We all know about the trend of self nominations not becoming sucessful, so lets turn that trend.
Hello, my name is Josve05a and most of you have problebly encountered me either on deletion discussions or on IRC, and I think Commons could benefit of having me as an admin. I know my answers to my last RfA was less than adequate and I feel a bit ashamed of those. Since then I have read up about almost every single policy on Commons, had lengthy discussion on IRC about public domain and derivative works.
Most of you that will !vote either know me from before, and then this opening statement will not have an effect on the outcome of your !vote, or you don't know me, and then you will most likely look at my contributions, ask me questions or simply !vote neutral. Having said that, I think I should wrap this up and press save. Josve05a (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
Weak oppose - Still lacks knowledge in certain areas and was just blocked for 'socking' 2 weeks back..user needs to understand our policies fully..--Stemoc02:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per the comments below. Seems like the applicant regrets outing themselves... Neither do I see a valid reason for the use of multiple accounts (and their can be such reasons). --Randykitty (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that is not true. But I did hoever belive i was acting inside of established policies. Looking back I naturally regrett it. Josve05a (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this person accused me of homophobia by misinterpreting my words (I even think on purpose). This person lacks the social skills to be a successful admin. Also his recent juggling with accounts to hide from responsibilities shows that the person thinks Wikipedia is a social game, instead of a serious job to share knowledge. I know that in my discussion I wasn't nice either, but my not perfect behavior can not be a reason to forgive the mistakes of others. A good administrator would have stayed cool in this discussion, instead of making it worse by every page save. Edoderoo (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My first contact with this person was when this file File:Marlene Dietrich 1948 2.JPG was selected by him as a possible DR candidate. The newspaper it's from didn't renew their 1948 issues; File:Alan Ladd 1948.JPG This file and others should also be in question as they're from the same newspaper in the same year, but they're not. I happened to see that this file File:China seas.jpg, which recently came from en:WP was also marked for review. I uploaded this one File:China Seas lobby card 2.jpg and the same thing happened. There are two other lobby cards for the film here with the same licenses as these, but they're not marked to be reviewed. A user recently uploaded File:Macbeth-27-Victory.jpg this along with many others from the US WPA project and they're all on the board as being possible copyvios to be sent to DR. There's a lack of knowledge in this area which could cost Commons some valuable contributors if people become offended by DRs that have no merit and stop giving their time and effort because of it. We hope (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, I want to give you benefit of the doubt, but then again, I will use my logic here, I ask you "will you poop on public space just because there are no sign about prohibition of pooping in public?" Will you do it?--AldNonUcallin?☎02:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to stemoc: Nobody can know everything in every area. That is literally a human impossibility. The fact that I was blocked does not represent that I do not understand policies. Josve05a (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to FDMS4 and clarification of events that led to my block: I had asked around if Wikimedia Commons had a policy regarding legitimate usage of mutliple accounts. Turned out they did have templates such as {{User Alternate Acc}} which linked to the policy on English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) but no written policy on Commons. With that in mind I boldly created the account Cake7545 (talk·contribs). I successfully nominated hundreds of files for deletion and about 97% were deleted. During this time a user, Edoderoo (talk·contribs), objected to my DRs. The discussion continued and I, mistakenly, responded from my main account, this one, causing me to out myself. It was around that time I asked a known admin to self-block me for about three days so I could get some fresh air and calm my nerves. He did not want to do it, since he doesn't do self-blocks. I then asked Nick (talk·contribs) to self-block me. I got the response that neither he wanted to do it. It was then I that I shared with him the discussion I have had with Edoderoo (talk·contribs) (link above) and I said that I had abused multiple accounts which is inline with blocking policies and Nick agreed to block me. (I personally did not think it was abusing, since there were no real sockpuppeting and no real interaction between my accounts.) After my block this discussion (link) happend, which FDMS4 mentioned and quoted out of context, which unfortunately I could not take part of/respond to. The reason why was blocked was just that, I literally asked for it. Josve05a (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you didn't get blocked on request, you must have gotten blocked for something else. Your block log (and my eyes, looking at both accounts' contributions) say Abusing multiple accounts which is unaccpetable for an administrator by itself in my opinion. Please elaborate on why you think that I "quoted out of context"; I'd expect an admin candidate not to make unfounded allegations. FDMS 4 03:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be casting a vote, but I do believe everybody makes errors (I have made more than a few here) and people should be given a chance to learn from their mistakes, growing stronger as they do so. I understand entirely why people are Opposing, but it would be nice to see some constructive comments for Josve05a too, with some suggestions of what he can do to regain trust and demonstrate knowledge to alleviate the concerns raised. Nick (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most important thing to remember is the simple truth that having access to those tools does not have a bearing on whether or not one is a valuable contributor to this project. Hekerui (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'd rather not see an unprepared RFA of this kind again. COM:RFA isn't a place for editor reviews, and one would have to have absolutely no understanding of Wikimedia communities at all to expect a RFA like this (at this point) to succeed. Please, ask one or more experienced administrators/bureaucrats whether they would nominate/support you before running again. FDMS 4 15:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support = 1;
Oppose = 9;
Neutral = 0 – 10%. Result: unsuccessful. odder (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose - Still lacks knowledge in certain areas and was just blocked for 'socking' 2 weeks back..user needs to understand our policies fully..--Stemoc 02:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply to stemoc: Nobody can know everything in every area. That is literally a human impossibility. The fact that I was blocked does not represent that I do not understand policies. Josve05a (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
