Commons:Administrators/Requests/Gnom 2

Support= 29; Oppose= 2; Neutral = 2 - 94% Result Successful . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gnom

Vote

Gnom (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
Scheduled to end: 19:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello again – after narrowly missing the threshold in my last request for adminship in November 2023 (with 74% approval), I thought I could ask again, now that more than a year has passed and the community has had the opportunity to see some more activity from me in the areas where I would most like to be active as an admin, which is copyright-related deletion requests.

In January, some of you maybe read my blog post for Public Domain Day 2025, which discussed the tricky copyright situation around artworks by the two famous painters Frida Kahlo and Henri Matisse. Another recent project of mine that I am very excited about, albeit still in an early stage (and not admin-related), is the upload of over 2,000 recordings of organ music.

Seeing the many unsuccessful requests for Commons adminship over the last months, I must confess that I am publishing this request somewhat anxiously – but I sincerely think that I could be of help to the community with my experience as a copyright lawyer and long-time community member, and a few of the people who did not support my last request have already indicated that they would do so this time.

You can find more information about me on my user page as well as in my last request for adminship. Happy to also answer any questions you may have.

Votes

Support per nom and the answers in the previous nom. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jeff G. We can use the help. --MB-one (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's hard to find a more trusted user for the things we do and need here. --Mirer (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not laugh about it anymore. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  can you please explain? @Marcus Cyron modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Marcus Cyron, it is inappropriate to express derision without offering an argument, and is a violation of the Universal Code of Conduct. Whatever your personal feelings or experience with Gnom, please stick to arguments relevant for his potential contribution as a Commons admin. Ijon (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't find Marcus's comment here, nor his oppose in the previous request ("I learned the hard way that Gnom doesn't care about right and wrong when it fits the agenda.") particularly useful - it's not possible for other people to decide for themselves whether a concern is valid if Marcus doesn't actually share the specifics with the rest of us - but I also don't find you throwing the Universal Code of Conduct around particularly constructive either. It feels like a needless escalation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcus Cyron: That sort of response is not of the high standard we would expect from a fellow admin. The position of the response does not help either. Are you laughing at the candidate or at Mirer? Brianjd (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I laugh at the imagination od the serious, decent fellow Wikimedian. I had to leard the hard way, that Gnom always takes the path of least resistance, shies away from any conflict (which is not possible as an admin). I experienced him as chairman of the Wikimedia board when we were both on the board, and had to experience his fickleness first hand. I have experienced few fellow Wikimedians who can deceive the masses as much as he can. But since I cannot say in detail what I would like to say, I can only laugh at the impression that is being made of him here. I can say from personal experience that when you really need it, not only do you not get any support, but you get a real stab in the back. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
very weak support - man... you have low activity here. i just look over previous discussions about adminship. and since you are lawyer on copyright and you are old editor im ok. but please, do more work here. thank you for apply. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per marcus, i wanna be neutral. sorry.modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported last time and they would be a good admin due to experience. I also appreciate this user's work with WikiOrchestra. Abzeronow (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I have no concerns about level of activity; every bit of work Gnom can do would be helpful and 100% good-faith. Ijon (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per QOH and Jeff G. I would appreciate an uptick in activity, but we shouldn't expect every admin to be doing 100+ actions a day. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. As in the last RfA, valuable work is shown in the application, but none of it is admin related, and it's not pointed out what the tools should be used for. The user with no doubt is an expert on copyright, but an expert is by far more useful giving advice and commenting on deletion requests than having the mop themselves and then not using it. --Krd 08:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was one who opposed you last time out of the concern of a low edit count. But today I see it differently. Even if your edit count is low, those are good edits (at least in my experience). Don't really find a reason to oppose anymore.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support such a great and fitting candidate! --Rogi (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I can keep my promise. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Last time I did not vote, because you were sysop in test wiki, but you had only 1 edit there. I see, that you still have only 1 edit in test wiki, but you are not a sysop there, actually you are not sysop anywhere, and for this improvement I support you. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issue as far as I can tell. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems fine to me. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 14:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support like last time --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, we need more qualified Admins. Captain-tucker (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67^T★C 07:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure. --TenWhile6 07:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tf 10:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for avoiding question #c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20250216030600-Comments, meanwhile making plenty of non-minor edits https://xtools.wmcloud.org/globalcontribs/Gnom .--RoyZuo (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- RoyZuo: For the record, Gnom did respond to me by email. As far as I'm concerned, nothing they said in the email couldn't be shared publicly, and nothing swayed me from my current thought on the matter, which is that if Marcus Cyron wants their complaint to be taken seriously, they need to provide actual details, and if they can't provide details because of a WMDE NDA, they need to make that explicit. All this is to say that they didn't avoid the question, though I don't see why they can't share what they emailed me here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 06:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 12:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good -- a volunteer who knows and respect copyright wants to help out more, and be useful for the project --アンタナナ 12:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Gnom is very capable, knowledgeable, trustworthy and active. I have full confidence they will use the tools wisely and help us where we need it. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems like a trusted user. --JackFromWisconsin (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pauli-Pirat (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not convinced per above comments. --Bedivere (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support no red flags --Schlurcher (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as said in the previous nomination definitely a good new admin with much knowledge on copyright. GPSLeo (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fit India 17:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On your Mastodon account linked from your userpage, looking at it I get the impression that not all photos are properly attributed? --A.Savin 04:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're probably right, I should be more consistent with the attributions on social media. I'll go fix that right now. As you can see here, I am able to do it in principle :-) Gnom (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a bit late here, but I’ll try to contribute anyway. I just had a quick look at your Mastodon account. It is hard for me to judge, since most of the posts are in a language that I cannot read. But I notice there seem to be no links to any licenses, even though CC licenses require a link to the license. Can you explain? Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: You are of course correct. However, providing a license link on social media posts is rarely done by anyone in practice – just because it makes the post look a bit messy. Gnom (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what to say to that. I guess I should say it’s a refreshingly honest answer (especially when contrasted with the ‘no Facebook’-style tags that have given Commons so much trouble). Brianjd (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is a recent example of a social media post from the Wikimedia Foundation without a (direct) license link. Regarding the 'No Facebook' templates that you are referring to, it may interest you that I advocated for their deletion. Gnom (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since your nomination does not talk much about the admin areas your intent to work in, could you please specify the areas you plan to focus on? --Ratekreel (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ratekreel, my plan is to focus my admin activity on copyright-related deletion requests. Or was your question about something else? Gnom (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Gnom: Can you please shed light on the conflict between yourself and Marcus Cyron that they alluded to above, from your own perspective. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy If my understanding of your comment above is correct, you received a satisfactory response by email? So it sounds like it's a confidential matter that neither party is ~~able~~willing to shed a more public light on. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 19:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bastique: I received a response by email. I would not describe it as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. This is the problem with replying by email - I can't really say anything without violating the confidentiality of email. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]