Commons:Requests and votes/Geni 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Geni

Vote

I'm a long term commons editor with a bit over 600 and long term en editor and former admin. I have an extensive knowledge of copyright in the areas that wikimedia projects tend to deal with. As a side effect of dealing with images on en for so long I have built up a lot of experience related to spotting copyvios. I also have a fairly good recored of working on admin backlogs I also know my way around the mediawiki namespace so would be about to help with interface maintenance. And perhaps new features if the devs don’t object too much my abusing of their software code.

Loss of en adminship. I know this will come up. Since commons doesn't have the same ideological conflicts as Wikipedia I don't see the issues behind it being a problem on commons.Geni 23:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support - I believe that adminship is more about responsibility and performing tasks more so than power. I think Geni has already gained enough trust that he will do this job effectively. Cary Bass demandez 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Well overdue, experienced Wikimedia user, knowledgable and helpful. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commons doesn't have "the same level of" ... "struggles". Exactly. And I for one would like to keep it that way. I cannot support your candidacy becausae I fear, based on the evidence (including your responses in this very discussion)m that your approach to resolving issues here, when they arise, will make things worse, not better. Note that I elided "admin power" from your phrasing because I don't see the issues en:wp has as chargable solely or even largely to the admins, (BLP for example has as a major participant a person adjudged unsuitable to be an admin based in part on their approach), and to use that phrasing does a disservice to all admins. Adminship is not about power, it is about service. While I am not opposing at this time, every time I come to read here and see new words from you showing no change in your approach, no admission that perhaps others have valid concerns about it, my resolution to not oppose you weakens. I really would like to see some sign that you have changed your approach, or even an admission that there is validity to the concern and that you plan to take it on board and try your best to avoid causing issues. You have not done that, despite multiple chances. I wish you the best, but fear the worst. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see how you can view commons as some pristine garden of eden utopia that having geni as an admin will foul up. There was an edit war on a protected template a month or so ago and geni isn't exactly the first person that has shown that they are willing to use force to make their opinion that has come up for admin on commons, and others have passed. The genie is out of the bottle. Further, it seems that you are saying that geni is not only not suited to be an admin, but should be banned from commons. Surely geni is going to come into conflict enventually and his demenor is such that it will be bloody (in my view of your view).
That is not to say that your concerns are unfounded. I believe geni has conducted himself in ways on enwiki that are to put it kindly, less than ideal. However, in the over two years geni has been involved in commons have you seen him act in ways similar to those that you are concerned about from enwiki? Kotepho 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see commons as pristine white and en:wp as dread black. Like much of life, it's shades of gray, but commons is a lighter shade than en:wp... When I consider things, I try to look at both sides of the issue and try to decide which stance will be a net positive. I also don't think that just because someone is unsuitable for adminship that they ought to be banned, that's a false dichotomy (the logical conclusion would be that everyone not permanently banned ought to be an admin). Not everyone is suited for everything, and the net balance of having Geni around as a regular user is in my view a net positive... As for your last question, I have concerns, and I've articulated them. They may or may not be enough to matter to others. I just hope that if Geni is confirmed, he takes what I and others have said on board. I've seen that happen with other candidacies here and elsewhere and I went on to strongly support the actions of people I originally opposed. I've also seen it not happen. My fear is that in this case, it won't, that nothing will change about Geni's approach, and what we see now is what we get. Will it be the end of Commons as we know it? No. But it will, I fear, become a slightly darker shade of gray, which is on balance why I am not supporting. Hope that clears things up. ++Lar: t/c 10:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I wasn't involved with Wikipedia:Upload. I assume that was based off Commons:Upload.Geni 08:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were, kinda. en:Wikipedia:Upload was based on what I came up with as a proposal and what I came up with was based on your fromowner pages. --BigDT 23:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I asked a number of questions and raised a number of concerns in your last attempt, (nom 2, which was also withdrawn) which I, and presumably others, don't feel were satisfactorily addressed then. I'll repeat them, I still have a concern that you'll act in ways that are contrary to consensus and then engage in tendentious discussion rather than admitting that you erred, and that you will still do things like unprotect pages in contravention of WP:OFFICE. What has changed? It's been 3 months more or less so maybe you have a new outlook. If I'm convinced I won't oppose but I still have the same grave concerns I did before, so please address them, if you would. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarrify what your questions are?Geni 14:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. They're the same ones I asked before. You in the last nom's discussion said that you accepted the ArbCom ruling which resulted in your wp:en deadminship, and I'm assuming that's still true, but I wasn't too pleased by the level of what some might characterise as wikilawyering in some of the other statements about that, the questions I asked admitted of yes/no answers. Also you did not satisfactorily explain why you were reverting WP:OFFICE actions or whether you'd do so in the future, or why you were edit warring with Kelly over the IP blocking warning matter. I do agree with some of what you said then, that sometimes it's difficult to reach an understanding if the other party is firm, but I just didn't agree with your stance, as it WAS reasonable to warn editors about the ramifications of a bad block to US Congress IP ranges. A new question, what do you think of the Lolicon controversy? Was Jimbo in the right to just delete some of the Wikipetan images without going through the process? What else do you think about the matter? It's been a source of some contention. Finally, I was a bit offput by "I have a slightly unforetunet habit of reflecting the atitude and approach of who ever I happen to be dealing with" which was your answer to pfctdayelise... do you still feel that is the case, or are you prepared to try to go the extra mile if you are dealing with someone contentious by taking a softer, more collegial tone, even if the other person isn't, even if the issue itself is contentious? Commons is a much more harmonious place, all in all, than en, and I'd like to see it stay that way. If you say you've changed your approach, and intend to avoid raising the temperature of controversial subject discussions, I'm prepared to give my support. ++Lar: t/c 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: What's going on here ?? It looks like you are reverting to a version in the face of a large number of respected editors saying that you are not correct. Do you think that you are reverting against consensus there? Is that an effective approach for deciding policy matters? We have somewhat contentious policy matters here as well (for example there seems to be a bit of a revert war ongoing about our deadminship policy)... ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want yes no answers or something close to them you are going to have to clarrify your questions further. Still sticking to the ones that are fairly clear:
A new question, what do you think of the Lolicon controversy? Has elements of moral panic. Was Jimbo in the right to just delete some of the Wikipetan images without going through the process? No. What else do you think about the matter? We need to figure out how National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications applies to moe anthropomorphism images released under a free license.
Do you still feel that is the case, or are you prepared to try to go the extra mile if you are dealing with someone contentious by taking a softer, more collegial tone, even if the other person isn't, even if the issue itself is contentious? It would depend on the editor. Not biting new editors is extremely important.
as to the Be bold case:
Do you think that you are reverting against consensus there? No
Is that an effective approach for deciding policy matters? No but again not much else I can do if the only argument I get boils down to “I’m right” of course we now make progress with people starting to accept I am correct about the pages historical wording.Geni 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are sparring about details, which is exactly what I don't want to do. The crux of the matter for me is this, Geni... do you think you've changed your approach to participating, to editing, to admining, in any significant way, since your last failed nomination here? If you have done so, please articulate that clearly. I am fully prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and support you if you feel you have changed to be more collegial and more consensus driven. But if you reply in the same vein as you have so far, I will be left no choice but to oppose. I want to keep this place as peaceful and drama free as possible. (note... see what Fred J said, it's very important. Community spirit IS very important here, don't you agree?) ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
participating? yes editing? to an extent (more refs) Admining? Well I've only been an admin on Wikispecies and little has changed there at least. From what I've seen the role of admin on en is too different from the role on commons for dirrect comparisons to be made. Backlogs are still backlogs but beyond that things are very different. Consensus driven? As far as policy allows. Watching Community spirit die on one project is enough. Why would I want to see that elsewhere?
If you don't like the form of my answers perhaps you should think about how you are asking the questions.Geni 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I think I asked them quite gently, thoughtfully, and carefully. I was hoping you'd demonstrate a new, softer and more thoughtful approach in how you answered them. You did not. Instead, you chose to be confrontational. I won't oppose but I have very strong doubts that you will be successful here if you cannot mitigate that tendency. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not appointed with 11 supports, 4 oppositions, and 1 neutral vote.--Jusjih 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Geni_3&oldid=33060122"