Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamal N

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Chamal N

Final (88/5/9). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 11:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Chamal N (talk · contribs)

Co-nomination by Dylan620: For my third nomination, I would like to present Chamal N for consideration. One of Wikipedia's only active editors from Sri Lanka, Chamal has been editing since April 2008. Since then, he has managed to keep his block log clean and has racked up over 11,500 edits, well-distributed across the namespaces (40.32% in the article space, 25.56% in user talk space, 13.18% in project space). Perhaps most noteworthy about Chamal is his involvement with DYK. As I write this, Chamal has 450+ edits to Template talk:Did you know, 125 edits to the DYK talk page, and 12 edits to prep area 1. For those of you looking for Chamal's contributions to the content aspect of DYK, Chamal has contributed 35 DYKs (see here), with a 36^th waiting to be on the Main Page. Looking for other content? According to X!'s tool, Chamal has created 32 non-redirect articles (see here for redirects), and he has one featured list (List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka) and one good article (2008–2009 Battle of Kilinochchi). On top of his DYK and content work, Chamal has a whopping 550+ edits to the Help Desk. Chamal is also a proficient vandal fighter, having upwards of 2,300 edits using Huggle and 62 edits to WP:AIV. Lastly, Chamal is active at the Account Creation Interface, having created over 140 accounts to date.

In summary, Chamal is a well-rounded and dedicated contributor who has experience in several areas of Wikipedia, and I hope you will agree with me that he will make a fine admin. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 19:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Sebastian: I have been wanting to nominate Chamal for some time[1][2]. I got to know him through his involvement in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, where he has always been very calm and fair, which is remarkable in such a tragic conflict as the civil war in his home country. My standard is high: I have never nominated anyone since Paul August's RfA. Therefore, it means something when I am confident that he will be an excellent administrator. — Sebastian 01:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by the_ed17: I first met Chamal on September when he tried to help me with a Huggle-related issue. We have kept in touch since then, and he has helped me on numerous occasions.
Someone who can work in controversial areas—like Sri Lankan-related topics—and keep their cool, not getting entangled in serious editing disputes, is quite unusual. When combined with my opinion that Chamal is one of, if not the kindest and most helpful editor on Wikipedia, you find an excellent candidate for administrator. I am honored to have been given the chance to co-nom an editor of Chamal's caliber; I believe that you will agree with me when you conduct your review of Chamal. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to Dylan, Sebastian and Ed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:31, 18 August 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'm mostly active in WP:DYK, so I'll definitely be able work there. I can also help at WP:AIV, since I worked almost exclusively on anti vandalism in my first few months here (but not so much recently; I have spread my work into more areas since then) so I'm familiar with that process. If I have admin tools, it would also mean that I can help more with requests at WP:ACC. I have noticed that there are always some protected edit requests, and I think that's an area that needs some attention. Apart from these, I can work on almost any area in the admin backlog if there is a need, since I have been exposed to almost every area in Wikipedia in my dealings at the help desks and am quite familiar with the policies and guidelines. That, I think, is pretty much the main objective in appointing new admins - so that we can respond quickly in the areas where administrator attention is needed. However I do not intend to get involved in deletions, since that's not an area I have been very active in or like working in very much.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I don't exactly have a lot to brag about. In the area I mainly work in (WP:LK), there arent't enough online sources to really improve an article. I don't visit the library a lot either, so I mostly try to create and improve articles in pretty much a small scale. However, in article development, 2008–2009 Battle of Kilinochchi is an article I've put a lot of effort into. It was right after the battle ended and the article was being edited a lot, so I had to work hard on maintaining NPOV. Anuradhapura Kingdom is one I'm working on now, and is probably the one I have worked on the most. In non-mainspace, I'd say my contributions to the help desk and new contributors' help page are among my best contributions. Also, (this might sound weird) I think I should count in this image. Not the best picture you have seen, but this area is a high security zone. I got a rare and unexpected opportunity to take this (no, I didn't sneak in) and Wikipedia is not likely to be getting another image of this for a long time so I was quite pleased at the time :).

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. There have been disagreements about the content of some articles of course, but these have been discussions on what should be included rather than conflicts. These have never gone past the article talk pages and user talk pages, and we have always managed to come to a suitable solution without dragging it on for more than 4 or 5 comments. I normally stick to WP:1RR when dealing with edits other than vandalism, and in my experience, it works very well. There's no reason to change this practice in the future. I don't believe in shooting first and asking qeustions later when there's even a slight chance that the other editor is acting in good faith.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. Under what circumstances should an Article for Creation contribution be deleted? As an administrator if you came across such an article what would you do?

A: If an article is an attack page with libelous content (particularly a violation of WP:BLP) or if it is obviously a blatant copyright infringement/vandalism. The first I should delete straightaway. If there is any uncertainty in the other two areas or in any other situation, I will decline it with an appropriate reason and ask from a more experienced in the area since I'm still new to AFD and as I said, I don't intend to work extensively in deletions unless it is absolutely required as in an attack page. All the CSD criteria can't be applied at AFC, since we are trying to help people to create articles and we should do that whenever there is a chance that the article can be improved to something acceptable. And of course, we have to use common sense in each situation to decide what should be done in those exact circumstances.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

5. For File:HariSinghAVSM.jpg the image is claimed to be public domain. Is this likely to have been taken by the uploader as claimed? How could you tell if the claimed authorship is correct?

A: It is possible that the uploader did indeed take the image (assuming that he is about 50 or 60 years by now). But looking at another image he has uploaded, File:BrigHariSinghJi.jpg, he has given a link to his website http://www.abhinayrathore.com/ which reveals he is not in fact 50 or 60 years old. Looking at his talk page I find that one of the individuals in this picture is his grandfather, so it is very possible that he owns the copyright of the image, which means he has the right to release it into public domain if he wishes. Further looking at his talk page, I see that he has a history of providing information insufficiently or incorrectly on files he has uploaded. Therefore, listing himself as the author is likely another mistake on his part. If there are any more doubts after this, I should contact him (through his website since he does not seem to be active now) and ask him to clarify. I have done some AGFing here, and also I have found no evidence that the image is taken from another source. It is obviously scanned, and that is understandable considering its age. It would also be a good idea to go to WT:INDIA and ask someone what that caption says, since it might reveal some more details about the image and its source. BTW, I noticed that this is an image I have used some time ago, but I admit I used it without checking in detail like this.

To keep it simple, the dog is not the copyright owner of this image, and I'm aware of that :)

Note: This answer seems to have created some confusion, and I must apologize for everyone for not being clearer. It seems to give the impression that I think the subject of an image holds copyright for that image. This is not what I meant, and I have explained further under Iroholds's !vote below. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from harej

6. What are your thoughts on dealing with edit warring, especially on articles that relate to your expertise?

A: As I said in answer to Q3, I strongly believe that discussion is a far better option that reverting. If an edit seems to be made in bad faith, I would revert it and if it's re-added then it's time to talk (unless it's obvious vandalism or attacking). This has worked well in the past and as I have said, has always enabled us to come to a suitable agreement. If it's a situation where I'm directly involved in, I will be dealing with them as a Wikipedia editor an not as an admin. If the other editor is refusing to engage in constructive discussion and simply keeps on changing the article to what they want, I should ask for assistance from another admin (in this case, it would most probably be User:FayssalF, User:Rlevse, User:Chaser or User:Haemo - see WP:SLR). If it's a situation where I should be trying to resolve an edit war between other editors, I should urge both parties to start discussing, and assist them if I can. If the edit warring has got out of hand I should protect the page. If they continue to fight over it without trying to come to a solution I should warn them, and if after sufficient warnings they do not stop, then a short block would be in order (if necessary for both parties, but it would depend on the way they were acting). I sort of summarized this because it was getting too long; do you want me to give this in more detail?

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I am neither strictly inclusionist nor deletionist. I don't think we can categorize every article as delete or keep based only on WP:GNG. If something is covered in depth by reliable sources, that is something that people will be interested in, and people would expect to find an article about that in Wikipedia. However there are some subjects that are clearly notable IMO, but lack coverage from reliable sources, let alone in depth coverage. For example, I've been thinking of trying to improve List of A-Grade highways in Sri Lanka, but couldn't find more than 2 or 3 reliable sources for the whole thing (not in the internet, not in the national library). That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on the most important roads in the country does it? So I think we should use some common sense and judge each case depending on what type of a subject it is, how important its inclusion here is etc in addition to our policies and guidelines.

8. Under what circumstances (if any) would you consider giving a user an immediate block without any warnings?

A: If the account is clearly used in bad faith and is causing a lot of disruption, if they are making obvious legal threats or attacks, obvious sock puppet accounts or if the username is a major violation of WP:USERNAME. Unless these are obvious and extreme, I think warning them and trying to explain would be a better option than going for an immediate block. Sufficient warnings should be given in any normal situation before going for a block, and a block should often be the last resort.

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

9. How familiar do you feel that an editor or administrator should be with law, especially copyright law?

A: I think everyone should know the basic things. If you are dealing in an area where such knowledge is necessary, then of course you should know it in detail. Something we need to know are the basics of the GFDL since we are releasing our contributions under that. Apart from that, I do not think we are required to familiarize ourselves with laws. Wikipedia is a voluntary project, you are not required to solve every problem you encounter. If you are interested in the well being of the project, you will refer any uncertain problems to someone who knows about it and is willing to work on it if you can't do anything about it yourself. If you need my opinion in this particular situation, I have studied the UK copyright law, but that does not mean I know everything. I have made a blunder in trying to incorporate copyrights with the wikipedia guideline WP:AGF, which I have now learned is something I shouldn't do (with thanks to everyone who explained that). Even if this RfA fails because of that, I will not be coming back with a degree in law for my second try. However, I'm always willing to learn what I need to know in the areas I will be dealing with.

Question from Stifle

10. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. A new picture of a living person can almost always be obtained. The only exception I can think of is someone who has sort of limited contact with normal proceedings. For example (sorry for the all Sri Lanka related examples btw) taking a picture of Sri Lanka's Chief of Defence Staff or the army commander is practically impossible. You point a camera at him, you're likely to be dead the next second :) The only pictures taken by the military or media are of course copyrighted. In such a situation I suppose a non-free image can be used, but even then it might be possible to contact the copyright holder and get it released under a compatible license (but then the same can be said about pictures of non-living persons as well). So unless it's something exceptional like that, I don't think a non-free image of a living person should be used here. There is of course the "official reason" at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UULP so I don't need to say that here as well. And this time, I should probably mention right now that images are not one of my better areas here :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

11. If for some reason your desires were to change in the future, how would you approach doing new page patrol as an admin with the ability to delete pages, but not necessarily the experience to know the speedy deletion criteria throughly?

A: CSD is not something you can approach with an incomplete knowledge. It may not be a big problem to tag an article with a wrong template as a new page patroller, since the deleting admin can fix that and delete it under the correct criteria. However, if the admin is going to delete it for wrong reasons that's going to be a problem. In case I decide to work in CSD, I should familiarize myself thoroughly with the rules. Observing how more experienced admins in the area do it and getting their advice in difficult cases would also not go amiss. Even then, I'd leave the more uncertain ones to someone better at it until at least I gain some experience.

Questions from Tony1

12. Do you think it would be useful for ArbCom to consider the creation of a subcommittee of admins and non-admins to run a tightly constructed process such as AdminReview for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of (or the threat to use) admin tools in breach admin policy? Be critical, please: has its time come, or is it unnecessary? Possible pitfalls? (AdminReview is still in draft form as a community-driven idea, and probably needs to be set out more simply.)

A: No answer? Tony (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As stupid as this sounds, I thought I had answered all the questions. I don't want to talk about the conduct of current admins, so I won't be going into detail with my answer. Anyway, the admin tools are given to an editor as a result of community consensus and it should be taken away (if needed) through community consensus as well. While I'm not sure if a process like AdminReview is necessary (it's not like we'll be de-sysoping people everyday) I'm neither opposing nor supporting this at this stage. Personally, I would voluntarily resign (provided I become an admin in the first place) if the community clearly seems to think I'm not up to the job.

13. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been very rude to another editor in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the _target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use such a strategy?

A: No answer? Tony (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for late response same as above. If an experienced editor who has a good behavioural record suddenly deviates from that course, then the first thing is to find out why they did that. Depending on the situation, it may warrant a block or it may not. However, I think this is something that needs a wider discussion, and not something I can decide for myself. If a discussion with the involved editors fail, then I would report it at ANI so that a discussion can take place and consensus obtained on what should be done.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Chamal N

• Links for Chamal N: Chamal N (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Chamal N can be found here.
• Comment I am a little confused by the rationale expressed below that unfamiliarity with the down-and-dirty details of US copyright law is a reason not to support an admin candidate. Ditto for a lack of complete familiarity with one or more specific areas of wikipedia policy/consensus. There are many great admins who do nothing but mediate AfDs or tinker with bots or tirelessly fix citation formats, right? If Chamal had made significant mistakes as an editor in the arena of copyright issues, or if he blindly insisted that his quirky interpretation was correct, I might be tempted to extrapolate from that. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

as I've said, the concern for me (can't speak for anyone else) is that he answered the question as if he knew the answer. "I don't work in that area, I would ask X who does" would have been preferable. Knowing the limits of your knowledge is a useful thing to have, and being confident in deferring to someone that you know has better information than you is frequently wise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dmz5, if your comment is indeed merely just that, then please move this thread up to the Discussion section. Right now it's being marked as another Neutral vote, which I'm not sure is your intention. I'll leave you a note on your talk page as well. GlassCobra 12:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(@ Elen) Yep, good point. Although it's a definite concern, I personally do not find the answer oppose-worthy (in fact, I'm leaning toward support). Most likely, the candidate has learned from this RfA to a) research a bit more about copyright, and b) know his/her limits and more openly state that certain areas are "not my thing", especially when it comes to actual admin actions. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 12:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that Elen's point is good. But I would hesitate to make the leap and say "Admins must have full and detailed knowledge of copyright law," which is stated almost explicitly in several comments.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and furthermore, I think his answer is a detailed and good one - essentially what he's saying is, "well there are a lot of possibilities, I would contact the uploader and also go consult some third parties about it." In other words, he sort of said what a lot of commenters "wish" he had said, just not in the same phrasing. I much prefer his answer to "I dunno, not my field." Yes, he should have gone and looked up the chapter and verse on image copyright policy and incorporated that into the answer too, but his response was hardly out of ignorance or arrogance. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That leap is made by the commentator to the opposes, not the opposers. Nobody is asking for a "full and detailed knowledge of copyright law". In practice, what would be required is a full and detailed understanding of WP:C and WP:NFC, but that isn't required either. What is required is either an understanding that in case of doubts about potential infringement the content gets removed from display first and then verified (instead of the other way around endorsed by the candidate in his initial responses), OR the wisdom to defer to someone more qualified. In short, at least as far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't with the candidate's lack of understanding of the policies, but with the lack of judgement displayed by how he responded. MLauba (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: the furthermore comment, that's exactly the problem. You cannot leave possibly infringing content standing and wait, under WP:AGF, until the uploader responds. You have to act first to remove the disputed content and THEN only start asking questions. And if he had indeed written "I dunno, not my field" instead of giving an inappropriate answer, I would have supported. Without reservations. MLauba (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that wikipedia policy states that, if a photograph's copyright is in question, the proper handling is immediate deletion followed by investigation. We aren't talking about an Annie Leibovitz photo that is immediately recognizable as non-free. I thought the proper steps were to tag it, post questions on all the relevant talk pages, and then take further action. am I misreading the policy, or your response? Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My response. Note that "content" is broader than just "images", and "removal from display" doesn't necessarily mean "deletion". The key point missed here is that incation while we wait until the person who added the disputable content comes back with explanation, if at all (the user could after all be inactive, retired, vanished, on vacation...) is something we cannot afford to do when a doubt is raised. That WP:C and WP:NFC aren't totally aligned in the procedures for handling text and media under suspiction is something which doesn't make it any easier, and again on this matter the candidate has my full sympathy - I stay clear of media question myself because I find them too difficult to handle. Nonetheless, in my eyes, an admin should either be aware, at the very least, that any copyright matters are subject to a precautionary principle ("act first, then enquire"), or defer to someone else (and interestingly, BLP issues are -or should be- subject to pretty much the same process).

That being said, the opposes for Q5 will most likely not sink this RfA, and I do believe that the food for thought brought about by this issue will make the candidate a much better (but perhaps also slightly more cautious) admin than had we all just voted neutral or gone "heh, q5 is a big deal to us but we still support". MLauba (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Look, you're opposing. By that you mean that Chamal N's sysoping would be a net negative for the project, yet you seem to take comfort in the fact that these opposes won't fail the RfA and that yeeeh we'll have a better cautious admin. This is the sort of grandstanding I criticized earlier. But more importantly, your basic premise is that candidates don't take in criticism unless you oppose their RfA. That's just a horrible way of approaching RfA. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you have crazies in the blogosphere who are convinced that wikipedia admins are an illuminati with direct ties to the pentagon, i suppose it helps to maintain very stringent standards and a commitment to discussion and consensus when they get proposed.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Systematic bullying and demonizing opposes is, in my book, also a horrible way of approaching RfA. MLauba (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Request for clarification from candidate: I have noted the comment to my oppose below in respect to your response to question 10. Did you in fact believe the question was not asking about the use of non-free images of living persons who are actors, celebrities or other media persons who might make non-free images available which could correctly be used in Wikipedia? If so, what exactly did you think Stifle was asking about? I would not like to accuse you of a wrong answer to a question where you thought you were answering a completely different one, and possibly correctly in such case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  I answered the question about living persons in general, and I did not consider special cases like that. I admit I don't know much about the areas you mention at all, since as I have already said, my experience in images is very limited - and I also have a very low interest in celebrities' pages so I don't usually go there :) - and I have absolutely no desire or interest to work with them as an admin. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Copyright is a serious issue and admin discretion is limited Now just to make the point clear LIBEL in particular in WP:BLP and COPYRIGHT are legal issues and Wikipedia can face legal action and hence Copyright is a serious issue other issues are within four walls of Wikipedia.But Libel and Copyright can reach the courts while wrongly deleting a page or even blocking a user will not.Hence agree on this point with Ironholds and et al that copyright is a crucial area for any admin and no admin should tolerate Copyrights violations as it is more a legal issue rather than within the jurisdiction of the admin.We are facing using using wrong licensing like this [3] still waiting for a decision for more than a month and that after a earlier one by the same user.[4] and where users make wrong statements about being the copyright holder and showing it as own work while the paid Editor has been paid has been paid 70$ for the job here may have only permission to use the image and hence permission needs to come through ORTS.Hence asking users about copyright is not the best idea without independantly being able to verify whether it is a violation or not and in many cases like here the user may upload it as own work as is done here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Edit Stats updated in Talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Just letting you know, the yellow in your signature is a bit hard to read. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Noted. There are two colours appearing on that talk link that need to be changed I think. I will get it done as soon as possible. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Of course. Very friendly user. Will make a great admin. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Had this pre-watchlisted after reviewing the user with the plan of asking them whether they want to run. Does good work at DYK where we can always need more people. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Support - Chamal is a very friendly and considerate user and will make a valuable administrator yet. :) — neuro^(talk) 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose. — neuro^(talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Strong support as one of the co-noms. Good luck, Chamal! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 11:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support answered my questions in a suitable and careful way suggesting that Chamal N will be careful as an administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Prove me wrong. looks great.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong Support I've had this watchlisted for a while. :) Great user, great contribs, and I'm sure Chamal will be a great admin. Good luck! LittleMountain5 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support per SoWhy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I remain unconvinced by the opposes. Yes, the answer to Q5 does leave a bit to be desired, you can't really hold one relatively minor issue against an otherwise excellent track record. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Support worthy candidate — Lost^(talk) 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Another nice candidate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Very good work at DYK, works to reach a conclusion instead of being divisive on the more troublesome noms. Shubinator (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
11. As a co-nominator, per majority opinion. — Sebastian 17:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate is an article creator with dozens of DYK credits as well as rollback as well as having never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. A review of this candidate's contributions show him to be qualified according to my criteria. --Matheuler 19:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I have seen this editor around at DYK and other venues and is always helpful and friendly. TNXMan 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Quality candidate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Support; smart and sensible candidate with a wide range of competent contributions. I do not find the opposes over Q5 convincing; while it's technically incorrect in places, it generally shows a good attitude and sensible thought processes. It's not like the candidate expressed a wish to do a lot of work in images, so specific, precise knowledge of a fairly obscure corner of copyright law really strikes me as a minor issue. ~ mazca ^talk 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. I don't consider his lack of eagerness to nominate an image on the commons for deletion to be a reason to oppose his adminship here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Having spent some time at the help desk - I've seen Chamal quite a bit. Very helpful. I'll request that s/he review agf, particularly the copyright section, which does not permit assuming that a person with a photo owns it. --SPhilbrickT 21:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Good candidate, cannot see anything that makes me think they will misuse the tools. I also endorse Mazca's view about question 5. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
21. F***ing Strong Support — God, I've seen this one coming for a long time. Chamal is an exceptional editor and writer, he is a great help over at the help desk, and he'll make a fantastic administrator. WAY overdue! Master&Expert (Talk) 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Absolutely. Yes. Obviously. Of course. Duh! iMatthew ^talk at 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Support A friend of The Ed is a friend of mine (and before you all ask, yes I did in fact look through everything before arriving to this conclusion). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Strongest support - per the co-nom. Good luck, my friend. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong support Excellent candidate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Strong support. I found your answer to question five to be very thorough, and I understand your reasoning. I see no problems with giving you the admin bit. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent, vetted contributions to improving DYK as well as the content, and major work at the help desk make this an easy support. Should make fine use of the tools, and is more than trustworthy. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Chamal N has answered my question reasonably and I am not convinced by the oppose votes. @harej 02:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Yep, regional allocation is considered.--Caspian blue 02:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Support but I urge you to avoid image issues until you learn a lot more. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    Actually I don't intend to deal with images. I haven't worked a lot there and as you can see from WP:HAU/AS, I don't consider myself an expert. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

32. Support. We have our images admins when we need them. He hasn't expressed an interest in that area, so to put him on the spot isn't fair, IMO. He obviously isn't going to answer "I don't know" in an RfA, but we can't conclude that he won't refer image issues to another admin when necessary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Good contributions, no problems. rspεεr (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Dream Focus 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Will make a great admin. Airplaneman ^talk 04:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Looks good to me. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Qualified. Enough said. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Support, unconvinced by opposes. Whilst I can see their point, the candidate has not as far as I can see expressed that he is going to be working alot in this area. Admins have time to learn. If we only accepted admins who would be perfect in all areas of admin work, there would be alot more opposes on every RfA. As was stated previously, the admins are a team, and they can ask each other for help, or refer things outside their area to relevant admins. --Taelus (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. I think it likely this candidate will have a very clear understanding of image use after this RFA, and I'm comfortable with the rest of it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong support - Solid candidate. My knowledge about the image policy is not that great, so should I resign? It is not important for an admin to know everything. Chamal N has contributed positively to the encyclopedia; he will not do anything silly with the tools. Chamal N is from Sri Lanka; as a non-native speaker of English, I strongly believe that we need more qualified editors, who are non-native speakers of English, in our admin team. The only language the Americans can speak is American, but in our case (Chamal N and me), it is different! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    Before all the Americans pile in on this remark, I'll leap to their defence by saying there are Americans who speak other languages.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    Some of them do speak in other languages, but they don't speak other languages as well as non-native speakers speak English! :-) S Marshall, I'm just joking! Please don't take that last statement seriously. AdjustShift (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

41. Support. Great editor and will make a fine admin. AtheWeatherman 09:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. I am an admin, I know virtually nothing about image copyright, and have no plans to learn. I am not interested in it, and amazingly, I haven't broken teh wiki yet. Copyright law is a complex entity. Ironholds et al might be experts, and that's great - we need experts in this area. Expecting admin candidates to be experts, however, is completely unreasonable. Is he going to work in this area? The issue should be about trust, not expertise. Theoretically, I would !vote "support" for a candidate with a handful of edits if it was crystal clear that he/she could be trusted with the bit. I realize in practice this situation would probably never happen, but it illustrates that we shouldn't be expecting candidates to work in all areas of the project. User looks competent, reasonable, and trustworthy. Tan | 39 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - Had the candidate expressed heavy interest in working with images, then the opposition might have a case. They don't. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
44. Support per Wisdom and Tan. User never said he'd work at all with image copyrights. That, plus great contributions, gives a support. :) Cheers, I'^mperator 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. Clueful editor, seems trustworthy. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
46. Support His answers to questions satisfy me, and I think that will be fine with the tools. hmwitht 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. I've reviewed the oppose reasonings, but I still think overall that Chamal is a fitting "candidate" for adminship. Good luck! One two three... 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Support I can't see anything worth opposing over. Chamal would be a definite net positive as an admin. Timmeh (review me) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
49. Gotta go with the supporters here, the copyright flub doesn't seem like a stopper to me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
50. Support clean block log, good mix of building and defending, plus I've had good encounters with this candidate (and I also steer clear of copyright stuff). ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - Such an awesome field of experience for only one year registered. You have my support.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
52. Strong support for keeping cool head and strong adherence to NPOV in one of the most heated areas in Wikipedia, Sri Lankan civil war-related articles. As he going to work in WP:AIV this quality of his going to be very handy. Good article writer too. (I came here through his intriguing Harry Potter quote on his userpage, LOL). All the best with this RfA. Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - Switching from Neutral after reading candidate's answer to Question 6. Having had unpleasant experience with the "prison guard"-type of admin who jumps at every chance to punish someone, it is refreshing to see someone who pledges to treat editors as adults, with respect, and to choose other measures such as page protection over blocking people if at all possible. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
54. I suppose one fault isn't enough not to support; I can probably rest assure they'll read up on that now!!  GARDEN  11:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. Generally good contributions. The answer to question 5 isn't quite right, but not that big a deal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Q5 doesn't seem nearly as bad as people are making it out to be; the candidate is explaining his thought process very clearly, and it makes sense to me. The statement that most people seem to be taking issue with, "it is very possible that he owns the copyright of the image, which means he has the right to release it into public domain if he wishes," is merely a hypothetical and is balanced out by the next sentence, "Further looking at his talk page, I see that he has a history of providing information insufficiently or incorrectly on files he has uploaded." This shows me clearly that Chamal knows that asking the user for more information is clearly necessary, a fact which many of the opposers seem to be overlooking. His thought process, which includes noticing that the image is scanned, which is relevant, adding the (correct) hypothetical that the image is allowed to be released into the public domain if the uploader holds the copyright, and doing the actual detective work himself to see if the image is a blatant copy shows me that Chamal does indeed have a good basic grasp on the policy and is willing to do the legwork where most admins would not. The other questions are answered thoughtfully and also indicate a sold knowledge of policy and reveal an encouraging trend on Chamal's part to use dispute resolution and mediation to solve problems, and I have no issues lending my voice to those asking for Chamal to be granted the admin tools. GlassCobra 12:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - Chamal is an excellent editor. In my experiences with him, I have found him to be level-headed and reliable. I think he would make a good Admin. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong Support - No need of telling about Chamal,he is simply awesome. A very kind, helpful and one of the best! He'll 150% be a good administrator. Pasanbhathiya2 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
59. Support- Ignoring answer to question #5, I support Chamal because he is a solid contributor despite the fact he joined WP rather recently...

    Cheers! --Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

60. Support Active, friendly editor who is here to help. I'm guessing he'll be asking for advice on any policy issue he's not certain about after the kerfuffle here about image copyright. --StaniStani  15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Useful editor, will become (imo) a very good administrator. RFA is a tough enviroment and I don't think we need to be too hard over what is perhaps a dubious reply to one question which he has explained. Diversity is strength and this editor will be a very useful addition to the wiki in areas where we perhaps have limited coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
62. Support No problems that I can see.--Res2216firestar 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. DYK? Oh yes, could do with the admins. Think I've seen you there. Nothing negative to report and the rest of the supports are fairly convincing. --candle•wicke 03:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
64.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Chamal N. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
65. Support, though I strongly recommend that you always ask first about something if you're not clear on the applicable policy or guideline. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Everything that I've seen at DYK indicates that Chamal is ready for the mop. Royalbroil 11:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I've seen the editor around, and have had a positive impression from their efforts. I'm willing to assume the presence. — Ched :  ?  12:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
68. Support - I am willing to assume that the copyright problem is a one-off issue, and if he is anything like I am, he has probably exhaustively reviewed the relevant pages as a result of the criticism he has received in this RfA. No issues besides that. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - Having had the opportunity to observe Chamal's behaviour for some time at DYK, my impression is that he is a calm, mature and sensible user who is unlikely to abuse the tools - and as another supporter noted above, trust is, I think, the key issue for adminship. His fudging of the question regarding image copyright is not enough to oppose someone who appears to be a suitable candidate in every other respect. Image copyright is something of a specialist area, and obviously not one he intends to do much work in. Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
70. Support as a good admin candidate in many ways. He's reasonable (common sense is something I look for in admins) and has the ability to remain calm. I was one of the editors who was worried about the image copyright question, so I initially went neutral. However, if anything, I'm sure the candidate has learned that he should do a bit of research (or just acknowledge that copyright is not his strongest area). One answer is not enough to withhold an otherwise supportive !vote, and I believe it would be a net positive if he received +sysop. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Per JamieS93 above. Shappy ^talk 19:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
72. Support candidate can learn more about images as he goes. Worth a shot with the mop if that is the biggest reason raised thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Another good candidate. We have several currently good candidates! Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
74. Support, one of many great editors out there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
75. Support, I see no reason to oppose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC).
76. Support, Chamal is a great asset to Wikipedia and I have seen his work through our membership of WikiProject Sri Lanka where he has made many valuable contributions and articles. He is also very good with settling disputes and giving out advice on Wikipedia. He will be a valuable admin. Blackknight12 (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
77. Support. Image uses and sussing copyrights certainly is important but really mistakes are made and can be fixed. I trust this user to move cautiously in areas of mopping where they are less than certain. -- Banjeboi 08:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
78. Support. He never said he was going to do images, so an image deleting concern is really no biggie. Wizardman 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
79. Support. Opposes have valid points which I expect the candidate will take to heart. Native speakers of languages other than English, who also have excellent command of English, are very useful to have on board. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Okay, so he's not a lawyer practicing in the field of copyrights. Obviously he now realizes this is something he needs to learn more about. Until he is more comfortable with this area he obviously has enough sense to be wary of it. So there is zero reason to oppose. Good luck. Drawn Some (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
81. Late Support As above. Not likely to go so wrong with admin tools as to become a liability with them. Last time I checked admins did not need to be copyright lawyers. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
82. Support Fully trust the nom by Sebestian and Rvelse who awarded him a day as a awesome Wikipedian and fully agree with the user and follow WP:1RR and also feel the need to be followed strictly in edits other than vandalism in particular in areas in Sri Lanka,A-Aand other areas where there is a real content issues.Every user has a right to his/her POV and sadly We do not find many admins coming from areas of editing conflict even good editors get involved in disputes and either have blocks ,socking complaints and or severe disputes which get can cited if they try to be an admin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
83. Support as I too feel it will be a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Chamal has shown a strong commitment to Wikipedia through consistent editing over an extended period of time and excellent communication skills. The answers to must questions were both thoughtful and where applicable correct. The Q5 incident might have led to an oppose if Chamal showed any desire to work in images, but none has been demonstrated. As such, I think the only real problem was answering the question based on his incomplete knowledge of the rules - a mistake I trust he won't be repeating. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
85. Support I thought I knew the name. Per SoWhy, and a WP:Article Rescue Squadron member. Ikip (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
86. Support I "know" Chamal from DYK, where he has contributed some interesting hooks and makes sensible contributions to administrative discussions. I have confidence in him (Q5 notwithstanding), and I think that Wikipedia will benefit from having a sysop who can help build content and a community in far-flung Sri Lanka. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Expect a net positive effect on the community by promoting to admin.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
88. Support per 7, seems like a good wikipedian Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per the incorrect answer to question five. If he's not old enough to have taken the picture, he almost certainly doesn't own the copyright to it, regardless of familial links. The uploading of copyvios in both text and image form is a large problem on Wikipedia, and I'd rather not have an administrator who doesn't understand the rules/law relating to copyright. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Note: The term "incorrect" is an opinion, not a statement of fact. The editor who originally posted Q5 was happy with the answer. — Sebastian 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   No, it's a fact. It is a fact that Chamal's answer is incorrect in stating the circumstances under which the image could reasonably be considered public domain, or owned by the uploader. US law does not allow one to own the copyright to an image simply by dint of being related to the person who took it, and the answer makes it clear that Chamal believes the uploader did not take the picture. When an answer boils down to "the user obviously didn't take the image, but he's related to the person in it and so that is alright then" it is a fact, not an opinion, that the answer is incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I must admit, I'm out of my league here, since I'm not a copyright lawyer myself. Please consider that the candidate is not from the US, and image copyright is not something this candidate claims to be particularly good or interested in, so that it is relatively unlikely to be a problem here. — Sebastian 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   It would be a problem if he got put on the spot and gave the wrong answer instead of saying "well, I'm not the expert in that area, ask X".--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   The implication from Chamal N as I understand it Ironholds is that since the picture is of his grandfather and is in his possession, as he uploaded it, he very likely owns the actual picture. In the US, that doesn't mean you own the rights, however - you can transfer the object without transferring the associated copyright. That being said, to dredge up the comment from the neutral section, it is possible the grandfather (or photographer) has died and legally (in writing) passed along the rights in a will or some other such form. More relevantly, though, it depends on the published date and renewal status of the picture - if it was taken between 1923 and 1963 and not renewed, it is in the public domain. Essentially, you're right, but as far as copyright goes it's probably not a big deal and is something that could be easily sorted out via OTRS. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I wonder how many of our admins (especially those not involved in image copyright issues) would answer Q5 correctly. Is being able to provide textbook answers to image copyright questions a necessary precursor to being a good admin? WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   It shows an ignorance of policy. The basic and clumsy rules relating to image copyright can be easily found in the Wikipedia: namespace, and the fact that he got it this wrong implies he's totally unfamiliar with them and didn't bother to look them up, even though RfA questions are in an "open book" format. I don't expect a prospective admin to know the internal workings and/or history of our guideline on wikilawyering, with particular attention paid to section 2 and its impact on the ... and so on, but a decent (or even vague) understanding of image policy is not, I think, too much to ask. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I asked this question after looking at the image uploads of the candidate, and seeing one derivative based on a dubious public domain claim image. It is important the administrators help Wikipedia comply with the law in respect to copyright. Normally I spot invalid fair use rationales by admin candidates, so I ask ehtm about fair use, but I did not see any bad ones by Chamal N. I also suspect that there is no releasing to the public domain in Indian Copyright, but really I don't know that. My support was based on that he would look in this further and challenge the uploader. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Ironholds, you say "If he's not old enough to have taken the picture, he almost certainly doesn't own the copyright to it, regardless of familial links." If that is so, why does commons:Template:PD-heirs even exist...? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Because one can transfer the ownership of copyright in a will/elsewhere - if his father had taken the picture, transferred ownership and rights of the images to him and he'd decided to release it into the public domain, that template would be fine. "familial links" in this case refers to the link between him (uploader) and his grandfather (subject). The subject matter has no claim on the copyright of an image in this situation, and can't transfer what he doesn't have. Therefore "If he's not old enough to have taken the picture, he almost certainly doesn't own the copyright to it, regardless of familial links." stands - the only "familial" part in US law would be if he was related to the person who took the picture. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Heh, somehow missed that the grandfather was the subject; apologies for that. This seems like a simple mistake though; although it is not as likely now, it is certainly possible that this was a work for hire or something similar. I think that the rest of the answer after "Looking at his talk page I find that one of the individuals in this picture is his grandfather, so it is very possible that he owns the copyright of the image, which means he has the right to release it into public domain if he wishes." is good, and his method would result in an answer to the "who owns the copyright" question. With cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Regardless, if the candidate didn't know, the right answer is "I don't know, I'll would ask someone rather than making a decision". Protonk (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   What I was thinking was, this event is a very important one in this man's life, so it's likely to be taken by his family. If it was taken by a member of his family then it is likely that the copyright ownership was passed down to the uploader. I certainly did not mean that the uploader owns the copyright because he was related to the person in it. I did not mention this clearly enough, and all I can do is apologize for the lack of clarity. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what I should have done for future reference. Protonk, of course I would ask and experienced admin in any situation that I'm uncertain of (as I have mentioned in the above question but not this one). I always consult an experienced user when I'm uncertain about anything, and that will not change if I become an admin. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   Taken by another member of his family at what appears to be an official ceremony? And again, it's too much of a jump to go "it might have been taken by a member of his family - that member of his family might have died - when he died he might have left it to the uploader - oh, it can be released into the public domain then". Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   His family would be there at the function, no? Surely contacting the uploader next should clear that doubt? Anyway, I was just giving the reason I had for giving that answer and I'm not going to argue about this here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   Unless we have evidence that such a will exist, we cannot assume that the photographer has "passed down" the copyright for the image. Such is the nature of copyright laws. —Dark ^talk 08:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   In fact we're bound by the precautionary principle on copyright matters. The first step is to blank or remove potentially infringing content until it can be explicitly proven that the content is legit, even if it goes against WP:AGF. So the proper process would be to first remove displaying of the dubious content and then verify, not leave it standing while waiting for the uploader to clarify. MLauba (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Basically as above. The answer to question five seems very clumsy and shows a lack of understanding of a very important part of Wikipedia. In my opinion, these are the things admins should know to a tee. Alan16 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I agree completely with Ironholds. Would write a rationale here but he took the words right out of my mouth. — neuro^(talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - same reason. WP:C in practice suspends the benefit of doubt. In order to protect the project we have to work under the assumption that any contribution not explicitly demonstrated as free to use / licensed / PD or acceptable Fair Use is in fact infringing, and act accordingly to remove it from view first, clarify second. This does, in practice, go against the spirit of WP:AGF quite a bit, only limiting you to assume the uploader did not act out of malice but ignorance or misunderstanding. Grasping this distinction is quite important for an admin. I unfortunately cannot support because of that. MLauba (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose: It's not just question 5 now (where, as I've said before), my concern was not the lack of knowledge, but attempting an answer based on that lack of knowledge. The answer to question 10 is almost entirely wrong - screencaps and non-free publicity stills are frequently preferable to poorer quality free images, both for actors in character and for the cast of a show, so there are numerous occasions where a non-free image of a living person might be used. I'm also concerned with the answer to question 7, as he seems to have somewhat confused WP:V and WP:N. If content has no reliable sources, it does not belong in the encyclopaedia. If there are no reliable sources that even demonstrate that there are (say) highways in Sri Lanka, then an article on the subject should not be attempted, as it could not contain any verifiable content. If content has no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, there are circumstances already defined in the guidelines in which an article may still be appropriate (eg high schools, where it is only necessary to demonstrate that the establishment exists as a high school). Also, I am not completely convinced of the first component of the answer to question 8. If the account really is in bad faith and just disruptive - why has it never had even a warning. In most cases, I would have expected in such a situation that a warning would be appropriate first.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   No offense, but I find your assessment of Chamal's answer to Q10 a little harsh. Like Chamal, I read that question to be asking about a ranndom photo of a living person, not the non-free pictures of actors 'in character'. I don't think it is "entirely wrong" for those not to be mentioned, though it obviously isn't a correct answer without mentioning them.

   Second, I think that your comments on his answer to Q7 to go a little far. You say "[C]ontent has no reliable sources, it does not belong in the encyclopaedia" and "[i]f content has no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, there are circumstances already defined in the guidelines in which an article may still be appropriate" (selectively quoting, apologies).

   • Replying re the first point: if our goal is to create the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever, I think that, for example, roads in the United States, Britain, France (etc., etc.), and Sri Lanka should be covered.
   • Re the second point: as far as I know, we don't have a guideline for dealing with—again, for example—specialist/small topics like Sri Lankan roads. The few amount of editors and interest in these areas doesn't lend itself to a policy dicussion; it was and is a very different story with American high schools. So we turn to WP:V and WP:N, from which one would—understandably—opine that the articles should not exist. However, I would think that the spirit of WP:IAR would override this...

   Third, I believe that his answer explains your question: "[u]nless these are obvious and extreme, I think warning them and trying to explain would be a better option than going for an immediate block." In my view, he is stating that a "warning should be a appropriate first"—the point you make in your statement.

   This is in no way meant or intended as 'badgering', and I hope you do not take it as such; I simply have concerns with your opposing rationales. Apologies for the length of this as well; it kind of ballooned while I was writing it. :-) Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   There has been a significant amount of responding to what feels like grumping at opposers in this RfA, which concerns me. If you don't mind, I prefer a sysop who knows what they are talking about and understands core policy, above one who is "nice", and one who displays good judgement above one who is "helpful". I do not think your opinion on roads (nor mine) is relevant here I'm afraid, and I find your assumption that I have not read the candidate's entire offering...annoying. To my eye, he is saying different things in response to the same situation, depending on who asks. This is troubling to me, and I will thank you to accept that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   If RfA is a discussion, then responding to opposers is not detrimental; on the other hand, bullying or berating them is most certainly not good. If you took the above as the latter, I humbly apologize. I assure you that it was not my intention.

   Thank you for your clarification. Its not that I don't accept your opinion—everyone is entitled to their own, after all—it's that I disagree with it. I'll leave you alone now though; it's obvious that neither of us are going to budge. :-) Cheers friend, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   I was thinking more in line of berating than discussing, but I accept that your comments were made in a spirit of discussion and apologise if I came across as grumpy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral Placeholder for now. The eloquent statements from the nominators will probably move me to Support but I want to wait a couple of days.Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Switched to Support. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral pending consensus on question five. If his answer is accurate (and I will leave it to others more familiar with policy to determine that) I will support; if not, I will oppose at this time. Keepscases (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I changed my mind and am just going to stay neutral. Keepscases (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   As far as I understand it, his answer is inaccurate. His answer is essentially "he didn't take the picture, but it is of his grandfather, so I AGF that he owns the copyright". Regardless of the subject matter it wasn't taken by his grandfather, so the familial link is irrelevant, and even if it was taken by a relative the law makes no provision for the transfer of copyright from one person to a family member. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Can you point me to some reading on that issue? I'm no expert on copyright, but need to be if I ever want to be a sysop. The first site I found in a Google search says copyright can be passed by will or intestate succession, so I'm not following why it is so obvious this couldn't happen.(but that's US. I don't know which countries laws apply here). --SPhilbrickT 18:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Copyright can indeed be passed, but it wasn't a relative of his who took the picture - a relative was the subject. Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I understand that. I'll ask, because I don't know - if I'm at some event, taking pictures, then hand my camera to a stranger walking by, to take my picture, does the copyright belong to that stranger?--SPhilbrickT 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   As I understand it he is saying the user took the picture, but is too young to have taken the picture at a time that would make the image public-domain now through age. There's still some confusion - taking the picture doens't == publishing it, etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   First sentence "It is possible that the uploader did indeed take the image (assuming that he is about 50 or 60 years by now). But looking at another image he has uploaded, File:BrigHariSinghJi.jpg, he has given a link to his website http://www.abhinayrathore.com/ which reveals he is not in fact 50 or 60 years old." - the uploader did not take the picture. Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Copyright of a photograph belongs to the photographer, not the subject. It's a problem that often affects people researching their family history, because photo bureaux will often refuse to make copies of old photos on the grounds that they may still be in copyright of the photographer, even though they are of the photo owner's family. His answer is wrong, which is worrying as he could have gone and looked the right answer up. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   The answer to question five could be revised, but I don't think that requiring a comprehensive knowledge of the fine points US copyright law as applied to images, for a candidate who expresses no desire to work in this area, to be disqualifying. (I don't claim to know all these fine points myself, and I'm an American litigation attorney.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   As I said above, the issue is that he offered an answer, rather than either looking it up or, if that was not an option, saying "I don't know the answer to this." I agree with you entirely that admins can't be expected to know everything, but (from my experience as the complaints handler for a large public sector organisation) FAR MORE problems are caused by persons in a position of even quasi-authority offering a misguided opinion than are caused by said persons admitting lack of knowledge and referring the matter on. For the record, I am also concerned that the candidate may have felt that they had to answer, and if it is not desirable for admins to have to know everything, perhaps this it could be made clearer that "XX is the expert" is a valid response to more obscure questions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I'm slightly concerned the user is too attached to AGF to acknowledge copyright law. I am however leaning support and may change my mind.  GARDEN  20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, what the hell. We all have weaknesses...  GARDEN  11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

2. I don't know the user so I'll abstain until I take a better look at the contribs but if this fails on the sole ground of the answer to Q5 then I'll have lost the little bit of faith I still had in RfA. Chamal N has expressed no interest in the delicate area of image copyright and while his answer to Q5 may be incorrect, it's not scandalously clueless. I suspect many admins would come up short but I don't see anyone suggesting we desysop them. Current opposers should read this week's Signpost and the debate around the growing insularity of the wiki community... You want perfect admins? Well you'll have nobody left. The "I won't compromise on a candidate's grasp of copyrights" is just grandstanding. There's no evidence that Chamal N doesn't care or doesn't understand the fundamentals. Ok, he's missing a grasp of finer details, that's why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, Wikipedia:Copyright problems and a number of competent admins dedicated to the more subtle cases. Will denying Chamal N's adminship have any effect on the endemic problems of image copyrights? No, but you sure sound like a cool defender of the wiki if you pretend so. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I'm just wondering how many of those pointed almost-attacks are directed at me. He's not lacking a "grasp of finer details" - he completely misunderstands it. How is "he owns the copyright because the subject was his grandfather" a problem of finer details? Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I don't consider that criticism as an attack but yes, it is most definitely directed at you and at the two editors that followed your lead. As irritating as I found the old Kmweber and DougsTech serial opposes, they had the advantage of not being taken seriously. Your rationale here is not as absurd of course but it's apparently contagious. As Newyorkbrad noted above, the fine points of US copyright law are no prerequisite for the job and, as many above have tried to point out, it's pretty disingenuous to summarize the Q5 answer as "he owns the copyright because the subject was his grandfather". Chamal N said "it is very possible that he owns the copyright of the image" and then explained how he might try and get more info. I still invite you to consider this thought experiment: send Q5 to all current admins and desysop anyone who says that the uploader might actually hold the copyright. Would that be a net positive for the project? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   It isn't a "minor point". Suggesting that because the picture of his grandfather he might own the copyright, even though he most certainly didn't take it, and then saying that "family members might have been there - they might have taken the picture - they might have died - they might have given it to him in the will - so we can AGF that he owns the copyright" is not a minor misunderstanding. I'd have been more happy with "actually this area isn't something I know much about. I'd most likely ask another admin, or..." than I would with that answer. I don't think accusing me of "grandstanding" to "sound like a cool defender of the wiki" can be taken as constructive criticism, particularly when grandstanding isn't my aim. I'm fine with compromise - indeed, see my point above about "I don't know" - but this answer is horribly, horribly incorrect. If it had been a little incorrect I'd probably be in the support column right now, I understand that copyright isn't everyone's thing, but when the answer is this wrong there's no compromise to be found. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   Pointer, btw: when 11 out of 55 users, so 20% of !voters here, think that the answer to Q5 is a problem that prevents them from supporting, it isn't "grandstanding". Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   How do you get to 11? — Sebastian 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   At the time it was seven neutrals and four opposes who had their hands stayed by the answer to Q5. Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   Not all neutrals saw "the answer to Q5 [as] a problem that prevent[ed] them from supporting" - as you must well be aware, since this very thread is in reply to a neutral who explicitly disagreed with you. — Sebastian 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   Who cares. Sebastian, stop stoking the flames. Tan | 39 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral Answer to Q5 isn't enough to make me oppose, but it is enough to push me away from support. Protonk (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Good editor, great contribs, but after reading Q5, I'm afraid I'll have to vote neutral. It's not enough for me to oppose but I can't support a candidate who wishes to work with image copyright yet is unfamiliar with the area. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   I can't see where he said he wanted to work with image copyright issues; could you point me to a link? Shubinator (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral, I want to !vote support, but I can not do so with a clean conscience. His answer to Q5 worries me that he does not possess sufficient knowledge of copyright law. Because he would not be dealing with images during his administrative work, this was not enough to make me oppose. –blurpeace ^(talk) 05:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning support (switched to support), overall seems good, but Q5 is definitely concerning. Admins need to have a good grasp on copyright laws, or at least know where to learn about them. Since you never said you'll be working with image copyrights, though, I'm not as concerned. Do be aware that as an admin you'll be contacted by new editors who have questions. So if something comes up that you're unsure of, either try researching it yourself, or direct them to another person's better knowledge (I've been contacted about difficult copyright questions before, and it helps to know your stuff). JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral for now, pending the answer to ThaddeusB's questions and others. I'm a bit concerned with his answer to question 4, and his discomfort and professed unfamiliarity with the AfD process makes me worried that he might not understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria which I consider very important for an administrator, whether or not he plans on getting involved in AfDs. -- Atama^chat 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   I'm going to stay neutral on this one. I think he has demonstrated that he understands what the inclusion requirements are in his answers, but I don't feel satisfied enough with the answers to support the nomination. Wanting to expand articles that have no available sources is a bad idea because the only possible way to do so is with original research. I read his answer as saying "I understand the policies but don't always follow them". I do understand ignoring policy in the name of common sense, but I disagree that in this matter at least that his judgement is correct. At the same time I don't think this is important enough to oppose him. -- Atama頭 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   About the expansion; that's why I didn't go ahead with it :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral weigh the ups and downs.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Copyright knowledge is extremely important for admins these days. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral The copyright concerns are troubling, but not enough to make me oppose. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 07:22, 23 August 2009 (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.