Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot


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

Remember the dot
'''Final (59/21/3); Originally scheduled to end 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

- I've said this plenty of times in my nominations, we need more administrators willing to tackle images. Remember the dot certainly falls into this category of people. With over 2,000 image edit to his credit, he certainy knows what he's doing on that front. Heck, pretty much anywhere where images are involved he contributes, including MediaWiki talk:Common.js, Template talk:Non-free use rationale, Possibly unfree images, among others. I don't see any reason not to make him an admin, especially since he's willing to tackle the image front, which few are willing to touch. Wizardman 15:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I have done a lot of work with images, and I expect to assist primarily in the image deletion and WP:PUI processes. While this includes speedily deleting images, I do not plan to speedily delete any images solely based on lack of fair use rationale.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I am happy with my contributions to the articles World Community Grid and Opera (Internet suite). I also created the PNG crusade bot to assist in the automatic conversion of images to the PNG format when it is beneficial to do so, removed newbie traps such as Copyrighted (see TFD discussion), Permission, fair use, and Fair Use, assisted in the development of a JavaScript script to improve the display of transparent PNG and SVG images in Internet Explorer 6 (IE7, Firefox, etc. do not need the fix), and have uploaded many images to the Commons for use on Wikipedia.


 * 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: There have been several. Typically a discussion ensues and we come to an agreement. For example, at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Oct 2007 and again at MediaWiki talk:Common.js there was long debate and compromise about the PNG workaround script for Internet Explorer 6 (again, non-IE browsers have had full PNG support for years).
 * I strongly oppose using administrator privileges with the intent of forcing the result of a discussion one way or another.

Optional questions by CIreland
 * 4. On your userpage you write: The non-free content policy should be made and enforced equally. Could you elaborate what you mean by this?
 * A: This is my personal opinion. No company, individual, organization, etc. should be given preferential treatment in enforcement of the non-free content policy. If an image meets the criteria, then it should be kept, and if it does not, it should be removed. For example (hypothetically), I do not want users supporting WP:NFCC as it now stands and then saying "But it's from xkcd, so non-commercial use is OK, and I really like it, and it's just in my userspace anyway, so we should keep it." If the image does not meet the critera, it should be removed, no matter where it's from. If the criteria are too harsh, then we should revise them.


 * 5. Also on your userpage you write: I oppose removal of irreplaceable non-free content for no legal reason. This seems to contradict the non-free content policy. Could you either correct my intrepretation of your words if I have misunderstood or explain to what degree this would impact your closing of deletion discussions involving non-free content.
 * A: I find it pointless and counterproductive to remove irreplaceable images that we may legally keep. see question 7 below This is also my personal opinion, and the community has not seen fit to reflect it in the WP:NFCC. However, I suspect that I will tend to be more lenient about the deletion of images than hard-core free content activists.
 * Would you elaborate "hard-core free content activists" please. What views, objectives and actions would cause you to describe someone as a "hard-core free content activist"?
 * A hard-core free content activist is someone who desires to use free content for the sake of using free content, rather than thinking about what would best fulfill the ultimate goal of the project, which is to provide free knowledge (not merely free content) to the world. Maximizing free knowledge neccessitates a balance between free and non-free content. Again, see question 7.

Questions by User:CBM
 * 6. What do you mean by "irreplaceable non-free content"? The non-free content policy (WP:NFCC) already allows content that is not replaceable by free content. Can you give some specific examples of the type of content you are talking about? How does your opinion differ from WP:NFCC? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are degrees of replaceability. The question "Is this image replaceable?" could be rephrased as "How valuable is this image to this encyclopedia compared to the free images we have available and the ones that could be created?" Sometimes non-free images are worse then free images, sometimes they are only slightly better than free images , and other times they are infinitely superior to free images . When deciding whether or not to use an image, the degree of replaceability needs to be taken into account, along with other factors determined by the community (see question 7).


 * 7 How do you feel about Wikipedia's mission to provide free content to the greatest extent possible? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's purpose is to provide free knowledge to the world in the form of an encyclopedia. In order to do this, we must make a reasonable balance between creating an excellent encyclopedia (using content available only to us) and creating a less functional encyclopedia using only free content that anyone can re-use (thus bringing the knowledge to more people than we can reach directly). Both making the encyclopedia high-quality and making it portable bring us closer to the ultimate goal of the project. Thus, we should seek a balance between the two that will provide the greatest amount of knowledge to the greatest number of people.


 * I'm glad you asked this question, because it made me reflect more about the issue of globalization we face. Different countries have different laws, so restrictions on non-free content that are unnecessary in the U.S. could enable those of other countries to use our content. Thus, the English Wikipedia's non-free content policy needs to include all U.S. requirements but also include reasonable requirements for portability to other English-speaking countries. The decision process for what requirements to include needs to be in the hands of the community, so that we end up with a policy favorable to downstream re-users in many countries, not just the United States.

Optional question from 
 * 8. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A: We try to ban users, whether indefinitely or for a period of time, by placing blocks on usernames and IP addresses. As DarkFalls has explained to me, "A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges from all or parts of wikipedia. They are invoked by community input when no administrator is willing to unblock a user, or via arbcom. A block is not a 'formal revocation' merely a tool to prevent a user from causing harm to the encyclopedia. They may be invoked without consensus (sometimes in bad faith), and can be overturned by any other administrator."

Question by DarkFalls
 * 9. As shown here, you feel a fair use rationale is unnecessary; which is in opposition to 10c of the non-free content policy. How will you interpret NFCC when given adminship, as directed by the policy or in your opinion?
 * A: I do not plan to delete any images solely based on lack of fair use rationale. Either is an image is OK to use or it isn't, regardless of whether or not the rationale is spelled out on the image description page. Of course, as an administrator it would be inappropriate for me to remove "no rationale" deletion tags or close a discussion as "keep" because of my personal opinion towards 10c.


 * 10. What is your understanding of the biography of living people policy, and how would you deal with violations of the policy?
 * A: That when dealing with biographies of living people, we must get the article right. I would like to see all BLP articles have extensive citations to reliable sources, but I understand that this probably won't happen. Nevertheless, should any dispute arise about content in a BLP article, then that part of the article must be scrutinized for strict compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and any other relevant policies or guidelines. If the disputed part of the article does not meet the policies and guidelines, then it should be fixed immediately or removed immediately.


 * 11. Do you feel that the quality of an image will be more important than copyright problems that might arise from the image's use?
 * A: Please see my answer to question 7, which covers this in detail. Essentially, the real question is "Would using the non-free image bring more knowledge to more people?" Many times a decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. Please let me know if this answers your question.

Question from Carnildo
 * 12. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?
 * A: First, that new users should be able to make mistakes through ignorance of rules. When this happens, we shouldn't bite them, but instead explain the rule to them and help them avoid making the same mistake in the future.


 * Secondly, while the principles behind some policies, such as WP:NPOV, are ingrained into Wikipedia culture, the specifics of all policies are always open to debate. All policy must bring Wikipedia towards our ultimate goal: free knowledge for the world in the form of an encyclopedia. A user has the right to call into question a policy's harmony with our ultimate goal, and to bring about change if the policy is found to be contrary to it.


 * Optional question from User:Piotrus
 * 13: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but I would be willing to be desysopped if I were put up for reconfirmation at WP:RFA and there was a 2/3 vote against me. I do not think that adminship should be taken away unless there is truly consensus that an administrator is not properly using the administrative tools, and also that they are not willing to change their ways. This would avoid "I hate you!" desysoppings where a significant number of users voted against an administrator due to a temporary dispute or for reasons irrelevant to the use of administrator tools.

General comments

 * See Remember the dot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Remember the dot:

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

Discussion

 * Stop opposing because he "misunderstands" the difference between a ban and a block. It is not at all clear. I still don't really understand what exactly is the difference; all I can get is the general idea and the words which prevent people from complaining. Remember, we are the only site that does this "a ban is not a block" thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 October 2007

Note to closing bureaucrat: I must say, I'm a little fazed by the idea of opposing because of his opinion on something that I can see where he's getting at. I mean, if he acknowledges the NFCC policy, understands why we are stricter than US copyright, and won't make any opinionated calls, then that leaves the reason for some of these opposes as "you don't believe the same way as I do". We all have different opinions on things (else MfD would be quite boring), so expecting Groupthink is pushing it a bit. (there's a difference between thinking his opinions might lead to some problems at IFD and the like, and just disagreeing with his opinion; I'm only concerned about the latter) As for the block/ban question, I'm sure if you ask a bunch of random editors who don't participate in the anti-vandalism movement, the answers would be quite surprising (I might be wrong, but those who dont' do anti-vandal stuff have probably only come across both policies in passing). This is just my take on the thing, not trying to convince opposers to change their mind or anything, just stating by case for the bureaucrat since this is in the discretionary range. I will accept either close decision. Wizardman 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Support
I believe. :) Prodego  talk  02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as nom. Wizardman  00:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support Wow, this guy knows almost everything! - Go od  sh op 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  C O  00:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support — knows how to enforce policy. -- Agüeybaná  00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Remember the Support &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Provisional support - provided you turn on forced edit summaries option in your preferences. Ronnotel 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly respond to this request so I can remove the Provisional qualifier? Ronnotel 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I will start using them more often, but I'm not going to force myself to use edit summaries 100% of the time. I have been using them when making major or controversial edits, and other times when I feel there is something to be gained by using them. You can, of course, reach my on my talk page if you want a more thorough explanation of one of my edits. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, completely unsatisfactory answer. Sorry, based on your poor understanding how edit summaries are used I must now, regretfully, oppose. Ronnotel 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support We need more admins who deal with image issues, but edit summaries!! ;) Phgao 02:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, I've seen you, liked you, no reason not to trust you. Though on your userpage it says " should be ", technically it should be
 * It actually doesn't matter. Both are valid XHTML, so just use the one you like best. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, so I wish you the best! - Philippe &#124; Talk 03:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Will make a fine admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support John254 05:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Great contributions on the image front. --MacMad (talk · contribs) &#xF8FF; 05:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Based on the views he's shared, he's unlikely to rush an image's deletion without proper consideration. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Knowledgeable editor with experience in resolving image copyright concerns. Remember the dot is diligent and appears to be thoroughly acquainted with our non-free content policies. Good luck! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Doubt he will abuse the tools, seems to have a load of experience on the image front.  Tiddly - Tom  10:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I think he'll do great and we need more image experts. Rlevse 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support As per Wizardman and Rlevse.Track is good see no concerns there.Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support The candidate knows how to apply image policy, and will do it effectively. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Candidate seems quite reasonable on image policy. --W.marsh 16:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - help with image backlogs is appreciated. Addhoc 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Definitely. --- RockMFR 18:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support– I'm not sure exactly what kind of administrative actions can be taken on image issues, but again, I can't possibly oppose a Wizardman nomination. Ksy92003  (talk)  19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Very knowledegable, and we do definitely need more image admins. GlassCobra 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support A good candidate, particularly so because of the backlog at WP:PUI etc. GDonato (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Гed ʃ t ǁ c ɭ 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19)  Oppose No reason to oppose this user NHRHS2010  Talk  03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Knows his way around policy, seems curteous and switched on. Like to see more edit summaries though! Promotes more harmonious inter-user editing. SGGH speak! 08:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Reasonable explanations for NFC opinions and good answers to the other questions.  --Folic_Acid 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. It's almost a non-issue, but just get the difference between a block and a ban straight.  east . 718  at 14:17, 10/22/2007
 * 23) Support No reason no to. Dustihowe 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - seems like a solid user. Jauerback 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Very good answers to the questions. IronGargoyle 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Anthøny   ん  20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. A good editor and won't misuse tools. --Irpen 01:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Seems fine to me. Acalamari 03:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - if there are any small gaps in knowledge, fixing that is easy. It's more important to be bright, sane, and trustworthy - I see nothing to make me think that this is not the case.  Neil   ☎  14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Understands the principles involved, especially "don't use admin tools for your personal opinions". All else is commentary. Since he acknowledges that the view he holds is not policy, and merely does not plan to act against conscience, it is unreasonable to require him to change his mind to be an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Seems to have a strong knowledge base in the area of the encyclopedia he intends to work, and the ability to look up a policy before he enforces it if it isn't his area of expertise. I don't see how lack of edit summaries is a disqualification for adminship, are edit summaries policy now? Avruch Talk 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - Good candidate, although I hate it when people don't use the edit summary. Yes, we need more users who specialise in the image area of things, and you have a fine set of contribs. Well done.  Lra drama 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support per nom, Very Nice User —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoaguy (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support devoted users make good admins. We desperately need more admins interesting in images that may allow some human interaction (e.g. teaching users how to write fair use rationales rather than bot-assisted deletions based on formal criteria) Alex Bakharev 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Whilst I am diametrically opposed to the candidate's position on non-free content, I am also aware that working with disputed images will inevitably alienate some section of the Wikipedia community. Although I will probably disagree with some judgments that the candidate will make should he pass this RfA, his record thus far suggests I will not have any reason to question the integrity or competence of his decisions. CIreland 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support per nominator. We need to have more people who can deal with images and that is probably the only thing that waives my usual criteria, even though we don't need to do so here. Plenty of people aren't 100% on the difference between a ban and a block, and now that it's been explained, Remember the dot knows the difference; it would be otiose for him to fail on that. (Hey, I said "otiose"!:)) Stifle (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support - understanding of image-related problems is very good. Can find no evidence on the contrary to the high reputability of this user. Rudget Contributions 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support – I may not agree with this user's opinion on "non-replaceable" non-free images, but I trust that he will enforce policy objectively and that he will take into account concerns raised in this RfA. He is an excellent contributor.  &mdash; madman bum and angel 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support I disagree with his Fair Use aspects, and would like to see him more active in other areas. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, looking through his contribs (random thru last 1000) I see no problem. Poked around with the wannabekate, could use more edit summaries -but that doesn't really concern me (do edits marked as minor show up in this?).  I like the 'image use' knowledge he exhibits, and think he makes a good case for what he thinks, which shows a familiarity with policy in his area of interest.  Best of luck, R. Baley 06:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User would make a competant admin. LordHarris 15:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I like how you handled the question about IAR OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support changing to support with reservations. The disagreements about NFCC notwithstanding, image-competent admins are a big need and clearly, RtD is unlikely to go rogue. Pascal.Tesson 16:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sumoeagle179 17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, solid candidate.  Majorly  (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Remember the dot clearly has a good understanding of the image policy, nuanced enough to form an opinion on part of it (with which I am inclined to sympathize to a certain degree), and is clearly a trusted user. With the statement that image work is a primary goal, I think promoting Remember the dot wouldn't be a big deal. :) Nihiltres ( t .l ) 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Dealing with images is tough enough. Glad he volunteers to work on one of the most unthankfull admin tasks one can think of. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. We're not a cult.  He's already said he would uphold the existing image policies.  That's all that matters.  The fact that he personally disagrees with certain aspects of the labyrinthine image dogma is not a valid reason to oppose. --JayHenry 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak support --Support per Pascal.Tesson and JayHenry. What admin does agree 100% with all Wikipedia's policies?? The important thing is that an admin follow them (except in the odd IAR situation) since they closely approximate community consensus. My support is very "weak" to the point of "wobbly" because of the edit summary answer to Ronnotel above. Please, just turn on the edit summary option in your prefs and do it -- each edit summary takes about 5 to 10 seconds and they really help others. -- A. B. (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. We sure need more admins doing image work, whether or not they agree with all of the principles underlying current policies - as long as they follow them. Sandstein 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I too differ from consensus a little on a few WP practices, and i simply deal with it by not making administrative decisions in those cases. He intends to do the same, and it can work for him as it works for me. The problem admins are the ones who hide their disagreements, and decide according to their private views.  DGG (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC) I stupidly did not realise this had been closed. apologies, but i do stand by my comment for when he reapplies. 18:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose for now. According to your candidate statement, Foundation issues #4 is not really your priority.  Rather than figuring out ways to compromise, you seem to state that you'd prefer to enforce strict rules. So I'm holding out for now. Why do you hold this position? If you can explain, maybe I'll change my opinion. --Kim Bruning 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Compromise and discussion is great, but where we are enforcing rules we need to enforce them equally. If the rules are too harsh, then we need to revise them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember the dot (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges from all or parts of wikipedia. They are invoked by community input when no administrator is willing to unblock a user, or via arbcom. A block is not a "formal revocation" merely a tool to prevent a user from causing harm to the encyclopedia. They may be invoked without consensus (sometimes in bad faith), and can be overturned by any other administrator. Per your response to question 8, I am in doubt about your understanding of the blocking and banning process; and furthermore, I feel you are unclear of the distinctions between them.-- DarkFalls  talk 06:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that you've explained it, wouldn't your objection been resolved? The candidate now knows the difference. Treating the questions as some kind of pass/fail quiz makes RFA much more intense and biting than it needs to be. --W.marsh 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry W.marsh, but I tend to disagree. Like Xoloz said, Remember the dot might have similar amount of inexperience in many other areas, thus lacking knowledge of other policies. Therefore I am unwilling to support this nomination. -- DarkFalls talk 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but your comment "might have similar amount of inexperience" seems a stark contrast to WP:AGF. Of course, "Assume good faith" isn't "assume blind faith", but no one could really be expected to know everything about being an admin before their RFA. Heck, most stuff involved with being an admin today didn't even exist during my RFA, or has changed dramatically. It's mostly about whether you can learn and admit when you're wrong, for me at least. That's just my opinion, I understand where you and Xoloz are coming from. --W.marsh 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for ban/block confusion. The reason, my friend W.Marsh, that some of us oppose when an important lack of knowledge is displayed is that it suggests a significant level of inexperience.  This one issue has now been set right in the candidate's mind; but, if the candidate was unaware of one important facet of policy, he is likely to have other knowledge deficits.  Since RfA is not a quiz, these problems cannot all be exposed now, so time is trusted as the elixir which solves most problems.  After three more months of good work, the candidate will have earned the benefit of the doubt (at least from me); but, for now, on the basis of available evidence, I'm too worried he'll employ the mop with significant misunderstandings of policy.  This is not a criticism of the candidate -- in my mind, anyway -- just an indicator that more time is needed. Xoloz 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's funny is that I don't plan on participating in the banning/blocking process much, and so it's understandable that my knowledge of the terminology used there is lacking. I could see myself blocking IP addresses and newly created accounts for reasonable periods of time based on the level of vandalism coming from them, but beyond that, I'd most likely get other administrators involved. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per answer to question 6. In practice, replaceability is a fairly straightforward issue.  Copyrighted images of living people or accessible objects, events, or organizations that merely show what they look like do not benefit us in any significant way, and they do harm our goal of providing a free encyclopedia.  I feel the candidate's position on this matter is counter-productive, and I'm concerned about his handling closures on WP:PUI, where it tends to come up frequently. Chick Bowen 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Replaceability is not always black and white. Often an image, like a photo of a living person, is so replaceable as to clearly warrant deletion. But occasionally, a non-free image falls into the gray area of being just a bit better than the free images that are available or could be created. In that case, the advantages and disadvantages of keeping the image need to be weighed to determine whether it would provide more knowledge to more people by keeping or deleting the image. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree. I don't regard the scenario you describe as a gray area.  If we end up with a free but blurry photograph of a living person, the solution is to take (or request free release of) a better one, not to substitute an unfree one. Chick Bowen 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine that we have a free but blurry photo of a person who has passed away, but we also have a promotional photo of them that would work excellently. This is when the replaceability is a gray area, where we have to weigh the added value of the non-free photo against its lesser portability. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we weigh a blurry image of a living or recently deceased person against a fair use image, we will choose the blurry image. Fair use images are to be used as a last resort, not as a substitute over quality. -- DarkFalls talk 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For general identification of a living person, absolutely. But for a deceased person, I don't think that you can look me in the eyes and tell me that using a blurry, low-quality image instead of a clear one will provide more knowledge to more people. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In NFCC policy, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." A high quality non-free image may be more effective in the identification of a person, but it serves the same purpose as a blurry free-licensed image. -- DarkFalls talk 06:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just talking about my personal view of the policy. I fail to see how using a blurry image in this case furthers the ultimate goal of the project: to provide more knowledge to more people. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per answer to questions 6 and 8, and especially to question 10.  Seems to have no comprehension of IAR; in fact, the response indicated to me that RTD had never even heard of it.  Ral315 » 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "No comprehension"...what answer were you looking for me to give? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules has absolutely nothing to do with declining to bite newbies (that's don't bite the newbies), and nothing to do with the specifics of the policies (that would seem to be consensus can change, or something). IAR is exactly what it states:  "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."  Rules should not be draconian in nature, and each situation should be viewed in its context -- did breaking a rule hurt Wikipedia?  If not, then that rule should be ignored for that case.  Ral315 » 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the original intent of WP:IAR, what you describe is clearly not the policy today. If it was, then why would we mass-delete images based on lack of explicit use rationales when the images were uploaded in good faith and do not hurt Wikipedia? A mindless bot was even used to assist in deleting images. Common sense and viewing the situation in context were thrown out the window, and even now the deletions continue via scripts like Twinkle without thought to what's best for Wikipedia.
 * Now, that's how I see the situation. Ideally, it would not be this way, and there would be more thought and consideration of the ultimate goal of the project: to bring more knowledge to more people in the form of an encyclopedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but I can only oppose this nomination because of the apparent confusion of blocks and bans.  Blocking is only a technical measure to prevent a single user for editing, primarily because of vandalism or to keep other editors from harm.  Banning, although sometimes enforced with blocks, is a formal decision by the community to revoke another user's editing privileges.  I also don't know where you are going with questions 9 and 10.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:25, 22 October 2007 (GMT)
 * 2) Oppose - changed from Provisional support per above and candidate's response. Indicates a poor understanding of how edit summaries are used and why they are important to admins. Ronnotel 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must also say that I find your tone immediately below to be somewhat odd. If you lose your cool this easily in your RfA, what can we expect from you when you deal with the real nasties? Ronnotel 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which response? Surely not "It seems that my response to question 6 was a bit confusing." —Remember the dot (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The one that begins 'This is rather incredible. . .' On it's own it wouldn't be enough to make me oppose. However, it's just enough to make me wonder how you will behave when you're not under the RfA microscope. Ronnotel 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to answers to question 6, and more especially 9. Free content is the name of this game, and we should never, regardless of quality, use a nonfree image if replaced by a free one, nor should we take a "Nice if you can get it, use nonfree if you can't" attitude toward it. Similarly, nonfree image rationales are required for good reason&mdash;to explain the uploader's reasoning as to why this particular nonfree image is acceptable and necessary in that article. I don't see any other problems, and I hate to oppose, but unfortunately I cannot support someone who does not support the project's core goals. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that my response to question 6 was a bit confusing. A balance between free and non-free content must be made that will bring that greatest amount of knowledge to the greatest amount of people, which is of course the ultimate goal of this project (within the constraints of being an encyclopedia). Question 7 explains my position on this better, but I can assure you it is a far cry from "Nice if you can get it, use nonfree if you can't".
 * Explicitly stated non-free use rationales are almost always just about as useful as explicitly stating rationales for using free images. They usually just tell you what you already know, and whatever they say has zero bearing on whether or not an image is actually worth keeping. Of course, at times they can clarify reasons to keep the image and help avoid deletion.
 * Anyway, I said that I wouldn't go rogue and undermine 10c, so I don't see what this has to do with my ability to use the admin tools. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were simply expressing opinion, I wouldn't be too concerned. However, looking at edits such as, I am quite concerned. This edit appears to be an attempt to make a point, given that you should know that boilerplate tags are not a nonfree use rationale, yet use and refer to it as that. (The tag even helpfully and specifically informs you that it is no rationale.) I'm also concerned by the heavy use of templatized, boilerplate-style "rationales" which provide no reason why the article in question needs an image at all or the specific nonfree image in particular, and at least one upload of a replaceable nonfree image (found here, the article it's used in clearly shows that at least four of these ships are existent and can be expected to remain so for some time, making the image clearly replaceable), I'm concerned about your ability to deal with image issues in a manner consistent with the free content mission. Right now, that's too big an issue to take any chances on. If you would agree to refrain from deciding on image deletions, I would be fully willing to support. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is rather incredible...you are taking an edit I made after being a user for a total of 1 month, and another edit made after editing for 1.5 months, both made when a template was generally considered to be enough of a rationale, and saying that these edits reflect my current understanding of Wikipedia policy.
 * And no, I will not be deciding deletion debates that revolve around lack of explicitly stated use rationales. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Firstly I have to say that I agree with Xoloz that the misunderstanding about blocks/bans is more than one of terminology and that unfamiliarity with a key facet of one policy raises concerns about other similar holes in knowledge of other areas. Alone it may not be enough to oppose, but I have other concerns. I'm not convinced that Remember the dot will properly apply our unfree content policy - Wikipedia's first and foremost priority is not impart free content, not knowledge alone. I find it telling that his talkpage is littered with notifications about orphaned fair use images and images lacking rationales. The orphaned ones should have been added into articles or tagges as db-author by now and ratinales added. For example, he received notification that Image:Instan-t icon.png lacked a rationale before this RfA even began, but no remedial action has been taken. Finally, my only direct experience of Remember the dot comes from these edits:, . Editing the userspace of others is generally over-confrontational - it is sometimes justified in clear cases of unsuitable content but not I think when enforcing a rather bizarre policy application (whenever the issue has been discussed, the consensus has been that Wikipedia logos can be used anywhere on Wikipedia although they are copyrighted). All in all, I am not comfortable with him becoming an admin at this time. WjBscribe 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Between disagreeing with Wikipedia's goal of free content, and his apparent lack of understanding of IAR, I'm not comfortable with him being an admin. --Carnildo 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Which is a shame as we do need more admins to work with images. But your rather tight response regarding edit summaries is very off putting - It's a pet peeve but admins should use them all the time (just as editors should really, but it's more important as an admin). In addition concerns raised by WJBscribe push me into this section. Sorry. Pedro : Chat  15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Carnildo, Pedro and Darkfalls. I believe Dot is not quite ready for adminship. Choosing to work in an area that I would'nt touch with a ten foot pole is a plus, but I believe the goal of free content is more important than the goal of informing. This is really splitting hairs, but I have to agree with Darkfalls that non free images are a last resort. And lord knows I've held my breath wondering if an unfree but in my mind essential image would pass muster. Understanding IAR is also very important for an admin as their responsibilties take them into weighing policy against common sense-- as in the blurry image scenario. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I was not happy with the frequent "experimentation" done with the common site javascript code (see extensive discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Oct 2007), which caused substantial disruption for a few weeks.  I truly believe this was good-faith work, but it was hastily implemented and re-implemented several times without much concern for the side effects of each change.  I am concerned about putting admin tools in Remember_the_dot's hands after this episode of unintended disruption. Sorry.  Andrwsc 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly every one of the changes was tested on the Commons before it went live, and I apologize for those that weren't. As far as "substantial disruption", only IE 5.5 and 6 users were affected, and they make up less than half of all web users. I was generally able to correct bugs in the script within 24 hours of their identification. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While the discussion was sometimes heated, the edits themselves were kept at a minimum, with virtually no disruption (let alone "substantial"). The end result however is a well debugged script that runs very well. I think it was worth it. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Q5, Q6, and other comments show considerable disagreement with the project's free content goals, so I'm not at all comfortable with RTD making image deletion decisions. According to Q1, they want to make image work their primary admin task, so this is especially worrying. I'm also disappointed by their response to Ronnotel's request for edit summaries, and share Xoloz and WJBscribe's concerns. ×Meegs 07:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose; concur with Meegs, and I'm particularly troubled by the response to Q7. heqs ·:. 08:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? —Remember the dot (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose answers with regards to non-free images are a no-go. Sure, it's ok to disagree with the current policy but I don't see a willingness to apply the policies that the community has decided upon. Also the sentence Maximizing free knowledge necessitates a balance between free and non-free content is a grave misunderstanding. Using non-free images of living people is an easy solution but it's contrary to the goals of the project. There are many topics for which the Encyclopedia Britannica article is far superior than what we have. If we're to follow Rtd's logic, we should just cut and paste their article here so that we provide better free knowledge. The argument is always: "this image of my favourite actor is so much better than all the free images I could find" but of course good free images are not exactly easy to find. Sometimes you've got to dig through tons of Flickr pages, contact the author, contact the actor's agent. It takes time, it's tedious, it's frustrating. It's also the right thing to do in the context of a free encyclopedia. Pascal.Tesson 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never supported that argument. Using a non-free image when a better free image could be created is not acceptable. It diminishes portability for no good reason. And I've seen many articles copied from old, now-public-domain editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and that's fine. We should use them until we have something better. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure you misspoke there. Articles copied from Britannica would be copyright violations. You may want to rephrase and/or strike some of that. I think others should give you time to do so before responding, since it seems like just a slip of the tongue. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the editions now in the public domain, like the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Thanks for asking for clarification; hopefully my statement is more clear now. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually misread one of your earlier answers about where you stand with respect to NFCC. So I'm striking out the oppose for now. One question though: can you give me a clear example of an image (say one currently up for deletion) where the current NFCC will result in deletion but where you feel that the "right balance" you mention in Q7 should result in keeping the image? I'm trying to figure out what your answer to Q7 actually means. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are images like Image:ASCE LOGO.jpg, which, were it deleted, would case the article Abuja Securities and Commodities Exchange to lose its sole source of visual identification. There are hundreds of images like this that have been bot-tagged for deletion without regard to whether or not they're actually worth keeping.
 * Also, if it isn't already then it ought to be OK to use a limited number of images of album covers and promotional photos to illustrate "History" sections of musical groups (provided of course that there is no free image available whose quality+portability outweighs the non-free image's, see question 7 for how to determine this). Ideally, we would always use excellent-quality free content, but since this is not always possible, we have to strike a balance. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose. The NFCC views are a permanent deal-breaker. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you be any more specific? —Remember the dot (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per my neutral comment, and the plethora of other reasons raised above (mainly involving images) which cast significant doubts.  Daniel  23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Daniel. He has said it best.  Pat Politics rule!  03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per most of the people above. Your answers to questions make me feel very uneasy about your experience and understanding of policy and guidelines how that will translate to actions you would take as an admin. Sarah 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sorry, not confident with your views on WP:NFCC. We are building a free content encyclopedia. Fair use should only be used when its needed. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't need to make an encyclopedia at all. Can you be any more specific? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per some of the concerns above. I also have to admit that I'm just not comfortable with choice of name. When an editor chooses a name like "Remember the Dot" or something else that's a phrase or obvious "non-name", I find it can cause confusion to other editors.  It also makes it difficult to refer to this editor in third-party sentences: "I can't remember if Remember the Dot was there or not" may be understandable to those who are already familiar with the editor, but to others it can make a very confusing sentence.  Admins are looked to by newer editors, as rolemodels.  I'm just not comfortable that Remember the Dot sets as good an example as I'd like. --Elonka 19:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to shorten my username to "Dot", just as the administrator Can't sleep, clown will eat me is often referred to as "Clown". —Remember the dot (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Comment—WP has a stricter policy on non-free content than is imposed by many jurisdictions, including that of the US. So you are going to work against that differential? Tony   (talk)  02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have argued for a more reasonable policy that would enable us to more fully fulfill the encyclopedia mission while not slighting the free content mission, but changes have not come. As an administrator, I would have to enforce policy as it stands. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be reassured that you understand the reason for the differential between US law and WP's policy. And I'd like to know that you'll engage with the users at WP:NFC on this policy matter. Tony   (talk)  03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am thoroughly aware of Wikipedia's non-free image policy vs. U.S. law. What issue do you want me to raise at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer to question eight, as with several recent candidates, is cause for great concern relating to experience and working knowledge of Wikipedia. The ramifications of not understanding the disinction between a block and a ban, in either direction, do not need to be spelled out to grant how persuasive this reason is, at least for me.  Daniel  09:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Switching to oppose.  Daniel  23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, now I know the terminology, and I wasn't planning on getting involved with that sort of thing anyway. I have been aware for some time that bans are determined by community consensus and the arbcom. Petty vandalism can usually be dealt with by a single administrator. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, A4..A6 made me uncomfortable about Remember the dot's understanding of FU, but not to the level of oppose. Max S em 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Due to some policy inexperience questions brought up in the oppose section, though 's nomination and later points are impressive. Please do try again later.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 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.