Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leyo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Leyo

[edit]

Final (92/3/4); ended 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Leyo (talk · contribs) – I decided to be bold and offer myself to serve Wikipedia as an administrator, even though my editcount might seem low to a number of voters. Nonetheless, I would call me a pretty experienced Wikipedian, considering being active for four years, the > 50,000 edits to all projects and being an admin in two major projects (RfA Commons, RfA de-WP). Since my RfA might be a bit special (see answer Q1 and a similar case), I would be open to recall. --Leyo 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an admin on Commons checking files moved from Wikipedia to Commons I frequently meet situations where the original file has already been deleted, but some information concerning the file are unclear (e.g. initial upload to engl. WP or copied from another WP?) or seem to be lost during the transfer. As bothering local admins is time-consuming, I just skip such files at times. Hence, (passive) admin rights would enable me to check details of locally deleted files when needed.
I have been moving chemistry-related files (mainly structural formulas) to Commons. Since Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons already contains 12,000 files, I would rather like helping to decrease the number than to further increase it. Considering my experience on Commons and that licensing is not an complex issue for structural formulas (normally PD-ineligible/PD-chem) and does not require a second pair of eyes in most cases, I could delete the local copy myself after a successful transfer to Commons.
More important than what administrative work I intend to take part in is what I would not be doing: Deleting articles or blocking users (apart from short-term blocks of IP users continuing to vandalize after warnings). The reason for this is that IMHO admins being deserved authors should be decide whether or not an article is deleted.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am trying to improve articles by exchanging or adding images (self-made structural formulas and photographs or images transferred from another project to Commons), spotting errors and adding references. I have also been working on templates. English Wikipedia benefits IMHO from a considerable part of my work on Commons. The images transferred to Commons also serve smaller Wikipedias. I have, however, only written a few articles myself.
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: Not really. The only case that comes into my mind was the question on the correct name of Blaise Nkufo/Blaise N'Kufo/Blaise Kufo. However, after a discussion and putting all sources and arguments together, we finally all agreed on the currently used name.
Additional optional questions from Tikiwont
4a. Can you explain to a layman why we delete those 'local' duplicates to start with? Simply keeping them would make most of your need for administrative rights moot, wouldn't it?
A: There are several reasons for that: (i) We should avoid having/creating redundancies; (ii) an unexperienced user might not recognize that there is a copy on Commons that could be used in other projects; (iii) a local copy does not only “hide” the file on Commons, but also the associated categories (that might contain other files of interest); (iv) to be continued…
4b. What is your take on the essay "Say no to Commons"?
A: I did not know this private essay so far. There is a kernel of truth in it, but I still think Commons is a good project. The smaller a Wikipedia, the more benefits storing images on Commons versus in all Wikipedias separately has.
Additional optional question from Gigs
5. Why do you want the ability to delete images here, when there is such a dire need for administrative work on Commons itself? For example, there are unclosed deletion discussions on Commons from March 2010 [1]. The backlog is over 4000 unclosed deletion discussions. Increasing the workload at Commons by moving our images over, when Commons itself is so overwhelmed and ineffective seems to be counterproductive.
A: May you allow me to pose a counter question: Why do you think it increases the workload when I move images to Commons? I always check my transfers and adapt the file description pages. I prefer to choose the topic of images I work on. As stated in my RfA on Commons I am mainly interested in chemistry-related images. I will continue to work on reducing the content of Category:Chemical pages containing a local image.
Additional optional question from tofutwitch11
6. What does being an administrator mean to you? Why do you want to be an administrator?
A: IMHO being administrator is no big deal. It would enable me to do things (transferring images to Commons, checking transfers made by others, …) more efficiently without having to create work for others. Does this answer your question? If not, please state it.
It does, and it doesn't. I am going to add my support, you've done a good job. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from S h i v a (Visnu)
7. I do not understand the last para in your answer to Q1: about what you would not be doing. Can you please elaborate?
A: As I have stated, I am interested in using the tools in the File namespace (checking the information in deleted local copies of files transferred to Commons, deleting files having been transferred to Commons). I would, however, not be going to take decisions on AFD or ANI/AIV. BTW: There has already been a pretty similar question (see #General comments). --Leyo 14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

  • I'm unable to make out what the last sentence of the answer to Q1 ("The reason for this is that IMHO admins being deserved authors should be decide whether or not an article is deleted.") means. I can think of some possibilities, but I'd prefer for you to clarify. Ucucha 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted to say is that I feel not to be eligible to make such decisions as having written a few articles only. Is it clear enough that way? --Leyo 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes. Ucucha 22:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support. My thoughts are that allocating admin rights for specific purposes like this is a good idea, and I see no reason to suspect the candidate will abuse it. Edit count here on en.wiki might appear low, but we have someone here who is active across other wikis, including Commons, so I don't see that as a problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why not? T. Canens (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Leyo is here to build an encyclopedia, understands the policies of this wiki (AIV example), and seeks out and communicates intelligently with users on intricate points of templates and images. It can also be said there is an unmet need (see this archived, unanswered thread) that would have been avoided with the bit. (Maybe there was a better place to ask, but still...nobody even responded.) Leyo is ready to hit the ground running and do even more for the project.  Frank  |  talk  12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I see good work from this candidate - and I know we focus on en.wiki here, as well we should, but the high quality of the candidate's work on other projects cannot be discounted. I'd ask that they tread lightly in other policy areas, until they're more familiar with en wiki's quirks, but I'd say that to any new admin. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support The edit count here is low, but with 50K edits overall, not a concern. The promise to use only a subset of the tools is a potential concern, but there's no way to enforce that. In some cases, that would concern me, but given status as a sysop on Commons, and dewicki, I'm confident this editor is not likely to begin blocking without making quite sure it is appropriate. SPhilbrickT 13:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Leyo's technical knowledge and contributions on other projects outweighs the low editcount here. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall Good work. So Support--Talktome(Intelati) 14:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No objections. These are the sort of specialist tasks we should be glad anybody wants to do...  Sandstein  17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - he will do even better in the future - IQinn (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Sure Inka888ContribsTalk 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Commons and de sysop who could use the tools here, and has done good work here? Letting him self-serve instead of tracking down a local admin can only make things more smooth. Courcelles 19:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Compelling use for buttons, good people. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support If an engineer asks for a screwdriver, has used a screwdriver before, and can tell you why he needs another screwdriver for a paticular project, then it's generally a good idea to hand over the tool. Pedro :  Chat  19:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Looks good to me. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Usually I don't support admins based on promises to use their tools in certain areas only. In this case though, I believe there is enough evidence in the past history to convince me that the candidate isn't going to drift to other areas lightly.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I like this candidate's reasoning and their work, and I like Pedro's rationale. Give Leyo a toolbox with a screwdriver in it, please, and should he ever need a hammer he won't need to search for it. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Well, an admin on Commons and an admin on German Wikipedia. Should get the same amount of trust with the tools on English Wikipedia too. Minimac (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looks competent and trustworthy to me, so why not? Looks like the tools will be put to good use. bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Normally I'd have reservations because of the lack of edits on English wikipedia. But the admin roles at the other wikis convinced me. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support sounds like a good idea to have some one working on the backlog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Why not? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Well Deserved Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Secret account 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Despite the editcount, Leyo will be able to do the job. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Quality beats quantity. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Looks like a fantastic candidate. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Competent and trustworthy, the candidate's sysop nomination on German Wikipedia passed with flying colors (126/8/27) and was without opposition on Commons--Hokeman (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Stephen 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. What Courcelles said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - No problems here. Mlpearc powwow 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Eh, trusted and experienced elsewhere, has a pretty good track record here, so why not? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Opposes aren't convincing. Vodello (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support – If he's trusted with the mop at de and meta, he can be trusted here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Demonstrated need for the tools, the competence to use them properly, and has been given the community's trust on other wikis. That outweighs the minimal chance that he/she will delete TFA with a deletion reason written in substandard English. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. He is an administrator on both Commons and the German Wikipedia with good edits here. On his talk page and this RfA, his ability to communicate in English looks just fine to me. Jonathunder (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Per Vodello. Opposes are quite frankly baseless. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Why the hell not. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Trustworthy, and if it'll help in his interproject commons work -- Ϫ 08:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Good contributions. There are minor issues regarding grammar and communication, but not bad enough to prevent my support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Has specified a good reason for using the administrator tools, and prior experience on other projects gives no indication that he will abuse them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - As a general rule I don't support this kind of RfA. But it appears you have quite a bit of experience, and a lot of work with Commons. If the work you want to do all deals with commons files, then I support you picking up the mop and tidying up. Since your home project seems to be de.wiki and you only have 3k edits here, I'll expect you keep a narrow focus here and stick to the areas you have specified. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Tommy! 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support adminship on other wikis suggests dedication to the wiki and cross-wiki tools is a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Work in Commons and de shows experience. Derild4921☼ 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. One two three... 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: There's nothing wrong him to become an administrator. He'll be a good administrator. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Firm Support well intentioned dedicated and in my view proven editor. a net positive here. I have zero concerns at this time Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support—dedicated and knowledgable, as evidenced by a sampling of their contributions. Also being trusted with sysop tools on other Wikipedias is also a plus, and I offer my full support. Airplaneman ✈ 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, I can't find any reason not to, nor any reason to believe the candidate will act abusively with the tools. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Unqualified support. Good editor, good reputation on both de and commons. We need more admins with specialist knowledge. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weak Support While I appreciate that this user is an admin on two other projects and does far more creation work than deletion work, I still would like for all admins to be at least comfortable with implementing deletions and blocks. The candidate clearly knows how to do these things, as he is already familiar with the tools, I just wish that I had more assurance that he is willing to use them if push comes to shove. Sven Manguard Talk 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Legitimate need for tools for reasonable cross-project work. It's grunt-work that nobody wants to do, and here's someone willing and already able to do one side of it, and trying to avoid creating more work for others in the process? Sounds good to me!--not like we have a dearth of backlogged admin and admin-esque tasks here. I appreciate that editor knows own limits of experience and is willing to work within them and/or be trouted-or-worse if problems arise in other areas. All admins were newbie admins once and didn't know the intricacies of all of it at first, so having not-much-experience in the .en admin realm isn't a concern to me. But knowing the general idea of being an admin and being trusted with buttons on other major projects gives me confidence he can be trusted in general to do it right or to learn quickly or to avoid making major messes without first seeking collaboration. DMacks (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support. Leyo is a very experienced editor, even if s/he might seem "discrete" on enwiki. Discretion is often the better part of valour, especially for someone unto whom we are entrusting the mop and bucket to clean up after other editors' mistakes. Leyo's contributions to chemistry articles on enwiki are widely appreciated, and his commitment to discussion between projects on chemical topics is extraordinary. Enwiki should have no hesitation in giving this user the tools s/he thinks necessary to further improve the encyclopedia (in all its languages). Physchim62 (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - per above. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:02pm • 07:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I'd have preferred it if you warned more of the vandals who you revert, and I think you slightly overruse the minor edits option, if you've set your preferences to default to minor edits you might consider setting it the other way. As for the language issue, I'm concerned at the risk that the various language versions of Wikipedia could diverge too far and welcome multilingual cross project editors as part of the glue that holds Wikimedia together. ϢereSpielChequers 08:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Seems like a reasonable user. AniMate 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Rather than seeing good but imperfect English as a negative, I see non-native English speakers as a positive addition to en.wikipedia and imperfections as something that "comes along with" that benefit. By "positives", I nod to the potential importance of being able to work with other non-English-centric wikis, non-English sources, and non-native-English speaking editors. Variety makes Wikipedia stronger, not weaker. While I intend to look more closely at the concern expressed elsewhere about WikiCommons, I respectfully don't see that as a reason for me to oppose this editor in particular. Mostly: Good contributions, can be trusted, Why Not? --j⚛e deckertalk 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Leyo is a trusted user that I have interacted with both here and on Commons. I have full confidence that he will handle the tools here appropriately. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support his English is fine. Superior, in fact, to that of many "native" speakers. MtD (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I see no reason to suggest he would misuse the tools. 28bytes (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. No red flags, experience and commitment is demonstrated. No doubt this editor would be an asset to the project as an admin. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Admins should not delete images on enwiki without making sure the Commons equivalent contains all the information of the original upload. Sadly, lots of people seem to do this so we need people like Leyo to clean up their messes. Haukur (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support wiooiw (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, user appears to have Clue. Nakon 05:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Really experienced, long-term wikipedian, no reason to oppose. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Adminship is no big deal. Thus, you have my support! Basket of Puppies 05:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Jolly good folk some of these wogs, including this one. Bully for Johnny Foreigner! Crafty (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73.  Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support --iGeMiNix 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Forgot I hadn't supported :) ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 23:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong Support: I took offense at Colonel Warden's statement, "OPPOSE My general experience of foreign editors coming here to make rote edits is not good. They seem to operate in a bureaucratic, high-handed fashion and do not communicate well." Prejudice and bigotry have no place on Wikipedia. A candidate should be judged on his or her edits only. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he meant "foreign" is in "other wikis" not as in "other countries". His point being that they may lack experience in how we do things here and how we talk to each other. These can vary from wiki to wiki, even among wikimedia wikis. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ron, the point is that he should be judged on his merits, not being lumped into a group and condemned for being "bureaucratic, high-handed". Think about it. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see his point and I see your point. The only thing I'm saying is that the terms "prejudice" and "bigotry" don't apply. (and for the record I supported) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Ron, the terms "prejudice" and "bigotry" do apply. Prejudice comes from praejudicare "to prejudge" . . . as in saying he is a "foreigner" therefore he must be "bureaucratic, high-handed" therefore he should not be an Admin. Ron even a foreigner would know the etymology of the word! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support No issues here.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Looks good. Nolelover It's football season! 17:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC) sure[reply]
  81. I don't know who is this user, nor what they do, but per the comments above, I think they'll do fine. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. I'm sure Leyo will not abuse the tools.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per Colonel Warden. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Erm... I'm neutral but a bit up so I must go with Weak Support. But still Support, don't worry. --Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Admin in 2 other Projects,see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - useful cross-wiki work in relation to chemical structures, wanting to be able to take care of the en:wp loose ends is a reasonable request. In addition, user has demonstrated trustworthiness in other projects, and is scientifically literate - something we need more of amongst the en:wp admin corps, in my opinion EdChem (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support . Would be a net positive in area of administrative duties in which Leyo intends to work. No indication would abuse the tools in any way.--PinkBull 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I've seen the quality of the editor's work and I think that this is a good candidate for admin duties. Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I see no problems which would give me cause to oppose -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. All seems fine to me. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]

I'm going to have to oppose for now. Yes, your work on all Wiki projects is impressive, but you've only made about 3,000 edits here. I would recommend coming back here in three to six months when your edit count is a bit higher and try again. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 12:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Moved to neutral. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oppose My general experience of foreign editors coming here to make rote edits is not good. They seem to operate in a bureaucratic, high-handed fashion and do not communicate well. I do a little sampling and soon find this. This is marked as a minor edit but appears to be removing a large number of interwiki links for no good reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied in detail on user talk page. --Leyo 23:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am putting the explanation here as we don't want to be jumping about. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please allow me to explain my edit that seems to be strange to you: There is a chemical called 1,4-dioxin and there is a substance group commonly referred as a dioxins. The former is described in the article Dioxin (chemical), whereas the latter is explained in the article Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins. The articles in other language Wikipedias where I removed the interwikis were on polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins) or in some cases a mixture of both with more weight on dioxins. There is also an article Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. There has always been a mess with interwikis in these articles. As I am one of the main others authors (corrected) of the de-WP article that was considered as a “Good article”, I am pretty familiar with that topic. --Leyo 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. We needn't get into the technicalities of this as I do not dispute them. My main objection would be that this was not a minor edit. The matter was not explained well at that page and so another editor has now restored the links, right or wrong. I therefore lack confidence that it is wise to allow you to make unsupervised admin edits here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the explanation on the Colonel's talk page; it would have been a good idea for Leyo to give an edit summary, explaining in some detail what may seem odd to the non-specialist (and it's possible we all have a habit of not explaining things we do in our field). But I have to say, "foreign editors"? This is the English-language wiki: we do not have nationalities here, and if we did I'd like to know which ones are in and which ones are out. Colonel, I would love to hear your reasons--probably not here on this page though, since it has nothing to do with the candidate (who, I may remind you, is from a neutral, quadri-lingual country, which is an asset in many ways). Drmies (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the candidate's user page, he is not fully fluent in English. Above he uses the word others when it seems that he means authors. My concern with such editors is that they do not communicate well. I expect an admin here to be comfortable in English so that he is able to communicate accurately and easily. There may also be issues of linguistic preference. This dioxin matter seems to turn upon a preference for particular terminology. As different countries have different traditions and standards in such matters, foreign nationals may introduce non-English forms. We already have enough bickering between the various dialects of English: American, British, Irish &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So--"foreign nationals" (but please define--those not from Category:English-speaking countries and territories?) should take the TOEFL before they pollute Wikipedia linguistically? Frankly, I'm somewhat shocked, and maybe the current admins for whom English is not their native tongue should take note, if this ever reaches the level of consensus. One grammatical error and a typo and you're out. BTW, Colonel, I favor Singular they. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both yourself and the candidate self-assess your level of English on your user pages: you at level 5, the candidate at level 3. It is not a firm rule but I suppose that I consider level 3 to be inadequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right with the edit summary. Concerning marking the edit as minor: I thought it was OK to do so since interwiki bots do the same (example). A final technical comment: Only the interwiki links to de, hu, it and ja seem to be entirely correct. The other articles are a mixture of both or even about dioxins. --Leyo 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The answer to Q1 isn't persuasive as a special-circumstances request, and the candidate's English is inadequate. Townlake (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide an example of something this user has posted that you weren't able to understand because of their language problems? Honestly, I have dealt with many native English speakers who have far worse grammar/spelling/language problems than Leyo. SnottyWong converse 03:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not be pointing to examples. Townlake (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why bother !voting? After all, it's supposed to be a vote discussion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell your discussion theory to the support voters whose comments are perfunctory or non-existent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a silly argument that I have now heard multiple times. The problem with that argument is that people generally support a candidate when there is nothing of note to discuss about them. If they don't see any problems with the candidate, then there is nothing to talk about except their lack of problems. Therefore, the discussion on the oppose side is always going to be more drawn out. It is Townlake's prerogative to provide or not provide examples of the behavior he/she is citing as the reason for his oppose, but it would give his !vote more weight if he could substantiate his rationale (which is now disputed) with examples. SnottyWong talk 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We also should consider the reality of the situation. It's not a vote, but it's 45-2. I imagine that Townlake wanted to express his opposition, but know's it's not worth pouring through diffs that won't change the outcome. I can't speak for him, but I've been in a lonely oppose section a time or two. Let it go. This is the forgotten flipside that no one wants to talk about when they cry about how mean RFA is.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If his English is really that bad, there should be no need to dig through diffs, and if it doesn't matter (and there is no clear rationale), I still don't have an answer to "why bother !voting?". Colonel Warden, whether you take Snottywong's explanation or not, just because one side does something doesn't mean it's justified for the other side. I don't like "per [user]", "per above", no comment at all, etc., but I'm also not that curious about why they are supporting. if you bring up a point, you should be able to elaborate on it, or you can just expect it to be ignored and then there's no real point to saying it other than stirring up this sort of discussion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By-and-large, Wikipedia is a democracy. With the exception of the 70-75% range (and exceptionally rare cases outside of that bracket), RfA is no exception. I don't condone Townlake's approach, but in practise it is both allowed and counted. But as Cube lurker says, it's moot. —WFC— 05:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose (moved from neutral - see discussion there). Candidate intends to cooperate with Commons, but did not see a clear violation of COM:FOP and a shakey license claim. Yes, it's a copper fish, and no, it's not uploader's "own work", it's a derivative work.East of Borschov 08:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I though you were addressing the initial problem with the missing license. Commons:COM:FOP#Russia is indeed an issue, but nobody seemed to have cared so far. You are free to nominate the image for deletion. It is not protected anymore. BTW: Do you know the artist of the sculpture?
    I can assure you that I am not interested in working on (transferring to Commons, checking transfers, deleting locally) photographs of artwork. --Leyo 08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I just nominated the image for deletion in order to discuss the concerns about FOP there. --Leyo 11:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I've changed my vote to neutral because, although I'm still a bit uneasy about your low edit count on Wikipedia, your work on other wikis is impressive. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quality, not quantity... Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that Rfa believes in quantity first. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I tried. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I would be an oppose if I didn't fully agree with Cube lurker's reasoning above. This is a special case. However in most other instances I would say the low experience on this wiki and the communication issues are significant. There's a lot of subtlety to how policies work and the reason we have the firewalls between the various wikis is for exactly that reason. There's an intangible feeling for how the system works that's necessary in an admin and fluency in the wiki (this is broader than language or edit count alone, although both factor in) is crucial. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but you can't just brush those concerns off without at least considering them. Shadowjams (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I want to oppose because Leyo wants/needs to use only a very small portion of the tools which he/she would be given access to if granted adminship. I want to support because, on the whole, Leyo appears to be a great editor. Therefore, I am neutral. SnottyWong yak 03:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Local files should stay here. It's safer here: Commons is an unmanageable cesspit. Today you think it's safe to move chemical formulas there, tomorrow they decide to delete them on a technicality and they're gone. East of Borschov 05:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not that familiar with the bureaucracy at commons but can you give a few examples of this? In such situations is it ever suggested that the files be sent back to the originating wiki after deletion? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Curiously, one candidate for deletion is on the main page right now. It should be here (with a valid license). East of Borschov 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is resolved, it seems. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The uploader simply forgot to add a license tag. That's why the image was tagged by a bot and the uploader was notified.
    Only files that are not in scope or do not have a valid license are deleted on Commons. Images of structural formulas are definitively in scope. Most of them are even ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain. Hence, your fear lacks any basis. --Leyo 07:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike out neutral, oppose.East of Borschov 07:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral more or less per Snottywong with the additional note that I feel your English language skills appear to be below the bar I'd hope for in an admin here. Given your stated intent of avoiding ANI and the like, it's not enough to oppose over however. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Leyo&oldid=1193128908"