Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Requests and votes/Miranda

< Commons:Requests and votes
(Redirected from Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Miranda)
 Support = 5;  Oppose = 8;  Neutral = 3 - There is no community consensus to grant sysop tools to Miranda at this moment, so closing as unsuccessful. Patrícia msg 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda

Closing no earlier than 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Links for Miranda: Miranda (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I am nominating Miranda for adminship. Miranda is a trusted user and is often available on IRC, which leads me to think that she has both the capacities and commitment to be a good admin. I am confident many will agree that this is somewhat overdue. Rama 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I accept. I am kind of strict on attributing people for their work. Anyway, thanks for participating in this exercise. Cheers. miranda 20:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support as nominator. Rama 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support good luck. Herr Kriss 21:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Szczepan talk 00:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Shows a little too much ownership for my tastes[1]. Doesn't appear to understand licensing (see her talk page). And has always been unfriendly (on wiki and IRC). Rocket000 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A favor :) Rastrojo (D•ES) 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sorry to say, but you're attitude is really bugging me. I belive you'll make it, but at this time you can try to be more cooperative and not how you were acting against Rocket as an example. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - the attribution stuff bugs me a bit, as do the problems with licencing. That being said, I'm willing to accept that they were honest mistakes, and that the user has since learnt better. However, I don't really feel that lacking a clear reason to oppose is the same as support, so I'll be neutral. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, as much as I dislike doing so, with anyone, least of all a solid contributor like Miranda. Yes, people should give credit where it is due. But I think there's something of a shared understanding, a special transmission outside the scriptures (or the GFDL in this case) that our Commons-specific work -- templates, project pages, and so on -- is pretty much fair game for reuse-by-copypasta by other contributors. As I see it, anything that furthers the goals of the project and makes our contributors' lives easier is a good thing, and being credited for this sort of work is secondary and optional (and there's also a practical issue here: can you imagine how disastrous (say) our licensing templates would look if we insisted on crediting the person to first make the template?). That Miranda actually cared about being attributed as the author of a gentle little talk page "thank you", shows to me that there is way too much ego in the mix. We could really do without administrators with ego issues.
    I would be willing to write this off as a mistake, and support the candidate, since I'm not much into holding people to them. The problem is, as the acceptance comment indicated, Miranda does not see this as a mistake, which is really troubling. I'm sorry. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  A favor The net benefit outweighs any issues. Monobi (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I've been giving this one quite a bit of thought. I see valid points made in both directions. On balance I find Collard's comments mean I have some reservations here. --Herby talk thyme 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regret, I must  Oppose ... Miranda is a very hard working contributor on several projects. But, per Lewis, the ownership issue is a deal breaker for me. It's not realistic to expect attribution for every bit of text or template editing we do that is reused by copying. Sure, credit is nice, it's the thoughtful thing to do, but it's not required, and insisting seems rather un-wiki. (see [[COM:MELLOW}} for why this insistence isn't mellow...) If Miranda rethought this stance and showed evidence of that rethinking over some time, I'd support another try later. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral While I've talked to Miranda a few times in IRC and they seem like a very decent person...well... the Template ownership worries me. Not so much claiming they own GFDL text ("I agree to publish this text on the GNU FDL" is on every edit page"), but running around and tagging every use of the subst'd template as their own. Additionally being less than mellow about it [2]. I've also seen the licensing issues like [3]. That being said. Miranda makes alot of very good contributions, I'm just not sure if they are ready for admin yet. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment To be fair, Rocket was wrong about "attribution can not be required in this way". Actually, the GFDL requires proper attribution to be made. That's what I meant by "special transmission outside of the scriptures" above: the license requires this sort of thing but common community understanding acknowledges that it's often inappropriate, and that our Commons-specific contributions are fair game for re-use by other contributors. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. I think the episode was silly, but not "Oppose" worthy. You do it, you learn. But you know, just in general that added to the concerns. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where does it say that? Even if the GFDL allowed one to impose this restriction, she thinks she can and did license text under CC-BY-SA. Simply putting her name there doesn't fulfill either licenses' requirements. Regardless, I think a couple lines of CSS would be ineligible for copyright. Otherwise, we would have copyvios everywhere. Rocket000 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It's always painful to find a candidate where there's so much to say on both sides. I'm inclined to oppose but AGF will be neutral.--Londoneye 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Cannot trust her judgement. —Dark talk 03:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Addressing to the licensing problem. - I clearly know the licensing of Commons. First, the nomination of one of the Spice Girls images was made in order to disrupt the encyclopedia. The IP had made a deletion rationale with their phone number as the rationale. Second image, taken by possible camera phone and uploaded to flickr. Third, I forgot to put the OTRS ticket on the picture. I apologize for that because I dealt with a bulk of pictures at the same time with OTRS. However, I feel the pros outweigh the cons. For example, I negotiate with people on flickr to change their licenses from copyrighted to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (seen with Julia Allison, Jennifer Hudson, etc.) Thank you. miranda 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are copyrighted. BTW, the ones you pointed out are PD. Rocket000 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Miranda&oldid=33084415"