Commons:Requests and votes/Ecemaml

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = depends on how you count, there are over a dozen supports that clearly came here just to support this candidate but I get somewhere between 27 and 44 or so. ;  Oppose = ~5;  Neutral= 1 - ==> Percentages not relevant in this case. I have decided to ignore the numbers and focus on the comments, and not report a percentage. This also means if I counted wrong (this is a very long RfA page!) you won't catch me :)!!! What I DID judge was consensus... do we have a consensus to promote, despite possible canvassing and despite the objections raised? There is some good feedback to be had for the candidate, and I think maybe we want to develop some clearer statements of policy around canvassing from other wikis (taking on board both the positive aspects of it, as pointed out by drini and others, and the issues of concern raised by others). But in the end, when I weighed all the comments, the answer seems clear to me, yes we do have a consensus. Promoted. ++Lar: t/c 05:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecemaml

Vote

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

Español:

Hola a todos. Soy Ecemaml y me estoy postulando para bibliotecario de commons. Soy usuario de confianza en commons desde el 2 de noviembre de este año. Soy un activo wikipedista en la wikipedia en español y bibliotecario desde junio de 2005. Soy un usuario de commons desde febrero de 2005. Desde que wikipedia en español decidió prohibir el fair use y no permitir la subida local de archivos, haciendo que commons fuese el único almacén de imágenes la labor de administración en la wikipedia en español no es completa si no se extiende también a commons. Las violaciones de copyright en commons afectan a los distintos proyectos de la fundación y, al mismo tiempo, muchas detecciones de violación de copyright son detectadas en wikipedia antes que en commons.

Hasta el momento, he trabajado en colaboración con bibliotecarios de commons una vez que he detectado violaciones de copyright o usuarios disruptivos, pero creo que puedo ser más útil al proyecto si yo mismo fuese bibliotecario. Por estas razones me postulo a bibliotecario. Un saludo --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English:

Hi all. My name's Ecemaml and I'm intending to become an administrator. I'm a trusted user in commons since 2 November 2007. I'm an active wikipedian in the Spanish Wikipedia and administrator (bibliotecario) since June 2005. I'm also a commons user since February 2005. Since the Spanish Wikipedia decided to ban fair usage and deactivate local upload, delegating all image handling to commons, I cannot see the adminship task in a specific Wikipedia without considering also the close relationship between it and commons. Copyright violations, possibly the most harmful problem that the Wikipedia project may undergo, do affect such projects in a damaging way. On the other hand, many copyright violations are first detected in a given Wikipedia and afterwards managed in commons.

Up to now, I've been closely working with commons administrators (see here, for instance; there's a similar section each month) every time I've detected lack of sourcing, copyright violations or simply disruptive wikipedians. However, I definitely think that I can be more useful for the project if I were an administrator. Those are the reasons to request adminship. Best regards and thank you anyway, regardless of your vote. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Anna 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) A very dedicated admin at es:wiki and a great user working hard on maintenance here. Good luck mate! :)[reply]
  •  Support-- Important contributions to es Wikipedia and Wikiquote. --Javier ME 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Mercedes (discusión) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Hace un gran trabajo, será un buen administrador.[reply]
  •  Oppose 88.6.221.79 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Bastante problemático, creo. Sorry but only logged in users can vote - thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Drini 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 10:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC). - Just see Dodo's talk page. Ecemaml has a fixed section every month ("La sección de ecemaml") asking for deletions. Being a sysop will make his work here easier.[reply]
  •  Support--Ensada 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --M Peinado 11:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. I am unconvinced that Ecemaml is a suitable candidate for adminship. For instance, having listed a coat of arms for deletion under the grounds of simply being a "logo" when it turned out to be well in the public domain because of its age does not indicate an exhaustive knowledge of policy. I am not sure the user really needs the tools in any case. Little maintenance work coupled with little activity in admin-related areas strikes me. Futher to my oppose rationale; I feel compelled to add that my only experience with this contributor has been on the Spanish Wikipedia, and it wasn't a very good one. I have seen Ecemaml edit-war (May) and misuse administrative tools such as semi-protecting an article (18 ene 2006) for almost two years. Note that Ecemaml was blocked on the English Wikipedia for such very actions. I was also baselessly and very rudely accused of being a well-known indefinitely-blocked vandal. In fact, Ecemaml and some other users even went on to create a userbox simple to mock me. Months after this, I went to him in good faith and asked for the page to be unblocked so I could add one of my photographs. He blatantly ignored me, ultimately forcing me to ask another admin, es:Usuario:Dodo, who very kindly did so leaving me a friendly message on my talk page. RedCoat 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, the block on en:wp seems minor, it was a short 3RR block placed in 2005. If that were an isolated incident I would not worry about it. (if) ... Second, my spanish is nonexistant, so I'm not clear on what all is going on here. This seems to be part of some sort of larger dispute about Gibraltar if I am guessing right. I'd like to hear more about what is going on, from Ecemaml. I note (just for reference) that you're a recently appointed admin here yourself, RedCoat. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I must declare that I fully respect any vote. I'm absolute sure about the fact that people voting against (and for) has carefully assessed the merits of the candidate and voting following his/her conscience. However, I also think that I've got the right to say what I think about the alleged arguments for any vote, particularly this. Let's see them:
      • I'm being accused of "having listed a coat of arms for deletion under the grounds of simply being a «logo» when it turned out to be well in the public domain because of its age". Furthermore, it would "not indicate an exhaustive knowledge of policy". This statement has two different parts, and I must say that, in the way it is phrased, it seems as if I, knowing it was a valid, public-domain coat of arms, maliciously decided to make it deleted by claiming it was a logo.
        With regard to the first part of the statement (I listed for deletion a public-domain coat of arms) I should say that simply I didn't know what kind of emblem the Brothers of the Christians Schools use (I'm not an expert in the iconography of the Catholic orders or in Catholic memorabilia so that I didn't know whether its emblem is a three century-old coat of arms or a plain logo). I don't think that the role of an administrator at commons must be having a deep knowledge of any kind of imaginable image, determining at first sight what it represents or describes. What I thing an administrator must do is detecting likely problems in uploaded images and, going to the second part of RedCoat statement, following the Commons policies. Therefore, I used a {{Delete}} template (not a {{Speedy delete}} one), which opens a several day process and gives the uploader the opportunity of explaining the status, source and background of the image, as the uploader is mandatorily warned about it (in this case, you can see the mandatory warning here, with strict adherence to the procedure). However, it may seems as a quite careless way of handling an image by myself. Yes, it could if only considering the process followed with that image but it's not actually the case. Having being in the Wikimedia projects (and notably in the Spanish Wikipedia and Commons) for a while, I definitely know that the background of a user is something to take into account in order to analyze his/her contributions (that is, there might be two situations: a disruptive user -s/he knows that s/he is violating the copyright and doesn't care- or a good-faith uninformed user -s/he doesn't know anything about licenses- with similar results: most of their uploads are invalids; anyway, if you detect a wrong upload you, as administrator, MUST review all the upload of that user, since it's highly likely that many of the uploads are also invalid). In the case we're talking about, it's the user Lucien leGrey (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ). He belongs to the second category: a good-faith editor that, unfortunately, didn't know well the licensing policies. He uploaded four images to illustrate the es:William Golding article (see revision full of violations here) at Spanish Wikipedia (this one, this one, this one and this one). License information claimed by Lucien was "No licensing: Free use for illustrate Wikipedia article" (it can be seen in the logs). I did ask him about such licensing claims, while, at the same time, looked for appropriate copyright information in the web site provided as source (something that, I should say, it's not the responsibility of an administrator; I mean, if s/he does it, fine, but it's the responsibility of the uploader to justify licensing not the other way around), as shown here. Next, I talked to Dodo (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ), the administrator I usually collaborate with and the images were quickly removed (since they were obvious, though good faith, violations of copyright). As previously explained, acknowledging that Lucien was not aware about the more elemental notions of commons licensing policies, I examined the rest of his contributions. I found new likely copyright violations, such as this one or this one (which were, of course, warned: here and here). Both had been taken from the BCS web site (source ULR was included in the {{Copyvio}} template I assigned). In the process I also found the BCS seal, also pressumedly taken from the BSC web site and I also listed it (using a regular {{Delete}} to enforce discussion, instead of a {{Copyvio}}. Fortunately, in the discussion, it was argued that, what I thought a logo, was actually a coat of arms (and old enough to be in the public domain). As far as I understand, the purpose of the process opened by the inclusion of a {{Delete}} template is just that, therefore, I think that I strictly followed the process and I demonstrated an accurate understanding of the policies, using different templates whenever necessary. Anyway, I proceed to explain how licensing conditions are applied in commons to Lucien (but without success, see Image:Nicolasroland.jpg or Image:ESCESTRELLA.jpg).
      • You've mentioned my block in the English Wikipedia (more than two years ago; a quite, quite old issue). However, you've missed to mention that a) I didn't even know such rule existed, since it didn't existed at the moment in the Spanish Wikipedia (you can see that the first version of such a policy was created in January 2006, while my block was two months before; mind that such a policy is not one of the five pillars, so that I'm not in any way forced to know the rules in every Wikimedia project). BTW, if you noticed, the author of such translation of 3RR policy into Spanish was me; once I knew of the policy, I translated it into Spanish to be used in the Spanish Wikipedia, so I definitely think I did it quite well: once I knew of an important policy in the English Wikipedia, I took such a good practice into the Spanish Wikipedia; b) I wasn't warned (I was warned only once the block had been issued); c) when I explained what's going on to the administrator (through mail, since the possibility of editing in my own discussion page when blocked was not available yet) the block was immediately reduced ("3RR block reduced)"); and finally d) you've carefully hidden who was the guy that was taking part in the edit war, which, BTW, was a fellow countryman of you. One of the most disruptive trolls in the English Wikipedia (you can read the ArbCom case). It took me four months to take the case to the Arbitration Committee and of course I won it (quotation by one not so uninvolved party —mind that Dmcdevit was the admin that blocked me for violating the 3RR rule—: "While I think Ecemaml was acting in good faith, he was is at his wit's end and resorted to indulging the edit warring. Gibraltarian, however, has insisted on making personal attacks against Ecemaml in probably every post to RFPP and in talk page discussions, calling him a "troll" at every chance"; and another: "One is that Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia. To me that just gives credance to Dmc's idea that he got into this edit warring because he felt like he had to, not for any malicious reason. What I find interesting is that Ecemaml is called a troll alot by Gibraltarian, but it's Gibraltarian who has shown the troll-like characteristics, such as posting the same information over and over again, personal attacks, etc."). You can see in en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gibraltarian and en:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gibraltarian a possibly not exhaustive list of the sockpuppets used by him. However, it didn't solve the problem since once indefinitely blocked, he simply vandalized pages (in both the English and the Spanish Wikipedia) in an anonymous way, using any of the available IP addresses in Gibraltar. It lead us (and also to the English Wikipedia) to a dilemma: blocking the whole Gibraltar range (212.120.224.0/19) or protecting Gibraltar-related articles.
      • That leads to other arguments. The alleged abusive semiprotection of es:Gibraltar. As I've previously mentioned, Gibratarian was a big pain in the neck. His continuous POV editing and abusive behaviour led us to the dilemma previously mentioned. As blocking the whole of the Gibraltar IP range could originate collateral damages (for instance, RedCoat would not be able to edit at all), we didn't know what to do. Finally, Wikimedia developers created semiprotection and we saw the it could be the solution: we decided to semiprotect such articles to avoid vandalism by Gibratarian (the user known as Gibraltarian, not the people from Gibraltar). That was the reason to such a semiprotection.
      • An untrue fact is the one that says that "Ecemaml and some other users even went on to create a userbox simple to mock me". A careful inspection of the history of my discussion shows that it wasn't me the person that created the userbox
      • Another, I'm afraid, misrepresentation is the one that says "I was also baselessly and very rudely accused of being a well-known indefinitely-blocked vandal". The provided diff is this one. However, the person that talks that the identity between Gibraltarian and Red Coat is again not me. If fact, what I said was "Si RedCoat fuese también Gibraltarian sería un avance. El antiguo Gibraltarian no sólo era un energúmeno, sino que claramente era un desequilibrado" (if RedCoat were also Gibraltarian it would be an advance. The old Gibraltarian was not only a madman, but clearly insane), meaning that RedCoat WAS NOT a madman nor an insane guy and therefore he wasn't Gibraltarian.
      • With regard to edit wars (such as this one) I don't know what RedCoat means (generic statements are definitely not proper), but if he talks about his other fellow countryman, Gibnews, he had the same POV vision as the old Gibraltarian: removing a key fact in the Gibraltar Airport issue: the controversy on the sovereignty of the isthmus where the airport is built (removing the Spanish POV and thus making the article POV; for those not knowing the case, Spain does not recognize the British sovereignty over the land where the airport stands; that makes any issue related to the airport painful, since Spain has to apply whatever measures for not meaning that it relinquishes its claim over the isthmus, BTW a different claim that the one over the whole of Gibraltar, where British sovereignty is not questioned).
      • Finally, a strange one: "He blatantly ignored me". Has RedCoat telepathic powers? Did he know that I consciously ignored him? Could it be possible that I simply missed the message? I don't think that presuming bad faith in my behaviour is an argument to discrediting me. I mean I suppose that even if (as neutral point of view) presumption of good faith is not a explicit policy in Commons, it's common sense to follow it.
    • And that's all. Sorry for the length, but I wanted to make it clear. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (note: signature date is wrong; I forgot to sign when answering at first time)[reply]
      • Oddly enough, your response has boiled down to an old dispute of which I was never part. I do hope my opposition has not been made to appear founded on personal grounds which is certainly not what I intended. As *part* of my oppose rationale I was simply putting forward the actions (or lack thereof) that I have witnessed on es.wiki, nothing more. If you thought it right to edit-war for whatever reason, or allow an insulting userbox on your talk page go unnoticed (regardless of whether or not you made it), or semi-protect a page for almost two years, long after the vandal had left, then I beg to differ. In any case, many contributors view canvassing as enough to warrant an oppose vote per se. RedCoat 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, RedCoat, I sincerely appreciate that you've withdrawn most of the untrue statements you argued, and therefore you don't accuse me now of creating an insulting userbox or having accused you of being a troll. In the same way, I deeply appreciate that my 3RR block in en.wiki is not part of your argumentation any more. However, it seems quite strange that having used as argument a two-year old block, now you accuse me of "boiling down" and old dispute, especially since such "old dispute" is the cause of all alleged misbehaviour by myself. Finally, I should say that, as any administrator knows, I didn't semi-protect a page for two year (that is, I didn't prevent any administrator from unprotecting the page). I did protect the page, using an indefinite expiration time (the one allowed at that time) and simply didn't removed the protection (I do not have a list of pages that I've semi-protected; mind that any administrator may override the protection measures taken by any administrator). And, unfortunately, the vandal never left. Here you have the history of the talk page. You can see editions from IP addresses coming from the Gibraltar IP address range from time to time. See here, here or here (yes, es:Historia de Gibraltar was the other favorite target of Gibraltarian). To sum up, you've been an unfortunate collateral damage of the disruptive actions of Gibraltarian (and I know, it's not fair). But it was that the origin of all my alleged (but untrue) misbehavioru. Failing to show it leads to a distorted vision of my behaviour as administrator. I do not presume bad faith at all, but I'm sure you'll agree with me if I say that only providing the whole picture allows the readers a fair assessment of my actions (and that's key in an administrator nomination). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 14:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Airunp 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lourdes 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Su dedicación para que el proyecto vaya bien y todo sea correcto es algo de admirar.[reply]
  •  Support Muro de Aguas (write me) 17:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Kordas 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Dodo 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) To RedCoat: having followed Ecemaml's fight against User:Gibraltarian at en: and es: (by the way, this is Commons) I can only say he will be an excellent admin here.[reply]
  •  Support Manwë 17:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ale Flashero 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jarke 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Petronas 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muy  Support Sanbec ✉ 18:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Escarlati 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support..Joseaperez 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Chabacano 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC) A good admin, industrious and very concerned about licensing issues. He would be very useful here.[reply]
  •  Support --Yeza 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Il peut être un grand administrateur ici aussi. Bonne chance :)[reply]
  •  Support --Javier Carro 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) A very sensible an experienced administrator.[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianBier 21:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Libertad y Saber 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose — I find this user highly uncivil. --Boricuæddie 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Per Redcoat, Eddie, and apparent canvassing that's taking place. — Giggy 02:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. The canvassing of this RfA is in my view a usurpation of the rights of the Commons community to determine for itself the suitability of candidates. I am particularly unhappy that the many supports above are not accompanied by reasons - it leads me to wonder how thoroughly the candidate's Commons history has been evaluated. I am also concerned by the loss of temper evident in Ecemaml's response to opposition here [1], which simply isn't the temperament I look for in a sysop. WjBscribe 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Hi, WJBscribe. I respect your vote, but I don't think your comment is completely right. I'm not responding to "opposition". I'm responding to some statements that happen to be false, used as argument to a negative vote. I don't know which kind of temper is expected when it is said, for instance, that I have created an insulting template, when it's not the case, or when it's said that I identified someone as a dangerous troll, when, again it's not the case. Or when some selective cherry-picking is done in order to show me as a person that has a record of blocking in another wikipedia without mentioning at all the Gibraltarian case (which BTW is the root of all the alleged misbehaviour by myself). Being an administrator myself I would not engage ever in such kind of statements. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Por lo que le conozco de Wikipecia, su actitud no ayudará en nada a Commons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminao (talk • contribs) Retiro el voto. No quiero que por dar una opinión otro salga perjudicado. Bye --Luminao 13:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luminao (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) is an almost unactive user here in commons. Four editions and only one upload. Such an upload is this one: Image:La Adrada - Avila 03.jpg. Source is Epistemowikia, where the original uploader of the image is Mpeinadopa, which BTW is the same Mpeinadopa in the Spanish Wikipedia and, as stated there, Mpeinado here, which BTW, has also voted here. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 12:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Bucephala 11:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Antur 12:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Er Komandante (messages) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC). I know his work both here and on es.wikipedia. And I have asked myself a few times why wasn't he a sysop here, he is always asking for deletions to other sysops. He will be very helpful for normal contributors, as usual, and a nightmare for trolls and people who doesn't mind the rules. His strong character makes him a specialist in complicated users, the last example is the control he has kept this last year over the Satesclop/Gabri-co case, a multisockpuppet user who has been uploading dozens of copyvios). No doubt. Er Komandante (messages) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --KillOrDie 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (Aunque no sé si el tema de las votaciones funciona aquí como en la es.wiki, igual no cumplo los requisitos para votar, n.p.i.)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm afraid I see the usurpation of the rights of those who work on Commons as simply wrong. Sure I've emailed literally one or two people when I have had an Rf* in from time to time. However I have specifically prevented any more extensive canvassing for me in the past and see this as wrong. Sorry . Strike that - my opposed is based largely on canvassing (which I do think is wrong) and not this user's behaviour --Herby talk thyme 19:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lucien leGrey 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) A very good user and person. He helps many people (including me) in copyrights status.[reply]
  •  Support, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ¡Pásalo bien! --Thogo (Disk.) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support DerHexer 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral  Support I'm quite satisfied with the candidate's statements and answers, but I'm not really sure about all this. My advice would be that the candidate withdraws and tries again in a few weeks. It is generally nicer to start your adminship with much less controversy. But if the candidate wants to become an admin now, I won't stand in the way. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC) -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Hy Bryan, I really appreciate your vote and your comment. I did think of withdrawing. However, in the current stage of the discussion I feel it would be a lack of respect not only towards the people that has supported me, but also to those who has opposed. Furthermore, after the initial mess, we're talking about my contributions and the alleged merits to be appointed. In fact, the more people participates the more I learn about my possible faults (that is, even if this nomination finally fail, I'll learn, for sure, what I should improve). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Rastrojo 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Yes![reply]
  •  Support. We need more ES admins, notably because ES doesn't do local uploads, the candidate qualifies, and ES candidates have always left a message at the es village pump, just as French users do it by email list. I'd judge the candidate, and not the votes. Cary Bass demandez 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tano4595 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alpertron 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC) His arguments are OK for me. Commons deserves an admin like him.[reply]
  •  Neutral I'm not totally convinced that Ecemaml will make a good administrator given the controversy above and below, but I do understand that es.w has local uploads disabled. I may be able to support in the future in different circumstances, but I just can't make up my mind right now. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (GMT)
  •  Support Es un usuario experimentado que conoce el funcionamiento de Commons y participa frecuentemente denunciando infracciones de copyright (ver la página de discusión del administrador Dodo). Lin linao ¿dime? 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Experimented user in Commons, highly involved in the project, gets browny points for the way he is handling this RfA, including countering opposes with well reasoned (if lenghty) explanations and multiple diffs. I like an admin who is willing to explain his actions to the very last detail and who can handle difficult situations. Ecemaml fits the bill, plus I'm not swayed by the arguments of the oppose votes. Cheers Raystorm 11:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This request is a little bit insane...but there are some good points made. It is important for Spanish Wikipedians to have input into Commons RfA of course, but maybe we could make some guidelines so we don't get quite a debacle next time. Like, "write a comment explaining why, don't just vote". Ecemaml has made thoughtful, reasoned statements in this discussion and I think he is right, it would be a bit disrespectful to the dozens of es.wikipedians who have come here to vote. If it's truly a swell of support for someone they consider a good candidate, which it does seem to be, then it is not misleading - just overwhelming. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Yes, I see your point. As it has been pointed out above, it's almost impossible to avoid canvassing. However, as you've suggested, some "guidelines" should be published in the Spanish Wikipedia stating roughly the following: "Although Commons is the media repository of the Spanish Wikipedia, it is a specific Wikimedia project, with its own community, policies and procedures. When it comes to the appointment of administrators, rules and underlying philosophy are not strictly the same as with the Spanish Wikipedia: although there is nominally a 75-25 voting proportion for one nominated to be appointed, the key point is not number of votes, but arguments and how sound they are. So then, before going to vote for (or against) a candidate, please, keep in mind the following issues: first of all, honestly wonder whether you're an active member of commons (mind that otherwise, your vote can be seen as coming from a fan and not as the product of assessment of the merits of the candidate); if so, carefully remember that it's your argument and not your vote what is really important; finally, provide arguments based on the merits of the candidate: mind that the background of the candidate in the Spanish Wikipedia (for instance, being an administrator) is a good argument but cannot be the only nor the main one; analyze the contributions and background of the candidate in Commons (mainly with regard to the knowledge of licensing policies and interaction with other users) and vote (either support or oppose) on the ground of the result of such an analysis".
    • As this RfA is going on, I'm verifying that the knowledge of Commons in the Spanish Wikipedia can be further improved. I'm also taking care of the translation of the HOWTO written down by our Portuguese friends. This notice should be other way to improve and clarify such relationships. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 09:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per pfctdayelise and Drini comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support for the excellent reasons Cary mentions. Commons isn't a true community, it's not an isolated project with it's own set of contributors, it draws experience in from all the other projects, so this amusing idea that only people who edit Commons more than once in a blue moon should have almost exclusive say over who does what is extremely silly and extremely worrying. Commons is a repository, it's purpose is to provide free media both to all the other Wikimedia projects and to outside users, and as such, all the experienced and trustable users on those projects should be able to administer Commons. If the members from the Spanish Wikipedia wish to have one of their users become an administrator on Commons, there should be no question of stopping that from happening, especially as they have no local upload facility and dealing with problematic images should be something all administrators on all projects should be capable of dealing with, regardless where that image is uploaded. Nick 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say Commons isn't a true community... there's a lot of dedicated users here, and we're more than just a file repository with FPC, QIC, Graphics Lab, Village Pump, all the copyright discussion, etc. We're no where close to Wikipedia, but of course that comparison's unfair. Rocket000 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the importance that admin powers are given only to people who has already got enough experience working in Commons. I wouldn't support a RfA only for the candidate's work in other projects. Anyway, this is not the case. Ecemaml is really active here, and his contributions show he keeps our policies and all that stuff mentioned above. When I voted, I mentioned Ecemaml's work in other projects, not because I hadn't seen his work here (which is quite easy to chek at his contribs), but because I wanted to provide an additional reason to Commons users who don't check Spanish language Wikipedia. --Javier ME 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Template:Comentario — Recuerde usar resúmenes de sus ediciones («edit summaries») para que la gente pueda saber qué está haciendo :-) --Boricuæddie 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment for information I understand that canvassing is going on on es wiki for this candidate --Herby talk thyme 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was one announcement at es:wiki which was promptly reverted by one of our admins, which should have little bearing on this request for adminship. Kordas 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict - I disagree with the comment above) You (referring to Herby) are correct. See [2] and [3]. The Café (equivalent of a Village Pump) is a widely visited page and probably one of the most watched pages in es.wp. This canvassing has obviously had a big impact on this request, as the candidate's es.wp fans are obviously supporting him without even looking at his contribs here and without analyzing if this candidate would actually help the Commons. This is troubling, IMO. --Boricuæddie 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herby. You must however understand, that unlike many other wikis, eswiki has disabled local uplaods, therefore 100% of the images must be handled at commons. That implies, that Commons ongoings are much more closely watched at eswiki than in most other wikis. Therefore, it's "big news" when one of us gets nominated (it has been always that way, even when I got proposed). And therefore, the news passes from mouth to mouth, it's not canvassing, it's just news. -- Drini 22:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I have some plausible proof of the large impact of the canvassing at es.wp on this request:
  1. User:Gusgus — active admin at es.wp; no major activity since September.
  2. User:Ensada — active admin at es.wp; no major activity here.
  3. User:Airunp — active admin at es.wp; no major activity here.
  4. User:Kordas — active admin at es.wp; no major activity here since October.
  5. User:Ale flashero — active user at es.wp; no major activity here since October.
  6. User:Joseaperez — active admin at es.wp; no major activity here.
  7. 80.31.118.220 — only edit to this request; IP is from Spain; probably a contributor to es.wp.

And, you'll also note that the majority, if not all, of those who are supporting this candidate are active contributors to their home wiki; the Spanish Wikipedia. To the closing bureaucrat: Please be sure to take this into consideration... --Boricuæddie 19:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For Boricuaeddie: por favor, la próxima vez no utilices sesgadamente mis ediciones diciendo que llevo sin editar en Commons desde octubre, o al menos ilústranos sobre lo que implica "major" para ti. Personalmente puedo decirte que no tuve constancia de ese aviso hasta que leí la historia aquí, llevo fuera algunos días y simplemente entré antes en Commons, donde suelo votar a menudo para administradores. Puedes comprobarlo en mis ediciones, pero sin parcialidades, por favor. Gracias, Kordas 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lo único que trataba de decir es que me parace muy improbable que por pura coincidencia haya decidido una cantidad de usuarios tan grande, todos provenientes de la Wikipedia hispana, pasar por aquí y que por coincidencia, valga la redundancia, también se hayan encontrado con un candidato que conocen ya de la Wikipedia en español. No dije nada más que eso; si lo cogiste mal, eso es problema tuyo, ¿eh? :-) Finalmente, para mi, "major" significa que hayas editado varias veces, no sólo una edicioncilla por aquí y otra por ayá, que es lo que han estado haciendo ustedes (los que mencioné en la lista). Honestamente, me disculpo si te sentíste insultado. Estas son sólo pequeñas observaciones que, en mi opinión, deberían ser tomadas en cuenta por el bibliotecario que cierre esta votación. --Boricuæddie 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Boricuaeddie: I would like to know what you consider "major activity". I don't think a user needs to upload thousands of images to be considered a trusted user here, there are some other sort of contributions to do. Most of those Spanish admins you have listed are dedicated people who watch for copyright violations, unsourced images, etc and come to alert to Spanish speaking admins here or in es:w about them. They are voting with conscience as anyone can do since this is an open votation. Anna 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hi all, I feel really sad about this long discusion on issues that are not actually related to my work here. First of all, I'd like to thanks to all people that has voted here. I'm absolutely sure about their good faith. I also know that, as Boricuaeddie has pointed out, some wikipedians has announced this vote in the Village Pump in the Spanish Wikipedia. The funny thing is that such announces have been always put whenever an administrator or trusted user in the Spanish Wikipedia has requested adminship status here. That is, people announcing this vote has acted in good faith, thinking that it was a fair thing. It does not seem to be the case (at least not anymore) so that the two times that such an announce was published, it was reverted (here and here, BTW this time by myself). I do think that people that has supported me are not my "fans" (BTW, Boricuaeddie, this is a good time to apologize by this lack of respect and bad faith presumption on the voters; at the moment I can count six commons administrators, more than fifteen administrators at the Spanish Wikipedia, two administrators at the Spanish Wikiquote... too committed people to be defined as a "fan" of myself), but people that think that I can work for the Wikimedia projects here in commons in the same way as I've been doing for the last two years in the Spanish Wikipedia.
If it's thought that because of alleged canvassing this vote must be canceled, I've got no problem. I think that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion and I only aim to work for the project not for getting yet another medal. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let's get a hold of ourselves for a second, shall we? Firstly, you guys should decide on what language to use; the Spanish/English combination is not working. Secondly, I am only trying to maintain the peace and order you guys have come here to destroy. I consider your comment above an attack, and I will take it into consideration when casting my vote. There has been no bad-faith assumption or lack of respect from my part; I have merely pointed out some things that I find highly unusual. Finally, a warning. I do not take attacks lightly, specially those directed at me. Canvassing is an unacceptable practice, and I am just making sure there is justice here. If you guys only want to come here and disrupt our processes, feel free, but please do not deny me my rights to express my concerns here in the process. --Boricuæddie 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I prefer to use English, even if I'm not as fluent as I wished. On the other hand, I didn't mean to attack anyone, just trying to explain my vision on the issue (basically that there was no bad faith in the announcements published in the Spanish Wikipedia, that such announcements do not exist any more and that I don't have any problem in cancelling the vote; in fact, I'm the most damaged party in the whole issue). However, I should say it again, defining people that have voted for me as "fans" is definitely a lack of respect and I cannot see how pointing it out and asking for apologies (not for me, but for them) is a personal attack, directed at you. Anyway, if you think it is, I sincerelly apologize. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view: Canvassing is not, in and of itself, a bad practice, unless it unduly skews outcomes in an undetectable way. I'll readily admit that I canvass myself from time to time, some of you reading this may have received notes from me, or talk page pings, on behalf of some issue or another, I am sure... I'm glad we're aware of it, thanks for surfacing the issue. This should be taken into account at closing time (remember that we do not go on strict percentages here, we go on what the consensus of the community is) and if I'm the closing crat, you can be sure I will. I would ask everyone to please stay mellow. I don't think anyone is engaged in out and out disruption so let's all be cool. To Bori's point, I think it would be useful if the candidate themselves engaged in a bit more discussion about what they've done here. They already gave some good examples, I feel. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm pointing to a messaging regarding the alleged canvassing issue (not by myself) here. It's in Spanish but may explain that announcements in the Spanish Wikipedia Village Pump have been a common practise, without any further problem. Moreover, it points out to the fact that, as long as local image upload in the Spanish Wikipedia is disabled, commons is no longer yet another Wikimedia project. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 00:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The key issue here would be if canvassing is allowed or not in Commons. I still don't have a clear answer on that, and I've asked. There is no specific policy in the Spanish Wikipedia regarding such practice. There is however a behavioural guideline in the English Wikipedia. As User:Lar has pointed out, it has been regarded as standard practice up to now pinging collaborators for their input. I myself have been told so by several Commons admins. Note however that in this specific case, the announcement at the Spanish Wikipedia was quickly reverted in all instances, one of them by Ecemaml himself. I also consider baffling the argument about the alledged inactivity of some of the users who have voted here. I check my Commons account every single day, even if I don't make an edit here, for the simple reason that I mostly contribute at the English Wikipedia and, as of late, the Spanish Wikipedia. That provides no grounds however for the belief that I do not care about what happens here or that I do not want good admins here (or worse yet, that I would support based on friendship rather than on the merits of a candidate), and I do believe (for I shall assume good faith) that the same is true for the users that have voted support here. I'm pretty sure they can provide diffs of the candidate's good job here, and thus counter the oppose claims. I do not believe there was bad faith or an attempt to bend a rule when the notice came up at the Spanish Village Pump. As I say, it is considered standard practice, since there is no canvassing rule at es:wiki, and Spanish users have no reason a priori to be aware of en:wiki's policies or guidelines, especially if they are somewhat recent. The point is what is valid at Commons, and if there is consensus to give the tools to this user based on his merits here. I'll review his contribs and give my vote later. Cheers Raystorm 12:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's however a subtle division. It would be canvassing, if Commons were unlinked to wikipedia as it's with many other wikis and people were asking to come and vote for Ecemaml. However, Commons is of paramount importance for eswiki, much more than for other wikis, since we don't have uploads. As I pointed, noone has asked to come and vote for ecemaml support. It is, however, big news for eswiki community a spanish talking being nominated, (and it will always be due to the circumstances) so the news will apss along nomatter what. So people know, and people will come to express their opinion, nobody sad come and vote support. -- Drini 13:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, let me remind everyonee that here, WE in commons we pay more attention to arguments than raw numeric count. Now, those who oppose due to a "supposed canvass" should rather consider the suitability of the candidate basing on his commons work alone, and then deciding wether support or not. Remember, not a vote. -- Drini 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing bureaucrat: Please be sure to take this into consideration... -- Drini 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drini, nobody said anything about campaigning for Ecemaml. Canvassing is sending a message to multiple wikipedians with the intent of informing them of a community discussion. Nonetheless, what the closing 'crat should take into account is that en:wiki arguments are being made in order to oppose this RfA. I have seen no evidence whasoever of a rule here in Commons discouraging canvassing. Just because it's not commonly accepted in en:wiki is no reason to use it as an oppose argument here, I believe. Cheers Raystorm 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case someone's been misled by Boricuaeddie's list, checking the mentioned users' contributions we find that User:Ensada had actually been inactive in Commons the last months, while User:Gusgus, User:Airunp, User:Kordas, User:Ale flashero and User:Joseaperez were recently active before voting in this page. --Javier ME 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the story of the Image:Seal FSC.jpg, we see that it had been incorrectly licensed by its uploader [4] and that it lacked date and source information when Ecemaml proposed its deletion [5], so Ecemaml's action does not suggest ignorance of the policy at all. --Javier ME 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I hope I'm not potentially jeopardizing my own RfA ;) but I wanted to say few things.
Canvassing may be a common practice on the Spanish Wikipedia, but not here (we don't normally see this kind of voting). This shows unfamiliarity with Commons. If the canvassing took place here on Commons, that would be one thing (as Lar admits there's always a little that goes on), but it took place on a different project and possibly through other outside methods. If it's not desirable to oppose someone based on their actions elsewhere, then it's likewise unfavorable to support someone for their actions elsewhere. I'm afraid many of these voters are basing their vote on his behavior on es.WP. It’s good to know he has so much support there, but this isn't es.WP (where things are obviously different).
Personally, I do not like the way he responds to criticism or opposition. He seems pretty set on proving others wrong and becomes very defensive. Not a good characteristic for an admin, IMO. I appreciate his thoroughness in response to various accusations, however, I think he took it a little too personal. The length and tone of response justifying his actions was uncalled for (reminds me of what goes on over at en.WP, among other things like the request for a checkuser over an oppose vote, personal grudges, friends vigorously defending him, etc.).
Looking at all the votes above. The majority obviously is in favor, but the thing that stands out is nearly all the names I recognize - the regulars or highly active members - oppose. It's time like this we're reminded why "it's not a vote".
This whole nomination brought too much drama to Commons. It wasn't just the canvassing (which I don't think we should hold against him), but what transpired after. It was not all bad, we did get to know Ecemaml a little and how he reacts in situations like this, but unfortunately I do not feel we can accurately assess the result of this RfA. I personally don't think I could vote fairly right now. The result would either be unfair to Ecemaml or to the community.
I want to apologize to Ecemaml. I know things aren't the way you would of liked. I'm sorry. Under different circumstances I think I could support you, and until then I wish you the best. Rocket000 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that canvasing alone is not a good reason for opposing, if it not accompanied by another ones. First, it wasn't his fault, he even tried to stop it. Second, presuming good faith, could those who discovered this RfA through that canvasing have a good knowledge of his work, even if they are not very active here? (not everyday has one an opportunity to discover a good picture to upload, even sometimes the negotiation with authors for permisions are made outside Commons and are very and painfully slow)
I am more active in es than in commons. Obviously I found about this RfA in the Cafe there, but of course I knew of his work here. Otherwise I would not have bothered to come to vote. I assume this is the same for everyone else.
So, could we please limits ourselves to his contributions here?. He is already making a good work of adminship without having the buttons. With them he can be better. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my comment. You'll see that we agree. All this defensiveness not help the situation. Rocket000 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Hi Rocket000, first of all I should say that I sincerely appreciate your comments and thoughts. I don't think it will jeopardize your nomination. To the contrary, I will vote for you, for sure, as long as your contributions are fair ;-) Having said that I must assure that the rejection of my nomination won't be any kind of drama at all. As I've said previously, I've been working here the last months in collaboration with an administrator (Dodo (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )) and I just wanted to be more useful and not disturbing, provided that I can do the work by myself. Each month, I regularly opened a new "Ecemaml's section" (December 2006, January 2007, February 2007, March 2007, April 2007, May 2007, June 2007, July 2007, August 2007, September 2007, October 2007, November 2007, December 2007) and you can see that most of the pictures I detected were removed. From that point of view, I'll keep on working in the same way (well, if you've chosen, I can use you with the same purpose :-)). BTW, I do really thing that my edition record here is faultless. Mind that I've been dealing with copyright issues from the old days when the Spanish Wikipedia handled its own pictures.

With regard to canvassing, I cannot say anything else than I've already said: there was no bad faith; as long as I noticed it was a problem I personally removed any announcements in the Spanish Wikipedia Village Pump and this way of working have been the usual habit since the time we decided to delegate all image handling to commons (please consider that in 2006 it was requested that Spanish-speaking administrators were recruited from the Spanish Wikipedia, see here (sorry, in Spanish)) Regarding to that, I'll be very frank and say that (and that's only my personal oppinion) I don't see commons as a project in itself (that's not bad; it gives it a very special status). Commons is the image repository of the Spanish Wikipedia (among other wikipedias that has also disabled local upload) as Drini has pointed out above. As such, I see the Spanish Wikipedia community as part of the Commons community and I don't feel that a specific record in commons is needed to become an administrator (take into consideration that anyway, I do have a not extensive but significant record here). For instance, when I warn uploaders of the Spanish Wikipedia, I usually speak to them over there, and that's not reflected here (see for example here or here). Of course that I don't intend to convince you nor any of the people that has voted against me feeling that voting from people in the Spanish Wikipedia comes from intruders, or being defensive. I'm just trying to explain it and showing the point of view on the issue in the Spanish Wikipedia, which is far from attempting to be disruptive (a good point here is that although never explicitly forbidden, there is, right now a solid precedent against such kind of practices).

Finally, regarding my answers to "opposition"... I must say that I may have been not as polite as required (and I sincerely apologize). However, for me it was astonishing to see how the arguments of a vote were based on untrue facts and selective election of events failing to show the whole picture (that is, the infamous Gibraltarian case; an episode I'm personally very proud of, since it led to the deactivation of a dangerous and obsessive troll, in a Wikipedia I wasn't an active member of) or that voters for an option were globally discredited. And that's all I wanted to say. Rocket000, if you've reached this point, I sincerely say: thank you. :-) Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Ecemaml's reactions to opposition (providing context for the blocking in en.wiki refuting false accusations with facts) were correct. We could ignore untrue accusations in other circumstances, but it's relevant to refute or explain them in a RfA, to provide an accurate image of the candidate's behaviour. I think proving others wrong and the long responses were necessary in this case. I understand Rocket000's concerns about the request for a checkuser (but even that might be appropiate when Eddie listed accounts as not having major activity, despite they were quite more active than Luminao's). --Javier ME 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I forgot to mention the checkuser issue. The fact is that all the votes against were of active contributors in commons or contributors in the Spanish Wikipedia, such as Mpeinado. As Luminao mentioned that my behaviour in the Spanish Wikipedia was wrong, I simple tried to find out who the wikipedian was and to figure out which unappropriated behaviour I was being accused of this time. Almost no contributions (that's not the point here) and the only upload was an image that Mpeinado uploaded to the project he usually works. It seemed to me quite unlikely such a coincidence, especially since there's no Luminao account in Epistemowikia, the project where the image was originally uploaded and where Mpeinado is an active member (in the Spanish Wikipedia a checkuser verification is usual when there is a suspicious on voting frauds, so that I imagined the same mechanism worked here). --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that's another reason to oppose. You seem to think that everything done at es.wp is also done here, which is obviously incorrect. To me, that shows that you're unfamiliar with our policies, guidelines, and processes, which is bad in an administrator. --Boricuæddie 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Us vs them mentality is not the best for wiki. We know you oppose. You had a reason, you now have two. You spoke your mind. You voted. Could we stop the hunt now~? -- Drini 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to you: WE in commons we pay more attention to arguments than raw numeric count. So there is no problem if some person shows several arguments for this RfA. Best regards, --Alpertron 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) PD: I will not vote since I haven't read all policies of Commons, so I am not able to argument now.[reply]

 Comment That's right Alpertron, you've completely right. The point that Eddie raises is an interesting (and pertinent one). It's said that, as long as I do not know the right reasoning to request a CU verification, it means that I'm "unfamiliar with our policies, guidelines, and processes". Well, the fact is that he's right. I don't know all the imaginable procedures and guidelines that are used here. Yes, I don't know, for instance the procedure to promote an image to featured. However, I sincerely think that such statement cannot be applied to policies. I'll try to explain (BTW, it's quite satisfying finally talking about my (lack of) merits regarding my nomination). As I've said previously I see commons as the media repository of all the Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, it's the media repository of the Spanish Wikipedia. As such, I must follow the five pillars (which are common to all Wikimedia projects), and, what's more important, a strict licensing policy in order to assure that all media files stored here comply with the licensing conditions of the project. From the time the Spanish Wikipedia decided to ban fair use and eventually trust Commons as the media repository, I think it's fairly clear that I know very well the core and really important policies and guidelines of Commons: those related to media handling (mind that banning of fair use and remotion of local upload were not simultaneous events; for some time we were applying the same policies on licensing but locally). As Eddie has pointed out I do not know some guidelines and procedures, but I sincerely think that they're side, non core ones. All of them can be learned and I know that, for sure, if necessary Eddie or any of the many administrators that are taking part in this process will explain them to me. Furthermore, as long as all newly promoted administrators receive as gift the {{AdminWelcome}} template, where indications on all the necessary knowledge an administrator must know, I can imagine that an administrator needn't know any imaginable procedures before being promoted.

On the other hand, I do think that I've extensively proven that I do have the necessary expertise to deal with licensing issues. As I've mentioned above, you can take a look to any of the "Ecemaml's section" in Dodo's (an experienced administrator not only here, but also in the Spanish Wikipedia). Allmost all of the listed images were removed. I've proven that I know the licensing conditions and the procedures to handle authorizations (for instance it can be seen here or here; BTW, Lucien LeGray, the receiver of the first message has explicitly supported my nomination here, I can imagine that not because of being my "fan" but because of the clarity of the exposition)). As I've said, I've proven that I know the procedure to request authorization from external sites (described here) and BTW, I must say that the I raised the point that the equivalent of such message in the Spanish Wikipedia was wrong (it can be seen in this mail thread) and I proceeded to update it. I must say that I know what a derivative work is (although I must recognize that the limits of such concept are not clear yet for me; there is an ongoing discussion on a specific example: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I-mobile 1.jpg and I'd be glad to hear comments for other administrators and expert people). I must say that I do know the relevant procedures on deletion and, whenever not clear, I've used the {{Delete}} template instead of fast-track way such as {{Speedy delete}} or {{Derivative}} (such as in the example mentioned as response to RedCoat's objections (here) or the case related to derivative work also mentionted (here). I do know when an image may violate the NPOV (and therefore it shouldn't be promoted to the featured status) and therefore explaining it. I do know which are the procedures to get comments on licensing issues, procedures that do NOT include going to the Village Pump (see here) and finally, whenever I don't know a specific issue or question, I get advice from experienced administrators such as Dodo (see here, for example). I do also know that signing images is strictly discouraged (see here). Finally, and to finish with this, I must admit, boring exposition, I should also say that I've got accustomed to deal with disruptive trolls such the aforementioned Gibraltarian, to take the less intrusive measures to protect the integrity of the project without preventing free participation (compare for example, semiprotecting es:Gibraltar instead of blocking the whole Gibraltar IP range and forcing that way the disruptive troll to register), and to detect abusive sockpuppeting, such as the Gabri (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) / Satesclop (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) one. Mind that the CU verification was requested here by another administrator on my request, that this guy is permanently blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia (BTW by me) in all the available incarnations and that finally, I warned the commons administrators in order to fix all the likely copyright violations of that guy (see here, here or here). Again, sorry for the length in the exposition, but it's been really the first opportunity to really talk about my aptitude to be an administrator. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 09:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC) PS: and last but not least, I've uploaded tens of images from free repositories such as Enciclopedia Libre, Cordobapedia, Madripedia or flickr always complying to commons licensing conditions (see my contributions here). Not only that: I've requested explicit consent when necessary (see here and here) and set up the image handling system in Madripedia, a local wikipedia-like project (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). In fact, I've even helped other wikipedias, such as Galipedia (the Galician Wikipedia), as can be seen [6] (template {{SenOrixe}} roughly equals to {{No source}}); sorry if all the messages and diffs are in Spanish.[reply]

"I do know when an image may violate the NPOV" — I hope you are aware that "Neutral point of view" is a policy that does not exist on the Wikimdia Commons. RedCoat 12:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Yes, I'm aware of that, as for example happens with w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith (and therefore I haven't used any kind of template or message about it in the image page), but I do also know when an image is wrong because of its POV, and therefore I've stated that fact, since IMHO a POV image should not be chosen ever by Commons as featured image (would anyone choose a map of Argentina including the Falkland Islands without any comment regarding their status as featured image? --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 13:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC) PS: BTW, my comment has been fairly accepted by other participants.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Ecemaml&oldid=33102297"