Commons:Requests and votes/TwoWings

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

10  Support. 8  Oppose. 2  Neutral. Nomination unsuccessful. TwoWings, please take on board the good faith advice and criticism again, and try again when you think you're ready. Good luck. giggy (:O) 10:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TwoWings

Closing no earlier than 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Links for TwoWings: TwoWings (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

It is my pleasure to nominate TwoWings for adminship. He's been around here for two years now. He's active all over the place, both taking photographs, tagging images (and other mainspace tasks), and contributing to discussions in Commons space as well. From all I've seen of him, he's melon, he's friendly, and he generally has the right attitude to be a good admin. He's clueful about the critical licensing and copyright issues, as well. All around, I believe he will make an excellent administrator. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To TwoWings: You re-added this page to the log, but please formally indicate your acceptance. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah well I accept! ;-) Thanks a lot! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support as nominator, also first post. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lewis, perpetually "finishing" early. ^_^ --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I thought you were an admin already! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support of course, for his help and everything he has done for me Stef48 11:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Rastrojo (D•ES) 12:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I am not sure this user grasps all the issues related to image permissions, or will act with the proper sensitivity to living image subjects, based on what I've seen so far in various discussions. (for example: here, or here there are others) Perhaps if a significant change in attitude were evidenced, but not at this time. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I'd actually wondered a couple of times about approaching this user myself with a view to nomination & they do do some very good work indeed. However I really would not be comfortable with this user having sysop rights at present. There may well be a misunderstanding about project scope from the undeletion request for the Susan image. Equally I think the user tends to overlook aspects of licensing such as potential personality rights issues which we do need to be sensitive to. --Herby talk thyme 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I really appreciate the work TwoWings does, but I don't think he should be an admin. He has very strong beliefs and spends a great deal of time fighting for those. Which, for the most part, is good. We need diversity; we need balance. Unfortunately, I think those beliefs would affect his admin actions a little too much. As said, what is or isn't in our scope is subjective. I don't expect everyone to agree, but there are vaguely defined borders that the majority of us do agree on. Consensus, if you will. Maybe we can't put what those are into words, but just have a look at some recent (un)deletion debates and you get an idea. If TwoWings feels the need to respond to this, I would rather hear why he wants to be an admin. I don't think "would be interesting" is a good reason. Rocket000 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - a quick browse of your recent contributions shows some very questionable judgment regarding the importance of some images to this project. As the users above have said, there are some scope standards, and you do not appear to recognize them. Also, as Lar said below, we do not, at the time, choose deleters or protectors here, but administrators, whose duties are not restricted to specific areas, but are to use all of the tools that come with the job to keep the Commons safe. Désolé. --Boricuæddie 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral As a user you can fight for your preferences, principles and convictions, especially if you have to discuss against hard-headed or even extremist "opponents". As an administrator, you have to go for a consensus. A user will not necessarily have the same behaviour when he becomes administrator (or grows older). In this case, I don't feel competent to make a forecast. --Foroa 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that mean that you have to abandon your own values and opinions when you become an admin?!!! Do we have to become robots with no feelings?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Life is complex thing and values and opinions could be changed especially if you learn or simply understand something. --EugeneZelenko 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support He even gives the notorious faker Ribi a chance, to present his arguments. What more do you want? I would not be so patient with such people. Mutter Erde 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I know that thank you! ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I regard TwoWings as competent and committed. He clearly has a good understanding of the questions that arise on Commons. I do not always share his answers, but this is only a sign that at least one of us still has something to learn, which is OK. If you had to be perfect to become an admin, noone would be; and if you had nothing to learn when you got the status, a sysop's life would be very boring indeed. As for many other fields, what matter in adminship is not so much having all the answers than knowing when you're not sure and have to ask advices. Rama 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    knowing when you're not sure and have to ask advices > that's exactly what I meant in my comments! Thank you! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I had quite a hard time deciding on this RFA. TwoWings is dedicated to the project but also known for his broad view on project scope which is quite contradictory to many other's interpretation and spends quite some time trying to fight his opinion. In this field it is inevitable that the situation will get hot at times. I am however convinced that TwoWings will act according to consensus and will not use the sysop tools to push his opinion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't have anything more to apply. All of the other opposes pretty much said it all. If this is succesful, TwoWings. Please be very careful about your own opinion and about our project scope. If this goes unsuccessful TwoWings, don't let this stop you from trying another RfA. Try to learn from the opposes, and you'll do fine next time. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm already learning, don't worry! I'm starting to understand sopme few things and I do think I should be more consensual than I am. Thanks for your message. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good contributor on Commons and very active in maintenance. Even if I think it's better to be admin on one's own WP before requesting adminiship on Commons, I support this candidate. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, per Lar &reasoning below, nothing personal. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't always agree with Lar but here he's on the money.--Londoneye 11:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I find TwoWings' comments below very encouraging. Anyone who has that kind of attitude, has the right stuff in my book. But looking at the extent of TwoWing's responses to Ribi give me serious pause. I hope that TwoWings takes on board the sentiments expressed in this RFA and returns in a few months for a successful sequel. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (reluctant) I respect TwoWings hard work, but I feel a little uneasy about this users capabilities in mediating a consensus instead of presenting a POV. I have read the users comments about staying out of topics where own views becomes problematic, and I appreciate that. I am still not convinced though... -- Slaunger 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ahonc (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments by TwoWings

I'd like to comment some votes and defend myself (could I?). Please don't think I'm trying to force anyone voting for me! I just think I have the right to react to whatever I'm "accused" of. And I'm ready to take everything in account in order to improve my behaviour and my knowledge as a potential admin. Thank you for all your interesting comments.

  • If you think I cannot deal with personnality rights, I can swear I won't deal with that kind of subjects and keep my admin rights for other stuff to do.
  • I think some people mix everything: do you support only people who have exactly the same opinions and the same vision of the project scope? Let's take the Susan pic for instance: I can understand that there's a problem of consent and personality rights. But the fact that it's in the project scope or not is a matter of opinion and point of view. Having a different POV doesn't mean I shouldn't be an admin.
  • I would be interesting to be an admin for very simple technical stuff. I don't think I'd deal with many very important matters such as "hot debate" on DR (see further). I think I have enough experience and knowledge of Commons to spare time and efforts from adins by dealing myself with things like that for instance. I think I'd also be able to block vandal IP or things like that. My purpose, as a potential admin, is to help the community, not to be against it! So dealing with technical things like that might suffice, I'm not sure I'd use my admin rights for more important stuff. First because I may not want to do that, second because I'm not sure I'd always be capable of doing more important things (see just below), and third because I'm not sure I'd have enough time in the future to deal with long discussions and important affairs (since I'm about to live one year or two in Uzbekistan and I don't know how often I'll use Commons there). So, as I said to Collard (who proposed me as an admin, not the contrary), me as an admin might be better than nothing since I'd be useful to do little things and save time and efforts for other admins.
  • Very important: I think I see what some opposed votes mean. And I can understand it. So let me convince you I'd be a good admin! When an admin deals with something, he has to be sure he's quite neutral and not personally concerned/touched by the topic he deals with. Any admin must be able to say « I may not be objective enough to do that » or « I think I'm too close for a propor view on that subject ». Therefore, any admin has some weaknesses and may be kind of useless for some matters. The only important thing to wonder is : is this admin objective enough about himself so that we can trust him/her? Well, that may sound a bit pretentious to say that, but I think I am. I can swear I won't deal with subjects I feel too concerned about (and that notably includes nude topics - see further) or uncomfortable with (and that includes my lack of legal knowledge - see further). Also, as Collard mentioned, an admin has no right to force his views upon the Commons and that's clearly not my purpose. When I know that I'm part of a minority, I would keep my admin rights away and just discuss as a normal user - I would never decide something unilateraly when I'm in the minor POV because it would a kind of abuse of power, which is stupid.
  • About licencing and legal stuff : well I clearly admit it, I don't know and understand everything! But who does? Are all admins experts in international laws? I don't think so. Again, I know what I'm capable of and the contrary. I would never decide something nor close a discussion if I know I'm not sure about some legal aspect of it.
  • About nude files : I know the oppositions are mainly connected to my behaviour/POV on (un)deletion requests dealing with nudity and/or sexuality. As I said above, I wouldn't deal with such subject as an admin because I know I might not be objective enough about that. First because I have such hatred against censorship and prudishness that I may overact sometimes about that topic. Second because it's THE topic where I sometimes disagree with the project scope (I don't think there are other topics for which I have problems about the scope). Third because I'm not sure I understand the rules about that! What I mean is that I see no coherence in the DR and discussions about nude pictures. I never said (as Herby seems to have understood) that we may keep all adult material regardless of any other argument. Of course not! But I just don't understand the coherence on Commons: sometimes there's a big consensus about keeping a picture even if it's crude and if we don't have any proof of consent, and sometimes not! Anyway, as I said, I won't deal with subjects I'm uncomfortable and/or subjective with, so there's IMO no point being against my candidacy for that.

I'll progressively add some comments if I feel the need to.--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lar
  • It's not reasonable to expect exact congruence in views on scope. But it's your advocacy for a number of images that I consider clearly out of scope that gives me concern. I'd have to believe that you would uphold current common understanding of scope even if you disagreed. I'm not yet convinced of that. I've observed you arguing stridently for retention of stuff that clearly is out of scope and worse, is very likely to be not permissioned/licensed properly. That gives me pause.
  • I don't favor adminships with limited activity boundaries. Either we trust a candidate to do it all, or we don't. Once someone is an admin, commitments to limit scope are problematic. They are not fair to the candidate, hard to track and hard to enforce. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by me
  • Oh boy. Let me be clear here: I still think TwoWings was wrong about the deletion and undeletion of this image (I'm okay with keeping it as a drama-prevention measure, though). I've also had differences with him before on this matter. The point is, this does not affect how well he would serve as an admin. The question is not "does he have strong views?". We're all entitled to these; in fact, healthy disagreement (as I've said before, critiquing the actions of someone from the other side of this argument) is a good and necessary thing to have. It's not like any of us have a nice, neat straight line to definitively decide what is in scope and what is not; we can only figure that out case-by-case from having a vigourous discussion about the matter. This requires us to have people intelligently and respectfully putting the case across from the other side; even when they are wrong, divergent voices are an indispensable part of consensus.
    The real question here is, can we trust him not to use administrative tools to force his views upon the Commons? And similarly, can we trust him to enforce consensus, rather than his own views? I think the answer to that is yes, we can, and that his actions on the Commons have given us no reason to think otherwise.
    I'll also note that most of us facepalmed on the inside when we saw Mutter Erde opposing two admin candidates for the rather minor transgression of holding views slightly different to his own about what is in scope and what is not. If there's one thing we should be able to agree on, it's that there's something quite wrong about doing this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not (we're not?) opposing him because his views. Like I said, what he brings to discussions is needed. It's necessary for healthy discussion, diversity, balance, etc. As a user, I'm glad he's a part of the community. As an admin? I'm not really comfortable with that because I do think it would affect his actions. So to answer "the real question": No. Rocket000 00:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above I've seriously looked at him with adminship in mind a couple of times recently - the work is good. Equally I have no issues with the fact that folks have differing views - life & Commons would not be good without that. However the past few postings seem to suggest that all adult material should be kept regardless of any other argument and that is plain wrong. I actually think the Susan one should have been closed as "remain deleted" because there really were only a couple of people stating it should be undeleted compared with more who, quietly & with reason, argued that deletion was correct. This is not some "jump up & down, scream/shout" oppose - it is that I am not comfortable for now. Purely personally I'd like to see some peace for a bit, some rather more thoughtful editing & then another RfA in a while. I must stress I think this is a good user whose work I respect but who, on balance, I feel needs to convince me of balance & understanding rather than purely personal views --Herby talk thyme 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/TwoWings&oldid=33062900"