Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salavat

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

Salavat

Final (38/22/8); Closed by —Anonymous DissidentTalk at 13:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Salavat (talk · contribs) – My fellow Wikipedians, I present to you, Salavat for the role of sysop. As a user with more than 40,000 edits beginning in June 2006, a clean block log, plenty of cluefulness, and a long history of experience, dedication, and civility, Salavat has truly been a valuable asset to the project these past years. Apart from having a featured list under his belt, List of Harvest Moon titles, Salavat has extensive knowledge of NFCC/non-free/media copyright policies. As can be seen from Salavat's contributions, he is highly adept in correcting errors with media file description pages and in making accurate image CSD/deletion taggings (without any use of automated tools). Simply put, his deletion work is outstanding. Apart from nominating images for deletion, Salavat has uploaded several thousand non-free (all with perfect fair use rationale and spot-on compliance with the non-free content criteria) and free images alike, supplying numerous articles with images.

I think Salavat has proven himself as a knowledgeable editor worthy of a few extra buttons. The addition of this user to the sysop team would be a significant net-benefit to the project. I hope you will agree with me that Salavat would do well with administrative tools. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Salavat (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main area of work would have to be in the image department. I currently busy myself with work over at the categories for images lacking copyright status or rationales, adding fair uses to images that i believe should be saved. While doing this ive noticed there is alot of work to be done in this area and i would greatly like to contribute and help the other active admins where needs be.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions would have to be my uploads of non-free images, all of which I believe adhere to fair use standards. These images I believe help build an article and without them it could be lacking a major point of identification. I am also quite happy my my contributions to the list mentioned above in the nomination which to me feels like a bigger contribution to wikipedia then all of the images combined.
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 don't believe I have been in any major conflicts. If I see one going down the lines of a conflict, my tendency is to try and resolve in the respected article or user talk space. If this fails referring the conversation over to the respected project, in order to gain a wider perspective on the matter instead of just having the two conflicting ideas is my next best avenue. These disagreements never cause stress due to the fact of my belief that it is unnecessary to get worked up about such trivial matters.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. Assuming that the subject passed notability the AFD would be closed with no concenseus, but also taking the time to omit any information from that article that isnt covered by reliable sources and if a relatively unknown person information that is irrelevant to there notability should also be omitted
5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. The BLP appears to cover all apsects in relation to its subject and therefor is helpful in maintaining a encyclopia free of bias. My work in BLP's is nil apart from reverting unsourced possibly vandelism edits on a few authors articles, specifically Gary Paulsen
Additional optional question from Epeefleche
6. The policy tends to be that photos of album front covers, properly reduced, can be used in album articles, but not in band articles (unless the band article discusses the album cover substantially). Do you think that makes sense? And why (or why not)?
A. The current policy does make sense for two reasons. As album covers are easy to come by these days on the interent, articles could become littered with this non-free content, with certain artists disographies being vaste with album releases. It could potential disolve disputes such as "youve got one album cover, how come i cant add the other three". It allows Wikimedia to reduce the legal exposure that multiple covers without reason could impose.
Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash
7. While doing your image work, you come across an image of a 7 year old child's birthday party. It is clearly a personal photo; all the beaming parents and friends of the child are in the photo with their faces clearly shown. The image has been put onto the candle page with the caption "Candles at a birthday party", and has been there for three or four months. What actions, if any, do you take?
A: Assuming that as you said it features all the family it would sound that they are featured in a way which distracts from the image topic. Per consensus the image should be deleted because it is considered an act of self promotion.
Additional optional questions from TheWeakWilled
8. What is your take on using multiple non-free album covers, in album articles? Specifically special edition/re-releases of albums such as Steal This Album! and Behind Silence and Solitude.
A: Multiple images should not be in use as it goes against WP:NFCC#3a which multiple items shouldnt be used to convey equivalent information. An exception to this would be if the extra cover had contextual significance and was being discussed substancially. Both articles linked to appear to be using covers in the excess. The one on the system of a Down page while they are discussed could be adequatly discussed within the text.
Additional optional questions from Seraphimblade
9. What does it mean for a nonfree image to be replaceable?
A: Non-free images which fail the fair use criteria because they can be easily replaced by a free image equivalent.
10. When is the use of a replaceable nonfree image acceptable?
A: If for example the image in question was featuring a person whose career has since come to a halt and a new picture may not serve the same purpose because their notability rests on their earlier appearence, then a fair use would be acceptable.
Additional optional questions from Gigs
11. The subject of an article contacts you and states that they would like you to add a picture of them to the article. They email you the picture with a note that says "I give you permission to use this on Wikipedia however you want.". What do you do?
A: Well assuming they actually own the rights to the image they are giving you then you can proceed. You upload the image to commons. You would then send the permission emails to the permissions-commons email. You would then tag the image with the OTRS Pending tag.
Additional optional question from Þjóðólfr
12. What are the three best things and what are the three worst things about Wikipedia.
A: Is this a trick question or do you actually want to know what i like/dislike about wikipedia?
I don't think this is a trick question, Salavat. I think you should just go ahead and answer it. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best things about wikipedia is being able to use my spare time on something productive; watching the progression of articles over at GAN, FAC and FLC; and having a place to come first for information over every topic. Worst things about wikipedia are the constent need for people to vandalise a project that has all good intentions; seeing a FAC fail because of lack of reviews; and to see valuable contributers driven away due to some conflict they had with another editor.

General comments

  • Links for Salavat: Salavat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Salavat can be found here.

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. As Nom. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This user's knowledge of image policy appears to be exceptional, and his tact in dealing with image issues is impressive. Support, despite his foolish support of lesser hockey teams -- Samir 08:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good luck to you. A8UDI 12:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I'm a bit baffled by the opposes. The graphical title images (which, being the titles of open-source games, may in fact be free themselves) are cautiously labeled as being non-free and then added to the articles in a way consistent with normal practice for non-free images. The error I see here was that there were other definitively free images available in the article. This presupposes, however, that Salavat had pre-knowledge of the exact licensing terms of game. This goes from poor understanding of policy to a simple slip-up based on a misunderstanding of the license terms of the game itself (and consequently the other images in the article). Everything else looks good. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I found the opposes were pretty pursuasive in that imperfect examples were pulled from an area you cite as your best work. However, I don't see such imperfections as errors in judgement on your part, or a failure to understand image policy. You clearly have a solid understanding of how to properly execute policy, and a demonstrated desire to learn and improve. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support- Your work on wikipedia seems impressive combined with a healthy experience and I can't really point out anything substansial enough that would make me critical of your nomination in particular. As a result I am pledging my support to you! Routerone (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support: I have made simular errors but that is not a good thing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support in opposition to the opposers who have placed exceptionally weak reasons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I simply can't see how a less than 0.1% error rate is a concern. Tim Song (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Fastily (including his reply to ArcAngel's oppose (now located on the talk page)). -- Soap Talk/Contributions 23:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per Soap per Fastily. iMatthew talk at 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I have seen this user hard at work on adding images to a number of articles, particularly those for video games. I see that errors have been made; we are all of us only human, but I see nothing here worth denying the job over. Highly recommend seeking out User:Drilnoth for mentoring on image issues, whether or not nomination succeeds, as he really knows his stuff! BOZ (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I think I and the rest if the opposers are being a bit harsh here. Out of all those images uploaded, if only 3 are dubious, then I think we can put this down to human error and I think Salavat will definately be a net poitive if promoted to admin. AtheWeatherman 09:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, exactly per IronGargoyle, who encapsulates my thoughts very clearly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Tim Song, I doubt Wikipedia has any administrator that has never made a mistake. Support as net positive to the project. --Taelus (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I don't see how making a few mistakes means barring somebody from being an admin. Salavat knows his/her stuff, but is human, so may make a mistake here and there. I think Salavat will be a great admin. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Seems alright to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Making a few mistakes really doesnt mean anything, everyone makes mistakes, no one is perfect! Good luck!--Pookeo9 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - 3/3574 is a very small number. —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Now that I look at it I don't know why everybody is nailing you down for three images out of thousands of other worthy contributions. Smithers (Talk) 19:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support quality candidate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Tentative Support. I'll check back. Candidate is good at what he does, he does a lot of it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Appears to a very good editor who almost never makes mistakes. Warrah (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Opposes are unconvincing.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I have some concern about understanding of BLP policy in Q4 and Q5 but the individual's summary isn't far off from what policy says and they don't intend to operate in that area so I'm not too concerned. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I have looked for reasons to oppose and, frankly, I cannot find any. The opposes would hold weight if it weren't for the fact that they appear to refer to a very small number of edits. It never ceases to amaze me the nit picking that goes on in RfAs. These three or four edits should not cancel out 35,000 good edits, many of which, I'm sure, will be invaluable and i hope that there will be many more to come and the sysop rights can only help in that. HJMitchell You rang? 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I echo those above me who expressed wonderment at the weakness of the opposers' arguments. A few incorrect image taggings should not cancel out a tremendous number of correct image taggings and positive edits. To err is human, to forgive is divine. Anyway, Salavat seems trustworthy and understands policy well enough to be a good admin. It's always good to have another admin who understands image policies, too.... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC) I still believe Salavat has adequate policy knowledge for adminship, but I'm somewhat dismayed by his incorrect answers to questions 7 and 10 above. Switching to weak support. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak support - was intending to go neutral, but decided that the few negatives should not outweigh the manifold positives. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Pretty clear net positive despite concerns in the oppose section. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Per Fastily Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. The candidate is here to build articles per User:Salavat#Contributions and has over 40,000 total edits. Yes, according to his bio, he is young, but not so young to give me too much pause. In any event, the candidate has received around a half dozen barnstars (must have impressed someone!) and has never been blocked. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn, which should have more correctly closed as "no consensus", the candidate provides an alternative suggestion to transwiki, which is reasonable, although I encourage more of an explanation why we should do something rather than just a WP:PERNOM style "vote." I would, incidentally, be far more open to transwikiying as a compromise if the suggestion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#How_about_allowing_links_to_Wikia.2C_for_side_article_information.3F is followed. Now in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Elite Four members the merge suggestion is reasonable enough, but again the reason is essentially just a WP:JNN. With regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon items (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon moves as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination), I never get why this needless adherence to the idea that a reference guide cannot be a game reference guide. We can and should do more than traditional paper encyclopedias and so long as the contents are verifiable in published reliable sources that should be sufficient. The argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spykee Head Dude (video game) was sound and something I agree with, i.e. if it cannot be verified and appears to be a hoax, then indeed deletion is the correct result. My suggestion here, however, is not to simply say "appears to be made up," but to indicate where you checked for sources only to be stumped and therefore reach the conclusion that indeed it does not only appear to be made up, it appears as such because after checking for sources, none could be easily found to prove as much. Sure, we would like to assume that such search sources took place and I believe many editors do indeed do just that, but I know from experience that some don't try to check per WP:BEFORE if indeed they don't exist. Anyway, in these examples, I did not notice anything particularly "dickish" toward those with whom Salavat disagreed. Yes, some who read these may think that back in the day, these would still be enough for me to oppose the candidate. Perhaps, but reasonable disagreement is okay and I really want to reserve my opposes for those who has said or done something eggregious enough that at the time of my typing they should not be an admin. So, anyway, that's that. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: Seems like a good editor. South Bay (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I think we may disagree on a number of issues, but looks reasonable and I see no serious problems in the oppose section. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Overall it would be a net positive to have him as an admin. --Katerenka (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Answer to q2 is strange, but admins do not have to know everything. Q4 and 5 may not be to everyone's liking, but they are not demonstrating anything bad. At least he's honest. Majorly talk 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? If you can tell me what this statement means, I'll gladly give you this here cookie (from Q4): "if a relatively unknown person information that is irrelevant to there notability should also be omitted". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Nitpicking, petty opposes are not convincing. I see Salavat as a net gain as an admin. Vodello (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Not perfect. But has the basics right and will learn the rest. I see no problems with his actual work, but a little more experience would have helped him word the answers in the way people like to hear. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, just taking a quick look through the images the user has uploaded, I've already found two clear errors: nonfree image uploads for Vega Strike and Scorched 3D. Both of these are open source games, so screenshots from anywhere in that game, including the title screens, would be free content and serve to replace the nonfree images. As the candidate is intending to work in images, I think an understanding of avoiding replaceable nonfree images is critical, and this seems to indicate a lack of that necessary understanding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) And adding to this the answer to question 11. "On Wikipedia" permission is not free content permission and would not be acceptable for upload to Commons. Here, "use on Wikipedia" permission would be considered nonfree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you post links to the edits that you found I could not find them... RP459 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    found them :( RP459 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I'm concerned that the upload of non-free images should be framed as the candidate's "best contributions", given that the restricted use of such material is a significant part of WP:NFCC. I see no mention of the skills involved in image placement, sizing, captioning, writing of alt text, or the integration of images into article text. I'm not yet convinced that the candidate is equipped to help the project by policing the use of NF images. Is there a presence at WP:FIC? Is there a detailed knowledge of WP:NFC, WP:IUP and the relevant parts of the style guides? Tony (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose - Wouldn't ordinarily oppose over non-free image policy errors, but to class them as your best contributions and have them be fundamentally flawed in policy is bizarre. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretful Oppose - Per Cyclonenim and Seraphimblade. And the fact that those pictures "are the candidate's BEST contributions" disturbs me. Nontheless I wish you good luck on this.... Smithers (Talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I think Attheweatherman is definitely right and sums this up very well. The user has several other fabulous contributions and we are criticizing a decimal number. This shouldn't cost him his adminship. I am definently moving to Support and I hope I won't be the only one. Smithers (Talk) 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as per Seraphimblade RP459 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose. Per seraphimblade, as the image concerns (incorrect taggings and the fact these are your best conributions) show a lack of knowledge in these areas, and especially seeing as you wish to go into these areas. AtheWeatherman 17:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to support.[reply]
  5. Oppose per seraphimblade. Image concerns. Btilm 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per your incorrect image tagging. ArcAngel (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Moved long thread to the talk page. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia; answers to 2, 9, and 10 suggest that the candidate doesn't necessarily understand this, or if he does, that he doesn't subscribe to it. Non-free images are only to be used to improve understanding of the encyclopedia, in a way that free content could not, rather than to illustrate or decorate. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, according to WP:NFCC, they're there to improve understanding of the topic, not the encyclopedia. The difference is significant. Jheald (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The answers to questions 9 and 10, albeit extremely short, do in fact summarize the basic principle of WP:NFCC#1. Just saying... -FASTILY (TALK) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to question 10 is materially incorrect. Fair use of an image of a living person where "notability rests on their earlier appearence [sic]" is not supported by policy and generally fails NFCC#1 or #8. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NFC#UULP. Salavat (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But if even the candidate has properly explained that provision, the answer is still incorrect, because if that provision applies the nonfree image would presumptively not be replaceable, as stated in the question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Stifle. Ah,I see what you mean. Misread question. Please ignore me on #10. -FASTILYsock (TALK) 02:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a DRV (Twiggy promo.jpg), where use was upheld precisely because her previous appearance was particularly significant to her notability. A call which has since been reaffirmed at image review. Seems to me that Salavat's example was right on the money. Jheald (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, the only problem was the difference between our meaning of replaceable and the ordinary use of the word. Salavat had the principle correct & would have made the correct decision. One might argue that a candidate should be familiar with every twist of our peculiarities, but then nobody would pass. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Answers to questions 4 and 5 are quite strange... You don't seem to understand quite a few of our policies yet. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Stifle, Coffee. NW (Talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, due to answers to questions four and five. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, due to answers to questions two, four and five.  IShadowed  ✰  02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, per Stifle, Coffee. Answers to questions are not satisfactory. Communication concerns. –blurpeace (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "Communication concerns"? -FASTILYsock (TALK) 06:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the candidate does not demonstrate the ability to articule their thoughts clearly. –blurpeace (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you meant articulate—how ironic :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironic indeed. :-) –blurpeace (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, primarily for the same reasons expressed by Stifle and Coffee. Answer to question 4 isn't really coherent, since most AFDs turn on questions of notability. Answers to questions 7 and 10 are clearly incorrect. Answers to questions 6, 8, and 9 don't clearly reflect the proper application of relevant policy. I don't believe every admin needs to grasp the arcana of image policy, but when a candidate identifies this as a primary work area, the candidate should display a clear and accurate grasp of the relevant policies -- both in order to apply the policies as an admin and to explain the application of those policies as issues come up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose way too many wrong questions. This is an "open book" exam after all. The answers are right there in the policy pages. 7,9,10 in particular. Gigs (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what is wrong with 9? I'm not seeing anything wrong with that answer. I'm also not sure what is wrong with 10. From WP:FAIR the descriptor for people are "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Now, in practice we set the bar very high so that almost any picture of a still living individual is considered to be replaceable, but as a matter of what policy says he's correct. Or am I missing something? JoshuaZ (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with JoshuaZ. There is indeed nothing fundamentally wrong with #9. #10 on the other hand, in the way it's worded, can be seen as a trick question. The correct answer would simply be "Never". -FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh i see what i did, oh well as you said tricky question. Salavat (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question 9 is wrong because our "non-free content criteria" are specifically more restrictive than the legal "fair use criteria". It's an important distinction. Gigs (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an issue with wording then? It seemed like by fair use criteria he meant WP:FAIR. That seems like a perfect reasonable term that many people use. You seem to be nitpicking over terminology. Moreover, it seems that that has to be what he's talking about and not anything legal because there's nothing that the legal definition of fair use has about replaceability. I'm very puzzled at how you can read his response that way. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're here to oppose because you have doubts regarding the candidate's policy knowledge, that's absolutely fine. However, if you're purposely adding your own words to the candidate's answers which would make the answer wrong, that's a no-go. Nowhere does Salavat say that he is referring to "legal fair use criteria". Indeed, you are correct in that the legal fair use criteria is generally not nearly as restrictive as Wikipedia's own fair use criteria, but frankly, none of this is at all applicable to the candidate's answer. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "here to oppose", that makes it sound like I came here just to oppose him. I regularly vote in RFAs. Anyway I asked him question 11 to give him a second chance, and he again got it absolutely wrong. He doesn't seem to understand what our free content mission is. Having permission to use an image on wikipedia is insufficient, our mission is free content that anyone can reuse for any reason, even commercial. Gigs (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Very Weak Oppose. Per questions 2,4 and 5. However, it would have been a neutral if it weren't for tagging issues and oppose comments well above.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 08:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging issues? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Image tagging issues. That's right, per above.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 08:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Given the candidate's stated intention to work in image-related areas, concerns about the user's understanding of our policies related to them are rather worrying. Answers to optional questions are less than satisfactory and seem to reveal something of a misunderstanding with regards to core policies they would be expected to act upon. I cannot support at this time. Shereth 14:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm not opposing for the mistaggings - I know first hand how irritating it is to see an RfA sink due to three or four mistakes. I am, however, not completely happy with the answer to my question, #7. I wasn't too concerned about exactly what action he would take as long as it was reasonable. Deleting the image as self-promotional seems to draw a long bow, and in my eyes, misses the point. Simply removing the article from the page would've been an acceptable action, as would have double checking that such a personal, private image was uploaded legitimately. However, I do wish you the best of luck, as you clearly have the ability to become an able administrator in the near future. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, troubling answers to some of the questions. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - I share some of the concerns about answers to questions. The answers to 4 and 5 make me worry about policy knowledge. In answer 4 why would you assume that the subject "passed notability" in a deletion discussion with no consensus? Answer 5 just isn't really an answer at all. I do appreciate the editor's contributions to Wikipedia, and gaining more familiarity with some key policies and guidelines might help me support in a future RfA. -- Atama頭 04:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - lots of concerns, but an answer that says "My best contributions would have to be my uploads of non-free images" deserves an Oppose without even looking at their other contribs. Black Kite 23:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment With 40,000 edits, just out of curiosity, what is the passmark here? 40%; 50%; 65%; 85%; 100%; 110%? Because if it is any less than the last two, you really need to hang up you boots. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Opppose - unfortunately, I had the same exact feeling as Black Kite above. It is just one of those lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. While I don't think that all admin candidate necessarily need to fully understand all image use policies (many good admins never involve themselves in this are), you are asking for admin tools expressly for image work. I am sorry but, per Seraphimblade, I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of this area at this time. Content that we have permission to use on wikipedia is still non-free content and must be treated as such. The answers to questions 9 and 10 are a bit superficial and I think your answer to 10 is actually an argument that the picture isn't replaceable. I am also unhappy with the user of the word "easily" in question 9. WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral per your flawed contributions to non-free images and how you consider them your "best contributions".--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moved to Neutral following an examination of a random selection drawn from your last 100 uploads, where I found no issues (after reading Fastily's reply to a similar oppose). Will hold off further opinion pending replies to questions. RayTalk 00:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After some thinking, I'm staying here in neutral, per the answer to Q9. It reflects, IMO, a misunderstanding of WP:NFCC, specifically, concerning replaceable images. We do not allow fair use images where they could be replaceable -- not only must no free equivalent be available, but one could not be created. Thus, in general we rule out fair use images of living people (unless the image is otherwise significant in its own right). The editor's phrasing "easily replaceable" appears to set a much looser standard. I don't feel comfortable opposing over a point of differing interpretation of reasonably obscure policy, but I do find it significant. As this editor has indicated a desire to work in image-related areas as an admin, I can't give the support I would ordinarily give to an editor with this good a record. Best, RayTalk 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. Vote will reflect answer to my question along with other factors present. Move to support TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Honestly, I can't find any compelling reasons to oppose. The candidate is obviously extremely knowledgeable and experienced, and is dedicated to Wikipedia. Looking through their image uploads, I see only strong fair use rationales and reasonable amendments to file data and such. That said – I've only spot-checked his logs and edits. The opposers seem to have strong opinions, but don't really provide any evidence to support their claims. I think it would be helpful for at least a couple folks to provide links, diffs, and other evidence of problematic contributions. Otherwise, I'm left to assume that any concerns are insignificant. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought I had, but there is a bit more discussion above than I thought. So, in brief: File:Vega Strike Logo.png, File:Scorched 3D Logo.png, both are for games that are free software, so screenshots from anywhere in the games are free content. Don't get much more replaceable then that. File:OnLive.jpg, a photo of an upcoming game console, when replacing that one will be as simple as, well, taking a picture, for anyone who owns or has access to one once they're out. That's a spot check, and maybe they're the only problematic ones (I don't think a week would be enough for all of us combined to check them exhaustively, let alone just you or me!), but the rest are largely boilerplate rationales that don't show any deep understanding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Id just like to point out that i merely reverted a change to the Onlive file. I didnt originally upload it. Salavat (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See this thread for reference. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Looks like an experienced and knowledgeable candidate, but Cyclonenim's and Seraphimblade's opposition statements are enough to prevent me from supporting this RFA, which I otherwise would have done. Laurinavicius (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Good editor, good vibes all around, but doesn't know the image policy well enough. From a legal perspective those answers scare up all kinds of worry, not the least of all Backslash Forwardslash's examples demonstrate a clear ignorance (not that this is at all a fault) of privacy rights in NY, which tend to be important for a U.S. based server. Shadowjams (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. While the candidate is experienced with good contributions, I feel slightly uneasy having read some of the oppose comments. I do not feel strongly enough to oppose, but do not feel that I can support at this time, either. Should the candidate not succeed in this RfA, hopefully they will use the comments on this RfA as a learning experience, and I hope to see them here again in the future. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - I'm puzzled by the answer above consisting of one of those acronym short-cuts (WP:NFC#UULP) that I find neither helpful in general nor clarifying in this case. True, it leads me to a section that has been quoted. But it is a missed opportunity to explain why we have this remark there (and even highlighted in italics) or why they personally think it is important enough to override general principles and to be highlighted in their answer 10. To me as image noob this looks like a surprising exception of the guideline to the transcluded policy part that somehow mixes notability and license issues. In short, I am also in general not really seeing what drives the candidate in his core area and getting that across is important, especially with respect to those in favor of stricter NFC interpretation.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral for now I'm minded to support, as image admin work is something we seem to get behind on, and Salavat meets all the other RfA criteria I carry around in my head. However, the concerns raised in the oppose section are troubling, and I'll need to consider further. GedUK  09:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Salavat