Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel Case

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


Daniel Case[edit]

Final (40/5/3); Ended 11:56, 05 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk · contribs) - Daniel Case is a great wikipedia editor and excellent candidate for adminship. He is a member of 11 wikiprojects and heavy participant in at least three (Fashion, NY routes, and Historic Places). He was the driving force behind getting four articles to good status (Jacobson v. U.S., New Coke , Anna Wintour, and U.S. Route 9) and makes consistent improvement at The Devil Wears Prada (film), which he is working towards featured status. His talk page is littered with {{UpdatedDYK}} notices from articles that he has created or expanded. He contributes lots of images and thoroughly understands fair use from his contributions to many discussions about the topic.

Daniel is already involved in areas where admin tools would be helpful. He does counter-vandalism, including close to 100 AIV reports (100 edits, so I'm estimating). [1] [2] [3] [4] He is a new page patroller whose work leads to frequent trips to AFD, where he is consistently intelligent and grounded in policy, like his contributions in all XfD discussions.[5] [6] [7] [8] He is already an occasional participant at ANI, where his comments indicate he would use tools judiciously. [9] [10]

On top of all this, he is a prolific editor whose participation has actually been increasing in past months. Wikipedia would benefit from giving this editor a mop.-Chaser - T 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Daniel Case 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: At first, primarily what I see as the basics of admin work: deleting articles, closing debates on the same, and blocking vandals. As I grow more confident in myself, I would move up to other aspects of the job, much as I did as an editor.

I'd also try to clean up the image deletion backlog. It's not much of a secret that I have some differences with the replaceable fair-use policy as it applies to living persons, but that's a rather small part of the whole issue. There are a lot of pictures we have to delete for various reasons that are just sitting there. Daniel Case 04:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Chaser cited the four (so far) GAs I have been developed to that level, all of which I see eventual FA status for as a possibility. I would also direct readers to B-class articles I'm particularly proud of:
  • Slide Mountain (Ulster County, New York): A labor of love that is footnotes and a trail map away from being a GA, IMO. Snowshoe needs to have footnotes as well but is also quite comprehensive.
  • The Devil Wears Prada (film): The most comprehensive article I have created, and the most meticulously sourced. Once I've spun the production history section off into a separate article as per tag and discussion on WT:FILM, that's a GA (the production history might also be worth a nom in and of itself).
  • All of the WP:NYSR articles I've done a lot of work on that have been selected articles for that project: New York State Route 52, New York State Route 208, New York State Route 55, New York State Route 17K and New York State Route 747 (all of which are, unsurprisingly, located around where I live). I would also point to U.S. Route 6 in New York as another fine contribution to that project.
  • Dutch Reformed Church (Newburgh, New York) is the best article I've done for WP:NRHP. It, too, is a little more work fom GA status. I am also proud of what I put into Montgomery Worsted Mills.
  • The Miracle at the Meadowlands was one of those articles where I wound up putting more into it than I thought possible, including researching the original news coverage, and the result is probably the best place to find out about that play on the Internet. I still think it needs a few things, plus more consistent citations, before I take it to GA, but the content is definitely there. It also led to greatly improving fumble and a little bit more in quarterback kneel. I don't do sports a lot, but those I like.
  • Jennifer Fitzgerald remains a stable, NPOV, well-sourced article about a potentially controversial subject.
  • Aside from articles, I'm proud of my work on AFD, which I haven't been doing as much as of late. I also did a lot to get WP:FASHION, a long-overdue and badly-needed project, off the ground — assessing over a thousand unassessed articles during most of this past March. I've been taking a break from that lately, but still do some occasional housekeeping like diffusing the top-level category.

    I also still feel I was right to try to draft some guidelines for when fair-use images cannot be considered replaceable, even if they ultimately didn't draw enough support. I feel we will eventually have to have a page like that as criteria are evolving and precedents are being set.

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: Certainly ... you can't be here this long, do as much editing as I do, and not butt heads. The best way to deal with it is to take a break and calm down. Sleep on it, log off the computer, go edit some other area, log off the Internet and play some violent video game to get your aggravations out. I cannot tell you how many times I did this and, after some reflection, realized the other user had a point or at least somewhere (see most recent example. Usually they're willing to concede some of your point as well, and you can work out a consensus resolution from there. Daniel Case 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question by User:Abu badali
4 Do you consider yourself enoughly well-versed on our policies covering the use of images and of unfree material to be, as an admin, a helpful hand in cleaning the ever increasing backlogs of image deletions?
A:. Yes. There's not much ambiguity, really, with most of the ones to be deleted for replaceable fair use. Looking at what's currently in Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 22 June 2007, I would delete quite a few without hesitation. Even in Category:Replaceable fair use images disputed, there are many that can go right now where the dispute tag doesn't address replaceability. It has actually bothered me, despite my differences with how that criterion is enforced, that so many images are tagged for deletion or possible deletion under it ... and then allowed to linger far past the stated seven days. We don't look like we take that policy seriously, although this has been improving lately.

I admit that some of my past objections to the tighter rule on replaceability have been addressed since I made them ... the image upload page and upload wizard page are now much better at informing new uploaders of the policy. I wish they had been implemented prior to the policy change, but better late than never.

If there are any worries that my difference with FUC 1(a) will play a role in deciding whether to delete such images, I consider myself as bound by policy as any other Wikipedian whether I fully agree with it or not. I have tagged images as replaceable myself, and seen them deleted. I would enforce that policy. Daniel Case 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Daniel Case before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support as nominator.--Chaser - T 05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support His contributions to this project is amazing. It is time to give him the additional tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Went back through the contribution history pretty far and saw a polite user with a satisfactory knowledge of policy. — OcatecirT 08:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I've long noted Daniel Case's many contributions and helpful manner, even though our paths have rarely crossed. The project benefits by giving additional tools to valuable and reasonable editors. Not every admin needs to enforce every rule. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Can't see any problems. User has sufficient experience, and answers to questions show a good understanding of adminship. Waltontalk 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. The candidate makes substantial contributions and has helped get some to GA status. I don't see any potential problems. Majoreditor 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SUpport, don't see any problems either. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, good user, plus we need more image admins. Wizardman 15:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - has been a good contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I also checked his user talk contributions regarding a situation with the deletion review of Masha Allen. He's willing to speak up for what he believes in, even if the discussion gets heated, but he didn't get incivil. That's a good trait for an admin to have. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Good attitude, good experience, good goals. ~EdBoy[c] 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Does great work on articles, knows policies, and is friendly too... what are we waiting for? :) Pinball22 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Elaragirl memorial support. Riana (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Basic answers are great. I see no good reason not to trust Daniel with a few extra buttons. —Anas talk? 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support no problems with this user. Acalamari 22:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Heaps of experience, will definately do well. Good luck :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support' - good user. Great with DYK.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support hard working and polite user. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Terence 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support--MONGO 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Give this user the mop. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 14:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I like the answers to his questions and the user seems polite an hardworking..Give him the vacuum cleaner..hehe..--Cometstyles 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support This is a good user. My support is not as strong as it could be because of the issues that where brought up below, but I still will support him.--†Sir James Paul† 22:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Commons isn't Wikipedia, as Vishwin60 often points out on Commons, so it's kind of ironic he'd bring up a non Wikipedia related issue here. So, disregarding that, I see no reason not to support. Majorly (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opposing was talking about the fact that Wikipedia policy/guideline states that upload history must be visible on the Commons copy. Part of this was making sure the Wikipedia (local) copy exactly matches the Commons copy. (→zelzany - fish) 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a big enough problem to oppose. I think he'll be more careful in future. Majorly (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Plenty of reason to support in this RfA. Captain panda 04:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support He seems to be humble, and is smart enough to know that being a admin needs confidence. H irohisatTalk Page 07:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good candidate, trustworthy. Yes. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support My experience has been of positive interactions with this editor. Tyrenius 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per the nominator. Peacent 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. —AldeBaer (c) 19:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I don't know this editor's work first hand, but I like what I have read above. He also seems to know the image rules in some detail. I have not yet been impressed by any of the data found by the Oppose voters. EdJohnston 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. D. Recorder 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strongly support Very good candidate, not a troublemaker. He'd make a great admin.Mitch32 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support more admins needed. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Will make a good admin, nothing in opposes make me reassess this. Davewild 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good 'pedia builder. I note the reaction at AfD but an admin wouldn't block then either as they'd be a participant. Overall much more to be gained here by giving this person the mop.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good candidate. We need more admins. — Omegatron 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. support experienced candidate with some article writing under the belt Jaranda wat's sup 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support seems capable, and hardworking Modernist 20:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak support The diffs adduced by Bryson are rather disquieting inasmuch as, even though they are, it is plain, inconsistent with DC's demeanor as evidenced by his overall contribution history, they demonstrate a tenor and disposition that ought never to characterize even one edit that one might make, even the infrequent appearance of which when one acts qua admin might prove rather disruptive, but I think it can be safely said that there are some things that are in fact altogether aberrative and about the recurrence of which one need not to worry, and I think the incivility here to be one such thing. On the whole, then, in consideration of DC's deliberative nature, reasoned judgment, and good nature, I think it quite clear that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 02:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. A solid candidate. Daniel 06:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose You have done enough edits although they are not good enough --LucasBunchi 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good enough? Huh? Could you give some examples? Without providing any specific examples, or giving some rationale, your comment (remember, RFA isn't a vote) is likely to be disregarded. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite everyone to look at LucasBunchi's 198 edits (spoiler: they are mostly spam welcomes), made over a grand total of 15 days + 4 previously. Majorly (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose although he is currently starting to upload to Commons, he does not do it correctly. There are several crucial information left behind on the Commons copy. Because of this and some FUC controversy, a need for the tools and setting the example hasn't been justified yet. Even worse, admins are supposed to set the example for other users; he sure hasn't set the example for image policies. This stuff is way too recent to ignore without an oppose right now. (→zelzany - fish) 19:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give an example of the problem you cite?--Chaser - T 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. commons:Image:Walden, NY, skyline.jpg, migrated from Image:Walden, NY, skyline.jpg, is exactly the problem I'm talking about. The GNU FDL states that it must have an edit history. (→zelzany - fish) 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it even possible to transwiki a history? I don't think it can be done. Plus, I don't see anything really wrong with that, if that's a violation then nearly every commons move violates that. Wizardman 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However this turns out, I do in any event plan to start moving all free images I've uploaded to the Commons, and start uploading all new free images I create or find there as well ... when I did it recently, I saw that it had become much more user-friendly than it used to be. I didn't know that was possible either, to transfer histories (in any event, most of those have only the original upload). I was using CommonsHelper, which then took a powder midway through the transfers, so I finished it myself uising the {{information}} template. Also, some older images were taken from a prior digital camera of mine and didn't survive a hard-drive crash in summer 2005 in their original forms, so I didn't have the original file to upload. That could explain the missing histories (Vish, if you'd like to explain to me better how to do this, please leave me a note. I certainly want to do it right). Daniel Case 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: I figured out what you were talking about (the revision history) and moved them to the appropriate Commons pages. Daniel Case 05:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to attribution history, I don't think it matters much where Daniel uploaded the image to Commons himself (with his Commons account). He could have just tagged all those images as {{db-g7}} to get rid of them.--Chaser - T 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated below, I now have another reason to oppose this candidate—the incivility and lack of AGF-ness at times. In that first link—block the nominator? Incivility is not a quality an administrator should have, and these incidents below are too recent to ignore. (→zelzany - fish) 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He struck that part six hours later in his next post to the talk page.--Chaser - T 00:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose - Mainly because I do not believe his answer to number 3 [11], [12]. Two different editors nominate his article for afd, yet it is always a bad faith nom, it does not sound like he stopped to cool down.--Bryson 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll grant you the first diff, though it's only fair to look at it in the context of 23,000 edits. Who hasn't gotten irritated at an AFD for an article they created? As to the second, the full nomination was "Seriously, seriously non notable topic.", which doesn't even try to address the arguments in the first AFD.--Chaser - T 00:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those responses should've been civil at all times. (→zelzany - fish) 00:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but to err is human, and these need to be seen in the context of an editor's total contribution. Tyrenius 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter. Civility is a policy that must be adhered to at all times, no matter in which context it is, be it AFD, RFC, etc. Those incidents are too recent to ignore from the scope of this RFA. (→zelzany - fish) 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Per his terrible reaction at [13] and [14], as stated above. It was too recent. An admin should be capable of maintaining a cool head all of the time. Calling the afd nomination bad faith is unjustifiable. Also, Daniel asked the case to be "speed-closed" and the nominator to be "blocked". This is not how admin powers are to be used. --Abu badali (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The issue raised by the prior two individuals makes me concerned that this individual would use administrative powers in content disputes. In addition to what they mentioned, the second diff contains points that may reflect a lack of awareness that consensus can change. GRBerry 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect these voters' concerns, and I will direct them to my apology to Bushytails for suggesting he be blocked for making the nom. In over a couple of hundred articles I had created (I don't keep count; it's not a game), I had never had an article nominated for deletion before, especially one that was sitting on the Main Page DYK at the time, and I took it a little personally. If we could take back just one edit, I'd take that one back. I really did regret that shortly after making it; I really should have struck it through. So I decided that once that AFD had been closed, I would apologize. As said here recently in regards to another, more blatant instance of past incivility, "it's not so much what you do; it's what you do next".

    I would certainly never take it upon myself to actually block anyone I was involved in a dispute with ... I've read enough RFC's to know that that's the express route to getting desysopped. I have seen enough admins say the same thing, and I have never had any admin I was involved in a difference of opinion with even threaten me with such. That impresses me. It's Admin 101: don't be the one to block if you're involved in the dispute. It doesn't just make you look bad; it makes Wikipedia look bad.

    As for the second AFD, I didn't make the same suggestion, although granted I was not shy about expressing my displeasure with the nom. I'm fully aware consensus can change — we gave ourselves a year to consider recreating Brian Peppers, and it turns out we were ultimately right to delete the article. I have also come to agree with the editors who have argued that Jodi Behan, the star of that video, didn't deserve a separate article at present, and we will shortly be converting that article into a redirect.

    But I felt a few weeks ago, and still do, that the second AFD nom didn't reflect any truly changed consensus other than "a couple of months have passed and this video still has not changed the world" — a rather high threshold that would cost us many articles if broadly applied (and I had purposely waited a couple of weeks after the furor about the video had died down to create the article, to avoid recentism). No real new arguments were advanced for its deletion, I found some evidence of continuing notability and the closing admin recognized the strength of the keep arguments better than the first time around. Daniel Case 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Still, this stuff is way too recent and is unfortunately inexcusable at this point. (→zelzany - fish) 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel, why didn't you mention this case in your answer to question 3 above? --Abu badali (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a) the question is rather broadly worded and doesn't ask for specific instances of conflict, just generally about how you handle it, and b) more importantly, I don't hold grudges (if I did, you and I would not have been working together cordially here). Since most editing disputes I have been in have ended either with one party just dropping it and moving on before it gets to a more serious level, or more frequently with both of us realizing where we can work together and doing so, and has never reached the level of an RfC (and I've never been blocked), I tend to just forgive and/or forget, so no particular editing dispute really stands out in my mind as something long-term. If one of the people involved in either AfD and I crossed paths on another article, I'd assume good faith and wouldn't hold the past against them. In fact, one of the editors I was discussing the proposed Jodi Behan merge with in the talk page linked above was, in fact, one of the editors arguing for deleting the article. Yet I didn't hold it against him there, and we reached a consensus on what to do.

    Also, there's real time and there's Wikipedia time. That AfD was several weeks ago, which at the level of editing I do feels like a millenium. I am just not the sort of person who can hold a grudge that long over something like that. I sometimes wish I were, but I'm not. Daniel Case 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

#Neutral for now. Based on your reply to my question above, and other edits of yours. You seem to see our whole policy on unfree content usage as simply a question of repleceability (which is just the first out of 10 criteria). We have enough admins that misunderstand our policies. --Abu badali (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose. --Abu badali (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral for now. I still have concerns that you will enforce a policy you do not agree with, and indeed stated that you had issues with in Q1 of your RFA. Pedro |  Chat  07:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm leaning towards support here, but am not quite ready to give it fully. I believe the issues stated above with the unfree content can be resolved, but for now, they are enough to keep my support away. Jmlk17 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Although I kind've like this guy, I think he needs to work on the wordage and presentation of his comments. For example, I'm not too big of a fan on sentences that begin with the word "You" [15] since people interpret them personally. Tuxide 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Constructive criticism that I will indeed take to heart. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Daniel Case 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Before this RfA is over, I have decided I should address more fully and clarify my current stance on the fair-use policy. It has evolved since I first got agitated about it last fall.

    Some of the things I was complaining about at the time, like a failure to adequately inform new editors via the upload page and the lack of an organized effort to replace many of the images then being deleted, have been addressed since then (see WP:WPFI, which I will be joining soon, for the latter), although I still believe these things should have been done prior to fully implementing last summer's FUC amendment rather than after.

    I have no real quarrel with deleting fair-use images of places (as long as they are publicly accessible) or objects (provided they are available for photography to a reasonable segment of the public). I do believe, however, that the issues surrounding images of notable living people are more complex than our policy currently admits (they can never be fully libre, only gratis), and that some admins who continue to express hope that we emulate the German or Spanish wikipedias in barring all fair-use images (may I be permitted a refusal to use the self-consciously dysphemistic "non-free" in my personal discourse?) have been construing replaceability as it applies to living people in an overly broad fashion to covertly further that goal. I drafted WP:REFU in an attempt to boldly settle some disputes before they arose; it failed, I see in retrospect, because people on both sides were unwilling to compromise at that time.

    Due to that, and also some difficulties getting administrators at the Commons to recognize that the Anna Wintour picture I found on Flickr was indeed free enough (the original photographer changed the licensing in comments, not at the side of the image), I vented my feelings in a passive-aggressive way, by simply not uploading any but images of old paintings and notable living people that I came across on Flickr (Brittany Murphy, Martha Stewart, Bernadette Peters and more recently Jean-Louis Trintignant, none of which I was actually looking for at the time) to it.

    That changed recently when it was suggested on Talk:New York State Route 52 that all the article's images that weren't there already be moved to the Commons, and I undertook to do so ... and found it much more user-friendly than it had been, as well as now possessing a serious categorization system. As I said above, I will henceforth be uploading all my free images there (I am proud that Moodna Creek, which recently made Main Page DYK, is the first article I have created with all images directly uploaded to Commons originally). I will be making more active use of my Commons account, not only for uploads and transfers but for sorting, in the future now that I see its potential really beginning to be tapped.

    I was angry originally because I care about quality in any article I put together ... I feel we should put as much effort into our images as our text, and that using only minimal-quality images because they were free did free content no favors — the catch line for free images should not be "worth what they cost" but "Wow! I can't believe that's a free image!" (I am proud in that respect that the Brittany Murphy pic I found is heads and shoulders better than the now-deleted fair-use (and heavily underexposed) promo photo it replaced). If we do not want a good fair-use image because it's replaceable, OK. That has been handed down from the mountaintop. But the freeness of a free image that may not be the most representative of a subject we can find should not deter us from continuing to seek a quality free image. We cannot exchange laziness in using free images for laziness in looking for the best possible free image.

    In short, I have gone from bitter pessimism over the replaceability enforcement clause to somewhat guarded optimism that it may not be the end of the world for Wikipedia, and may indeed work out well. For that reason I am comfortable enforcing the policy, even as it is currently applied to images of notable living people.

    I have also been applying other aspects of the FUC, including the lowered-resolution and rationale requirements, to older fair-use uploads of mine (yes, my talk page does get a lot of tagging notices, but I have uploaded so many images that it's often the only way I remember). Daniel Case 18:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Daniel_Case&oldid=1214397477"