Commons:Requests and votes/Siebrand

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

Siebrand

Vote

I'd like to request adminship on Wikimedia Commons. I've been active for a few months and have made about 2,200 edits on commons in uploads, categorisation, vadal fighting and welcoming users. My RFA is mainly because I'd like to assist in general maintenance, focused on deleting policy violations. I comply with expectations of a commons administrator.

My wiki experience comes from over 22,000 edits on nl.wikipedia, where I have an admin status, being one of the maintainers of the Dutch localisation of MediaWiki and, being a system administrator of a corporate installation of a MediaWiki. Siebrand 18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby withdraw my candidacy for undisclosed reasons. Thank you for voting. Please contact me by email from a trustworthy address in case you'd like additional information. Siebrand 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support Good and clear motives. There are few users whose name one gets to know on Commons, and Siebrand is one of them. -Samulili 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --EugeneZelenko 19:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support ACK per Samulili --Matt314 19:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support but, only on monday do you edit? lol --Broc 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a big spike in the edit count for Monday because I've recategorised Dutch maps on that day, I think. Those were 600-or-so edits. Siebrand 13:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support nl speaker, and... seem [really] good. Yug (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Neutral -- i am in doubt here... nothing personal, i have no personal complaints about siebrand in fact, but honesty compels me to mention this deadmin request on nl.wikipedia. his way of handling criticizm is one of the reasons this takes place. i fail to understand siebrand why you speak about your admin status on nl, not mentioning that serious complaints are being discussed there since a couple of days, in fact since just prior to your request here? oscar 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. for your information: the deadmin request on nl has now been abandoned. oscar 02:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support. Although Oscar has a point, the deadmin request on nl: is according to it's proponent for lack of a more subtle manner to deal with the issue. I also think that because of the cultural and structural differences between nl: and Commons: the actions that led to the request would have been less of a problem here, so I see no reason to oppose. Siebrand's methodical approach would be very welcome here. NielsF 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support per NielsF pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support per NielsF --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    {{contra}} people devastating foreign discussion pages, should not be admin. I would like to attach a questionmark on Siebrands character fitness. Viewschub 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (A likely sock puppet. -Samulili 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    Excuse me? You are pointing to a user talk page of a known sockpuppeteer. What exactly are you trying to achieve? How do you think reverting something like that is a reason to question my character fitness? Siebrand 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Strongly oppose. A history of too many conflicts on nl.wikipedia, where Siebrand deleted images that should not have been deleted. Might be desysopped on nl.wikipedia for deleting and replacing many files without following procedures. Definitely a person I don't want to see as an admin on Commons - Quistnix 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are providing incorrect information, Quistnix. As Oscar has already indicated above, Andre Engels has dropped the deadmin procedure. Siebrand 19:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry - I forgot to mention your attitude as one of my reasons for voting against you. I am not going to argue with you on this page. - Quistnix 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is obviously something personal. Too bad you're making this a personal attack. Siebrand 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is NPOV to say you are not qualified for a sysop. You are constantly seeking confrontation, you always want to have the final word in a discussion, and you never admit your own mistakes. - Quistnix 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S.: when looking at your response to Noorse: I forgot to mention that you are constantly dragging others into your arguments with other users - Quistnix 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support Why not? Adnergje 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose Strongly oppose(changed by Noorse 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)). Too much of a soloist to be an administrator. Examples are starting of major cleanup without following through / notifying uploaders / following proceures and leaving most of the work to others, unprotecting all protected pages and deleting pages without following the procedures. See also remarks from Oscar and Quistnix. Noorse 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Noorse, you are providing FUD. Please be precise in the information that you are providing if you are making this type of accusations. Currently they are so vague I cannot even defend myself against them. Siebrand 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (en:FUD) NP, I didn't want to drag all dirty laundry here. You nominated 3-400 images for deletion and started deleting them, even after repeatedly being asked to stop doing this. The nominations were made without notifying the uploaders, and reasons given ranged from unused to no license given - even when licensing was stated in writing and other users easily could incorporate the images in articles. When asked about this, you shifted the responsibility over to another user. Procedure would have included notifying uploaders and also when given the license in writing, placing the right license template. Unprotecting all protected pages is self-explanatory, if you don't understand this.... Deleting pages without following procedures, except for the images mentioned above, includes the speedy deletion of hundreds of mediawiki pages in dutch without consulting others. These pages were later restored by you (under protest) together with others. This, and your tendency to always want the last word makes it impossible for me to vote for you. Noorse 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Noorse, I did nominate unused images. About 500 of them. All of these images had desccriptions indicating a freely available source ouside nl.wikipedia. Mostly other wikis or US Gov sites. I did not start deleting the images as you claim. Hence, I also was not asked to stop deleting. After nominating the images, some users jumped on my back and jumped some more when I started to explain further why I thought unused images that were not original work on nl.wikipedia should be deleted and why unused images that were sourced from nl.wikipedia should be moved and categorised on Commons. Because my back was about to break, I quit image maintenance on nl.wikipedia. Effeietsanders chose to handle the image nominations. He could also have chosen to have a vote on having the nominations dropped dropped. He did not. Is was his /choice/ to handle them.
    Unprotecting all pages is a false accusation. As other nl.wikipedia administrators have done since then, some pages are unblocked 4-6 weeks after having been blocked. IIRC I did this for 11 pages. This triggered Quistnix into completely blowing up. When Quistnix blew up, I had already, after carefully wachting the unblocked pages, blocked one page again. Quistnix threatended leaving the wiki because of a bucket flowing over and this was not an issue I wanted to persist in. I reprotected the other 10 pages. In fact there were many more protected pages at that time.
    As for the deletion of MediaWiki messages to make room for almost equal default MessagesNl.php messages: This has all been dealt with and it has been restored. So far the nl.wikipedia community has not been able to take further action on this issue, despite a lot of effort from NielsF (w:nl:Wikipedia:MediaWiki-berichten).
    As stated on nl.wikipedia: I am not without error. I correct when asked. I cannot defend myself against those posing opinion as fact. Siebrand 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a page for voting. I have cast my vote. Noorse 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose - People who work alone without listening to others are no good for sysops. we need to work as a team Røed 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose --gildemax 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support --Denniss 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Neutral Is the adminship necessary for the user to do usefull work at Commons? It seems like the user is somewhat disputed. — John Erling Blad (no) 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Oppose - I am not convinced and vote on behalf of these accusations/questions raised above from Siebrands fellow nl-users Noorse and Quistnix on whether he is fit for adminship, and his replies to those a/q. beagle84 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Szwedzki 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Strong support due to the vandal-smell of "Quistnix" and "Noorse" posts above, that first accused him of dragging others into disputes (which is precisely what one should do) then accusing him of acting out on his own in a maverik fashion. User:Siebrand seems much more reasonable on IRC, than their wayward allegations suggest. --Connel MacKenzie 09:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Quistnix and Noorse are vandals? Funny, I have not noticed that. The issues they have raised convince me to vote  Oppose. Kjetil_r 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 09:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

Valid votes case: 21

  • 13  Support
  • 2  Neutral
  • 6  Oppose
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Siebrand&oldid=33069657"