Commons:Requests and votes/evrik

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

This proposed RFA is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

evrik

Support = 13; Neutral = 3; Oppose = 5. This vote does not meet the 75% requirement and therefore fails.

Languages: User is En-3, Es-1, and De-n
Contribs: enwiki eswiki commons

I submit my name for consideration to become an Administrator. I have been editing on the commons since February 2006 (one year) and have more than 2800 edits. I have been active en.wiki and es.wiki since July 2005.

I have spent a good deal of time trying to categorize and edit pictures to make them more useful to the community. I have uploaded a number of my own photos, am a competent technical contributor, and have alwayd tried to be courteous. While I haven’t shied away from heavy discussions, I consider myself to be a productive contributor. I can speak English and Spanish.

I have learned quite a bit in my time here and feel I can contribute primarily with the protection and protection and unprotection of pages. I can also add my opinion on discussions of policy. I'm interested in voluntering at Commons:OTRS, and with Commons namespace, especially with the deletion requests. Thank you for your consideration. --Evrik 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Oppose  Neutral I'm not sure if I will oppose, but I am extremely concerned about the number of conflicts Evrik has been involved in on English Wikipedia, and his reliance on name calling and edit warring. The problems are evident in a thread this week on the Administrator's noticeboard, in this active (and unrelated) request for comment, and in his block log. It's not a big deal, but I also find his summary of his primary on-Commons conflict below — "The images are still there, so I think that speaks for itself" — misleading. The opposition in those discussions raised very valid points and seem to have conducted themselves far better than Evrik through most of the process. ×Meegs 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now confident in opposing after further investigation of the RfC (which certainly does have merit, though it is full of bad behavior by both parties) and pfctdayelise's links. In the former, I was particularly struck by an edit war just two weeks ago over an image's fair use on w:en (the diffs have been deleted, but it is described in the RfC). In the latter links, Evrik seems far too willing to argue for images with uncertain copyright status; the conclusion he reaches in the road sign debate, here, is reckless. I'm in full agreement with pfctdayelise's opinion: "I don't expect admins to be lawyers, but I do expect them to admit the limits of their knowledge." I can not support Evrik for administrator until he has shown for an extended period of time (on both projects) that he can work harmoniously with others, maintain civility, not resort to cries of "wikistalking" when others target his articles and images for cleanup, stop edit warring, and be more measured when discussing copyright issues. ×Meegs 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote because I just signed up to the commons. The RFC mentioned above has no merit and was just used to harrass Evrik. The incident at the noticeboard is just an extension of this harassment. There are people even signing up new accounts to continue the harassment. More people defended Evrik in the RFC than said critical things. The opposition in those discussions raised very valid points and seem to have conducted themselves far worse than Evrik through most of the process. South Philly 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- I admire his dedication. Kyle
I have also reviewed the controversial edits to commons that are linked above. In my opinion, there are occasions where Evrik made a mistake or could have handled things better, but once again I see nothing here that is all that serious or dramatic.
I know Evrik can be adamant in his positions, but his positions are based both on policy and fairness. I'd like to see him mellow just a tad, but being somewhat over-adamant is not a reason for denying adminship. To me the releavant questions are:
  1. Is he an asset to the projects (.en and .commons)? Yes, unquestionably.
  2. Can he be more of an asset if given more responsibility? Yes, definitely.
  3. Will he abuse the admin power in any way? No one can really ever know this ahead of time of course, and that is true of any nominee. I don't believe he would abuse admin powers and I think he should be trusted with the position.
For these reasons, he has my support for adminship. Johntex 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I echo a lot of Johntex's comments. I've worked with Evrik for over a year and find him conscientious and dedicated. As for the concerns of others, I think he's learned from his past experiences and will continue to do so.Rlevse 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support like Johntex and Rlevse, I mainly encounter Evrik on en.wiki and think that he would make a dedicated admin. He might not get along with everybody but I don't think he would misuse his admin powers because of it. Mostly I just agree with Johntex and Rlevse who both make a lot of valid comments. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- now I am being the bad boy. Evrik has asked me for friendly advice on more than one occasion lately, and I know that he is dedicated to Wikipedia and probably to Commons. The problem is that I don't see how he will be an asset as an administrator. Now, I am open to be persuaded by Evrik (as I have been in the past), if this RfA is allowed to be open for a while longer. (Our deletion debates are open for three months, I think this can be open for a while too, no? Besides, why are RfA only open for seven days? I think 14 would be better to facilitate consensus.). Evrik is not what I would call careful about statements regarding copyrights, as in pfctdayelise's example above (this one). Yet he wants to be an admin to help delete images? I'm sorry but I don't find this the most suitable thing. I would also like examples of Evrik involving himself in any task that requires responsibility, such as administrative work, or work with a WikiProjects, notice board, or something like that. In any case, thank you for applying for admin and I hope you will be successful. / Fred Chess 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*  Oppose, even though he is a Norwegian-American (). I could find at least one copyvio and one image with incomplete information about the author among the his latest uploads. Kjetil_r 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

  1. Could you explain this revert war? [2] What was the cause of it? Why had it escalated to a revert war, and mostover, why is the talk page of that cat empty?
  2. Have you been involved in any other conflicts in Commons? If so, how did you resolve them?

Thank you for taking the time, -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two big discussions I’ve been involved with have been Portraits with unclear copyright status from the U.S. Federal Government and Wikipedia: Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. The images are still there, so I think that speaks for itself. In the end, I contacted both the White House and the Library of Congress to get information nencessary to help mediate the disputes. --Evrik 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an answer to pfctdayelise, I expanded my statement above with the items in italics. I see the role of an admin as part clerk, part facilitator, part copyeditor and part guard. I don't know how I plan to position myself within the community, but I see this as a good place to volunteer and to learn. --Evrik 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the stuff on the en wiki ... despite being certified, that RfC was an abuse of the process and should not have been filed. In this case was filed by a user with an axe to grind. A lot of people said good things on my behalf, this was a good and balanced commentary:
Outside view by Cobaltbluetony
I am making a more general assessment in my own dealings with Evrik. I have had disagreements in the past with him, but even though he was short and adamant in his immutable position, at no time did I ever feel that he violated the letter or spirit of the relevant Wikipedia policies on conduct. You won't get rainbows and kisses with him, but he's never gone overboard in his supporting his viewpoint, and in my mind he maintains necessary civility at all times, no matter how heated a discussion becomes. What is more, I've never seen him assume bad faith, nor exhibit any behavior which would warrant the most strident accusations that have been laid upon him. - CobaltBlueTony 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
--Evrik 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is quite relevant to mention that there is a RFC being filed against you when you apply for adminship, even though it is an other wiki. Not even to mention your block log. Why didn't you? -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After having read the guidelines, I checked by email with some admins I have worked with in the past about this. I also solicited opinions from current admins requesting opinions on my potential candidacy. There was no clear guidance on this, but the consensus was that I should stand by my record on the commons. The issues on the en.wiki are part of the public record and are known, and if raised that I should address them at that point. --Evrik 15:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not quite convinced. I don't find it disturbing that you have a RFC filed against you, but the fact that you did not mention it. Thus, I cannot support. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should also be mentioned that among those who endorsed the summary of the complainant in the RfC was an en.wiki arbitrator, Blnguyen. Evidently he disagreed with Evrik's comment above (as I do) that, "that RfC was an abuse of the process and should not have been filed". WjBscribe 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding EugeneZelenko's concerns ... I have been active with en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons. I have loaded a lot of images from the different wikis using Magnus' tool, and have tried to be good about the copyright. I may have made some mistakes, but I have tried my best to only load free images. I am certainlty more diligent now and would continue to be so. --Evrik 16:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Fred's concerns ... well, I can assure you, I will probably never be accused of hastily deleting an image. In the deletion discussion cited above, you'll see that I was arguing against the deletion of an image because I said it was a roadsign, and not a piece of art. The other cited image where the status of a saint's images was in question, I had uploaded from another languages wiki and had copied the source and copyright information from the original uploader, but I had acted in good faith. In the roadsign case, i contacted en:Caltrans to see if I could get an answer, much like the time i contacted the White House about the portraits of the Presidents. Does that make me careless, I think that is subject to interpretation. Sometimes I think we delete things too quickly.
I have been involved in a number of WikiProjects on the English wiki. The work that has translated into the most of my activity here on the commons has been with Philadelphia, images of Christian saints, and en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Moving_free_images_to_Wikimedia_Commons .
I understand that that is only a guideline, but I would like to note that had this closed yesterday, I had 75% support, and more than four votes. I say that with both some humor and irony. I must sign off now, and I'm going on break. I'll see y'all next week. --Evrik 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/evrik&oldid=33062428"