Commons talk:Requests and votes/Archive 1

(New noms at top or bottom?)

There is no mention on this page whether new nominations should go at the top or the bottom - I chose the top, Nickshanks has chosen the bottom. To avoid confusion, I feel that a simple "Please place new nominations at the x of this section" would be good. Before I do it (and move either my or Nick's RFA to a new place on the page) does anyone have any preference for top or bottom? Thryduulf 13:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on my experience, English Wikipedia and English Wiktionary usually, if not always, have new candidates at the top.--Jusjih 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Completion?

What is the usual period between a nomination being made and a result being drawn?  Thanks, David Kernow 12:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

According to COM:A, 7 days. (So we have at least one admin in waiting.) I think if a bureaucrat thinks they only have a lack of votes due to lack of attention to this page, they can wait a bit longer at their discretion. And for bot votes, we have no policy on whether it's the same or a longer time or what. But you can prod a b'crat to promote someone in waiting. (Considering we just got another three, they're pretty slack. ;)) pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

COM:A – thanks. Here's hoping none of those approved lose their colons. Regards, David Kernow 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism

Quote: *  Oppose -- I don't see the immediate need for more German native Commons users. I'm sure Anathema would be a good admin though. / Fred Chess 09:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's new to me that it's important from where a person comes. I ever thought, Wikipedia/media is an international project. And I also think, it's not important how much "german", "english", "french", "russian" or what ever native a person is. And we ever need an good Admin. Kenwilliams 10:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. — Richie 13:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In Fred's defence, I think he dropped a "speaker", ie German speakers. There is certainly very good representation of German speaking admins here now, second best to English. (see Commons:List of administrators by language) FWIW, I am extra happy to see admin candidates who speak little-spoken (at the Commons) languages, but I'm just plain happy to see any candidates. Especially since I feel most admins still would not consider Commons their "primary" project and thus spend more attention elsewhere. (So while it seems we are quite well-staffed, admins on average probably pay less attention here.) And that is OK; it is not necessary that you devote your life to Commons in order to become an admin here. It just means that a higher-than-normal proportion of admins would be appropriate here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion every user should be possible to become an admin, woh's a good and active member. It's right, more native speakers of minor languages (minor at the wikipedia!) would be good. But this has nothing to do with the whole project. Kenwilliams 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with this complaint, a candidate should qualify only by his personal work/contribution to Wikipedia (or the Commons in special) but should never be disqualified just because of the language he/she speaks. With this opinion a user should not vote at all and keep this opinion hidden. If we start to introduce this kind of behaviour then we would have lots of neutral or negative votes because he/sheak speak english, italian or whatever. See also his neutral vote on my Admin candidate voting. My comment is not intended to be a personal attack on Fred but this behaviour is unacceptable. --Denniss 09:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I was reluctant to support these candidates is because I don't see what useful they would contribute... someone with a little-spoken language is useful just by that, while for English and German, I'd like the candidates to actually want to contribute something. There is a backlog both at Category:Unknown and at the speedy deletion stuff. Sure, the policies are complicated and seem like they change every day, but there must be something people can do, or at least ask someone on how to proceed.

To vote support of everyone who is nice will IMO just lead to more admins, more need for beaurocracy, greater likehood of mistakes (many languages and cultures involved), for which I see no need if it can be avoided...

Fred Chess 07:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullets vs. numbers

I believe that we've been using bullets here rather than numbered lists, but the last few noms used numbers. I changed them back to bullets. Revert me if that's a problem. (it may be because we had no active nom to copy from when one started...) But I think bullets make more sense, we mix support/oppose/comments together in one stream, numbers don't count anything other than how many people said something, you still have to count by hand anyway. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. I endorse it. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But we shouldn't mix :( Ans we shouldn't mix discussion with votes, no one can read that mess. This structure should be part of the template: [1], [2], [3] (maybe put discussion first). -Samulili 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

If actually there will be three new checkuser electet, the other inactive checkuser must lose this function. Checkuser isn't something to play what so much people should have in the hands. More than four or five user with this tool are inacceptabel. Marcus Cyron 13:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No question - there are discussions around about dealing with this (Commons_talk:Administrators#Inactivity). In practice meta will remove CU rights from inactive users after a year anyway. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not taking into account the activity, I do not agree with this. More Checkusers will prevent the creation of a "checkuser cabal". About 8 people will only increase the mutual checking each other. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarify - mine was "no question to removal due to inactivity" not a comment on the number of CU. In this cross checking is good and should also result in a balanced view of what can be unclear "results". If you look at meta you will see that wikis that are much smaller (as far as I know) have at least as many CU. To me 6 active CUs would be fine here --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely... more is better, especially due to the sensitive nature of using the tool. If blocks are made, it's good to have others who can see the logs (being able to see the logs is often just as important as actually using the tool). We don't want to discuss the details of a checkuser result in public, so having others with the tool allows them to check and "see what the other saw", which is how we (I'm CU elsewhere) check on each other in case there's a problem. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More is better? NO! There scholdn't be so much people who can see such sensitive dates. Marcus Cyron 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a tool that every admin should get. However, it is a tool that requires mutual checks, one checkuser must be able to check the other. And I think that a group of 4 active checkusers is more capable of that than only 2. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot status

Hello, I reverted the latest edit Vishwin60 made to this page. It's a very good idea to restructure all bot related pages on Commons, however, "Request for approval" might not be the correct name. We don't have an approval process here on Commons: the practice has been to allow bots to be run without any approval. The request section on this page is a request for bot flag, which is in fact a request of trust of the community. Bots with the bot flag don't show up in RecentChanges, and we trust their operators with this. So maybe another name is a better option? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ps. If I am terribly wrong, feel free to revert me) -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, we can word it differently. Perhaps a move and rewording might help? (The original change was just me being bold)  V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for tools

I failed my adminship request a few days ago (the nomin is here for the interested). This post is not about demanding "justice" in any way however. It is about more fundamental issues.

I believe that it is extremely pointless to oppose someone's adminship because you think that user does not need the tools too much. Adminship doesn't cost the Wikimedia foundation anything, any user trusted enough to not abuse them and who does good work should get them I believe, and that will help move the project forward. Comments?

See also the relevant Wikipedia discussion where people arrive at the same conclusion I believe. Oleg Alexandrov 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am starting a rewrite of the whole Adminship rationale at present which will revise some of the "requirements" of adminship and other issues. However - for me personally - a criteria is "Does the user show a need for the tools?". If so that is a strong reason for giving them, however if not I would probably not be inclined to vote for someone. Remember this is my opinion (& my draft will be edited quite a bit I hope) but equally Commons is not Wikipedia and hopefully will never be like it. I'd hope to have a reasonable draft within a week and it will be advertised to all - I hope you will look at it and be involved --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is not a merit badge or flag to be collected. Those asked to support should have reason to believe that if the person seeking adminship is granted that right, they will act to help out when they can (we're all volunteers, we all do what we can when we can) and not make things worse... so if someone seemed to be collecting badges, I'd oppose. But I don't think a big long list of why the tools are needed is necessary or appropriate, because, after all, adminship is also supposed to be no big deal. I support when I think the person gets it, and isn't likely to cause problems, and is likely to volunteer and help out when they can, not because of pressing need. So I would have supported your candidacy, encourage you to stand again, and agree with Herby, and with you... More or less, and a bit more longwindedly. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: I prefer if people who have use of it get it. In that way we can ensure that the admin community will be active. Such admins can then delete Oleg's occasional incorrectly named image. I think it is better to have it that way than to grant adminship to people that only wants to fix their own occasional mistake, or we might stand here with massive backlogs (again). / Fred J 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is only a general rule of thumb... exceptions are possible. / Fred J 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting I think granting adminship to more people will make admins overall work less. I can't see why. There are people who primarily edit and do some admin work, others who primarily do admin work, and even the same person can go through both phases at different times. That can't be controlled by limiting who gets the tools. Oleg Alexandrov 02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree with that too! Someone that wants the bit just to make their own life easier, rarely and occasionally, when they aren't really a massive contributor, (making life easier for massive contributors seems valid to me though) probably shouldn't get it. But that means deciding that the person isn't likely to grow into more than that, ever. That seems a hard call to predict in advance, but a fair point nevertheless. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs) I'm afraid I must entirely disagree with most of you. I, for example, don't use the tools much (almost not at all this time of year, as farming takes precedence), but once in a while I'll go through the deletion categories, look at the photos that interest my mood, and then summarily delete them if they're against policy :). IMO the only real requirements for giving the tools is that the person can be trusted not to abuse them, and has a love for the project. 20 admins performing 10 admin actions per week gets the job done just as well as one admin doing 200, and in some sense even better, since if one of them takes a week off, it's not interrupting progress to the same degree. We're talking about a user access level here... all it is is giving a few other buttons to folks who we're pretty sure won't abuse them, and who hopefully will lend a hand here and there to take the pressure off the, um, wikiaddicts ;). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Without fully having read all the comments: For me the most important criteria is that an admin is part of the community, and has positive interaction with its members. Adminship is not a medal on your work for Commons, but rather a sign of trust of the community. By supporting somebody's adminship, I trust the user to think well before using the tools. This can for me only be judged by previous interactions with the community. I have not voted in your case, I believe, but based on this I could not support you. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If „community“ means those 20 or 30 people who vote regularly, you are right. If „community“ means „all the people who could vote here“, you are wrong. I won’t mention an example, but dealing with two requests for deletion (similar reason, e.g. some templates …) illustrates this problem: One is deleted, arguments are possible, people stay polite, whenever they are not happy about losing pictures who cover especially their project’s needs. The next one (same reason for deletion) will never get deleted, because of dozens of aggressive voters and agitation on their home project. They attack you and whenever you try to do a good job and are a reasonable person, they will vote you down if you run for admin office. Our community is sometimes really destructive, the only thing people want here is a colorful picture for their article. No matter how. If you have objections, you are considered as an enemy. --Polarlys 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

By interaction with the community, I mean the community as a whole. Before I vote for an candidate, I generally first look at the user's contributions in the Commons and User_talk namespace. And staying polite when people shout at should, up until a certain limit, should be a requirement for adminship. So if I see a message on a candidate's talk page who is called a fascist censor, and the user responds politely and explains why the image should be deleted, that will make a good admin. Shouting back will make a bad admin. And if an admin candidate has no or few contributions in the User talk or Commons namespace, I cannot judge thatm and cannot support the candidate. Please note that I am not implying that being called a fascist is a requirement for adminship ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that last bit up, Bryan! What about being called a communist? :) More seriously, having a gentle touch and not tending to be overly contentious really helps a lot, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, I agree with you completely... I personally ignore the RFAs unless someone I feel comfortable about is asking for the tools, and lets me know that they're doing so. And in Oleg's particular case, if I was asked to chip in, I would have been "neutral leaning towards oppose". I just don't think we need to set the bar so that only those users who are "looking for something to do" can qualify. Most wikimedia users just do what they can, when they feel like doing it, and the tools shouldn't be seen as an award. They're just tools, and the only difference between those who have them and those who don't is a willingness to ask for them and the trust of the community.

Note to Polarys: that's not my experience on commons at all! --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out COM:DEL, especially the old ones with a lot “This is no voting!” comments. ;-) --Polarlys 00:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So here's the deal, the tools should be given liberally, anybody who has shown that he/she is civil and won't abuse them should get them. The argument that more unmotivated people getting the tools will make overall people work less and backlog increase is just ridiculous. Oleg Alexandrov 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And no, the tools are not a prize. If an editor tells you the tools are needed in work, why assume that he/she wants to brag about getting them? Again, experience and trust is what counts, one should not make the tools be a big deal. Oleg Alexandrov 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (→zelzany - framed) 03:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia

I have seen a few times people opposing an adminship nomination because "Commons is not Wikipedia". I would argue that that's a silly reason to oppose.

To start, of course Commons is different from Wikipedia.

• Commons media are not associated with any articles.
• Commons accepts only free images.
• There are other differences in media policy I may have missed.

But is that a good enough reason to oppose? I don't think so. I believe any user who has shown civility, good judgment, and has good experience either on Commons or a sister project should have an easier time getting the tools (say after showing that he/she understands sufficiently the differences in policy on images, etc).

After all, the basics are the same on all projects. An admin should be civil and not use the tools without proper care. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov 15:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd says voting for because of Wikipedia is a bad reason. As you say, things like licenses and free images are really important here, while it's harder to push your PV. Also, there can be lots, of policy differences, because you can come from lots of different Wikipedias. Some good admins elsewere are not good admins here. And some good admins here may not be good admins elsewere ;-)

That said, being an admin elsewere probably means that you won't start goatsing Featured Pictures, but it doesn't mean you deserve automatic sysopping. It's a bonus to your wikipedian CV.

Seeing your adminship nomination, you didn't failed for 'Commons is not wikipedia', but because you don't do admin work (which is also a reason to vote against on wikipedia).

Platonides 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The emphasis of RFA on Commons is dedicated to activities on Commons, which is usually not transferable. I've seen way too many ill-advised RFAs which involve the nominator/candidate just pointing out activities on their home wiki, which in itself is unacceptable. Add the fact that the candidate has not participated in admin-crucial pages (Commons namespace) with votes from their home wiki just to support the candidate makes a good reason to oppose. Activities on sister projects except Meta only count as much as the thickness of a fingernail, where Meta has a bit more weight to it because it coordinates the various projects. (→O - RLY?) 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for automatic sysopping for people from other projects. Of course you need to be around for a while, etc. However, it does not make any sense to me experience in other projects does not count. Wikipedia and Commons are sister projects, there's a huge amount of overlap, and the differences are minor (yes, I mean it).

Besides, what's a good administrator? Somebody who has shown at some other wikis that he/she has good judgment won't do stupid things here either. And it doesn't take that long to learn the differences in policy on media.

All in all, people are making adminship a much bigger deal than what it really is (granted, Wikipedia is guilty of that too). Decreasing the aura around adminship and the expectations for it, could make more people get the tools which will benefit the project. Oleg Alexandrov 03:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As with so many things it is a balance to me. Sure, ability to use the tools sensibly is good, however no two Wikis are the same for users or admins (I know I have the rights in more than one place) so a knowledge of Commons and an ability to fit in here would be way over 50% of my decision I guess.

Now on a purely personal note - some en wp users and admins see the world revolving around Wikipedia and are reluctant to accept that much else of interest happens elsewhere in the foundation - I find that regrettable (as well as completely untrue) and would look hard for evidence of that approach in a prospective admin.

To me the simple answer is that there is no simple answer - I have relatively little licensing knowledge, I have quite a high deletion & block count - that makes me no better or worse than many other admins and I see myself as part of a team and have great respect for the work of a lot of hardworking admins here. In the end are folk willing to work here with other people - if so great, if they have experience elsewhere (and certainly not just on en wp) it may well be a factor - just my 0.02 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What Herby said. What you do at other wikis is a factor to be considered. It should neither be a "free pass" to adminship, nor a bar blocking the way... just a factor. Certainly evidence of responsible behaviour ought to be looked on favourably, and evidence of irresponsible behaviour ought to be looked on unfavourably, though. I think most people agree with this, so what do we do with it? write it into the guidelines? leave it? Point back here next time this comes up? :) ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please no voting guidelines. That will only lead to stuff like OMG! Your vote violated point E1.1.4 and S4.6.7 of the voting guidelines and should not be considered! -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

With Bryan - the less rules and guidelines there are the less I break! (& he is right, not needed) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't want instruction creep. As we don't want people making adminship into a big deal. Oleg Alexandrov 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, adminship should not be too much a big deal, but neither should it be lightly taken. Admin actions on Commons influence over 700 Wikimedia wikis. We should not forget that. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of staggering when phrased like that... however, that illustrates the need for trustworthy individuals, just as much (if not moreso) as a lock-tight knowledge of copyright law (my relevant point being that someone who is an admin elsewhere has established a certain level of trust). If Commons were set up with a sole admin presiding over everything, yes, the hypothetical über-admin would need to know everything. But since we're a team, those with a higher strength in one field can concentrate on just that, while others can concentrate on their respective strengths. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• can't be bothered to count that many ":"

I agree with EVula on the team aspect of this. I am not a copyright expert but there are many around - I may have some knowledge of spam and as my block log across wiki is over the 1000 I guess I've met some vandals (maybe more than a few wiki admins). The issue then is do folk fit in the team? There are some wiki admins I have quite a bit of respect for (there are probably even more on Commons I could say that about) however the culture there is very different to here (if it weren't I would not be here). So - trust, ability to use the tools, cross wiki experience for sure but not just en wp (there are other projects out there) and can someone be part of the team - those would be my considerations. And sure "admin is no big deal" - therefore being an en wp admin is no big deal or indeed any greater influence than other factors for me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also something I would like to add is that Commons is in no way comparable to other wikis, it is multilingual, but much larger than meta; its size is comparable with that of the German Wikipedia, which is not multilingual. It is not that I don't trust admins from other wikis, and while it is a good indication of somebody's trustworthiness, it does not say anything on how much the user understand from Commons' processes itself. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that last part, but I consider it a non-issue since there's a minimum requirement of 200 edits before an attempt at being an admin here can be entertained; in theory, those 200 edits will serve to acclimate an editor to Commons' unique community and structure. Of course, I'm not exactly a neutral party; I'm an en.wiki admin who was just recently made an admin here, so perhaps I'm too close to the topic to correctly judge it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)