04:20, 14 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.