Commons:Requests and votes/Patstuart 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Symbol support vote.svg Support = 8; Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose = 8; Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral = 2 - It's basically a 50/50 situation, so I'm afraid there is no sign of a consensus for giving sysop tools. Closing as failed. Patsuart, thank you for applying; I hope you will continue helping Commons, even without the tools. Patrícia msg 11:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)



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

I have been on commons for several months now, and have almost 10000 edits, an insanely high number which is in some part tampered by the fact that I've created for myself some semi-automatic tools. Nevertheless, I have quite a bit of experience here, and an equally insane high number of en.wikipedia. My first RFA was withdrawn: Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Patstuart. I believe I will make a good administrator: I have a firm grasp of copyright issues, have participated extensively in deletion discussions, and plan to tackle the commons backlog, delete copyright violations, and otherwise handle admin actions. I speak English natively, am proficient in Spanish, and I can usually figure out a way to communicate if it's another language. Patstuart (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Experienced, knowledgeable in copyright policy, dedicated, active, honest, multilingual, and willing to help; what more can you want? Symbol support vote.svg Support --Boricuæddie 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And again, Symbol support vote.svg Support Majorly (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Matt314 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mønobi 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, sounds great, I hope he will do what he's saying he would do :-). --my name 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Polarlys 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've seen this user do good work around here, and I expect him to continue to do so with the additional tools. 哦,是吗?(O-person) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (GMT)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of Pat's comments on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osama Bin Laden.jpg. He does not fully understand copyright. --ALE! ¿…? 09:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We all make mistakes. One of his comments is doubtful; so what? Have you read the hundreds of other delreqs he has participated in? Do you sincerely believe that that one incident would make him a bad or abusive administrator? --Boricuæddie 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It was just one example. But it striked me how badly copyright was understood by Patstuart. Do I have to be moraly good person to own copyright? I do not think so! --ALE! ¿…? 08:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose his actions do not make me feel he wil me a good sysop, sorry. abf /talk to me/ 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, could you give me an example to work with? Patstuart (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • this for example, wich is one of the soft ones. abf /talk to me/ 19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Because I made a mistake and forgot to put a User: in front I am unfit to be an admin? Patstuart (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ABF, this is a really poor oppose. Is there any sign at all he'll make a bad admin, other than forgetting the user: namespace? I'd also like to see other diffs of actual problems. Majorly (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with either of them. Any sign he'd abuse his tools? Majorly (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Majorly. Those examples do not even show how Patstuart would be unsuitable for adminship here. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, could you give me an example to work with? Patstuart (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, that has nothing to do with it. I have already forgotten all about this, to be honest. And allow me to keep the reason for my voting this way or the other strictly to myself. --Szczepan talk 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you can't/won't explain your reasoning, the closing bureaucrat will have no choice but to ignore your vote (or at least give it less weight). Majorly (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please point to where it says that in any policy? Votes are votes plain & simple --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank goodness you are not a bureaucrat in that case. It is never a strict vote. I, for example, could vote "Oppose - has an H in his name". By your definition, that is acceptable. I think not. While we tend to use 75% as a guideline, bureaucrats do have some leeway and as far as unhelpful opposes are concerned, they are given less weight in close cases. Majorly (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per ALE, per Herby, per Bryan, per Rocket... Now it (my vote) is ok? --Szczepan talk 15:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I was planning to support, but they won't sue us is not excactly what Commons is about. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Herrick 08:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As always. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks fine to me.--MONGO 07:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose & sadly after quite a bit of thought. However the point raised by ALE! & echoed by Bryan really does concern me. Such a cavalier attitude to licensing would seem worrying & inappropriate in a Commons admin I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Responded below, thanks for the input. As a note, I do not believe this is a cavalier attitude. Patstuart (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Bryan and Herby. --EugeneZelenko 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, Patstuart. I put a lot of thought into this, but something just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it's the attitude. Maybe I'm not being fair here but there's faint memories of past discussions where views were expressed which leads me to believe you would make choices not inline with the rest on Commons. (Examples are given above.) Thank you very much for your time addressing the concerns. - Rocket000 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The above comments give me some pause indeed. I have rethought this issue, considered on how strongly I consider knowledge of copyright, and consider my comment Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. 哦,是吗?(O-person) 02:47, 03 March 2008 (GMT)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose concerns on copyright knowledge highlighted by this discussion where the information was available from the image source. Gnangarra 02:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/All images not PD in the US --kogo 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Could you please explain the situation with User:The Evil Spartan? I'm afaraid I do not completely understand it. --Boricuæddie 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It is very long and complicated, but I originally changed over to this username, and only planned to edit with it briefly. However, I ended up keeping it permanently, and decided it was better to just be forward about it than to not admit I was the same person. Additionally, I am partly worried about my all too identifiable username, which I plan to change in the short future. Patstuart (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is this really porn?. Mutter Erde 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a subjective question. Mønobi 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It is, but imho I think it's ok to do subjective questions. The answers can tell you a lot about how the person thinks and decides, not just about how much the person knows about a certain subject. Patrícia msg 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate this freaking drama: I don't want to create it. I just want to be able to contribute to commons and Wikipedia. I'm thinking I just ought to withdrawas as this is the best idea. I've made countless edits to these two wikis without the flag, and I can continue to do so. (Don't anyway get the opinion I'm angry over their opposes) Patstuart (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't be discouraged by these silly opposes. Some people will oppose for whatever reason they can possibly find, and that's an unfortunately part of RfAs on every project. I don't think you should withdraw. You still have a chance. Majorly (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Do not withdraw. I understand how it can be hard to give good examples on the spot, the opposing reasons are really really weak. IMO, they are nowhere close to even being reasons to oppose. I'm sure the opposers have better reasons in their mind, but I can't see the given examples persuading that many people. I need to take a closer look at your contribs, but so far I see no reason why you shouldn't be given some extra tools to help out. Hang in there. (Hating drama is already one point for you. :) - Rocket000 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm undecided right now, do you mind if I ask a few questions. (Completely optional and there's no right answers, it's just to get to know you better.)
    1. How should an admins treat fully-protected pages (the protection is due to edit-warring they're not involved with)?
    2. If you could import any policy or guideline from another project (i.e. English Wikipedia) that we don't already have here, what would it be? Ideally, one that deals with editor/admin behaviour.
    3. What's your favorite part of the Commons community?
    4. How do you feel about our oversight policy? How many should we have right now if any?
Again, completely optional. Thanks. - Rocket000 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. If it's protected due to edit warring, an administrator should make only minor changes, or perhaps changes wholly unrelated to the edit war. The only exception would be if there is libelous material on the page that must be removed to protect other core policies that might trump the protection one (on English, that would be BLP)
  2. Again, BLP. I think we are too lenient on BLP issues - the commons equivalent in personality rights. For example, I just participated in a deletion discussion in which a man uploaded a picture of a naked woman; it was clearly amateurish, and appeared to be a girlfriend (I shall not link to it, but you can find it in my recent contribs). Yet apparently he uploaded it in a moment of weakness, regretted it, and asked for deletion. And yet, now we have to go through the whole discussion on deleting an not very encyclopedic image, and meanwhile at least one troll comes along and remarks on the image, and does who knows what else with it (e.g., uploads it to Now at best we have placed the picture of an unwitting unclothed person on the internet; at worst, we could be destroying a person's future or their marriage. Sometimes real-life issues trump silly process-wonking, which is why Mr. Wales created the BLP policy (I believe it was by decree).
  3. Far less formal, which brings several advantages. 1) We don't have the drama and the edit wars, 2) deletions are handled on a less formal and less process-wonky basis, and it is rarely abused (this means we can weed out obvious copyvios more easily), 3) Making changes is easier. On en, putting through even some of the most innocuous policy changes is incredibly difficult; I was shocked how easily we were able to push through the policy on deadminship in which I participated some months ago.
  4. I think it is a great thing. We have it on en, and I don't know why we wouldn't have it here. My understanding is that most people opposed it because we supposedly don't need it, but that's the point: we don't need it until we do need it. As for the number of people who can handle the responsibility, I also do not think there should be a limit. I don't think there can be too much of a good thing. For example, several people opposed User:Bastique's recent request for checkuser on the basis that we already have too many checkusers. But we know Bastique to be a responsible community member, and he immediately went out and blocked several sleeper socks. Of course, there is a greater chance for abuse with more people with a greater position, but this is true of adminship and every form of "promotion" across the projects, and must be taken on a case by case basis.

Along the same lines, if I may respond to several people's comments above, concerning the Osama photo: if we take such an interpretationist view of such things, we are entirely missing the point. How is it that we can upload photos which are clear BLP violations with the possibility of wronging the person involved, and if someone thinks this is a keep, he is not viewed negatively for it (I am fairly sure that if Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Girlsinshowerdormroom.jpg had not been deemed a copyvio, and I called for keep, no one would think a thing of it). Many people truly love commons because it provides a free license, and they believe in the purpose and goodness behind such a cause. And yet no one blinks an eye over photos such as these which could ruin a person's life. Then here we come along with a picture of Osama, which is de facto as much in the public domain as almost anything on commons, and people think I'm a would be an awful admin for thinking differently. It seems people have not noticed that indeed, the precedent of the courts and the judicial system is one of the things that defines public domain; thus, what the US courts deem about something is wholly relevant. Also, please keep in mind, that commons works on consensus, and if consensus had been to delete such an image, I would not let my own opinions override this. I find it truly sad that if I had participated in less deletion debates, I surely would have gained adminship (see my previous RFA, which was going well - I almost decided not to participate in this debate because I knew I was about to apply for RFA). A man who would take on a huge backlog, who has put more heart and soul into this project than most people on this page is denied adminship, essentially, because someone disagreed with him on one issue (as if admins never disagreed with each other). I believe I have shown countlessly good precedent on the many many other things I've contributed to; I ask anyone opposing to look at those pages as well. Patstuart (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I still think that you could make a good admin. However it might still be too early for adminship especially concerning your knowledge on copyright. So I would suggest that you keep on participating in deletion requests and show us that you really understand copyright. Take this as an opportunity to train your knowledge not as an unfair response for having participated to much in deletion requests. --ALE! ¿…? 13:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)