Open main menu

Contents

Nominees for administratorsEdit

When it comes to voting for administrators, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who declare "Just need to clean up after myself sometimes". Commons need administrators who are prepared to clean up after others, who wants to do the tedious work at Commons:Deletion requests and who are prepared to spend an hour or two checking the uploads of a problem user. My 2 cents/pence/pfenning. Thuresson 01:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical attitude. Not only is it not part of the policy on admins, it also shuts out the possibility that an active user will lift a finger to clean up a mess somewhere, and it encourages future admin applicants to lie - "oh yes, I sincerely want to clean up lots of other people's messes!". Stan Shebs 18:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In elections, I never vote for candidates who refuse to say what they will do for me or for the wider community and if all a candidate has to say is that he or she wants to be elected for his/her own benefit, I see no reason for me to support that. If their election promise is "Just need to clean up after myself sometimes" then I'm not convinced. Thuresson 19:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I came here from the message of Stan on the village pump. I don't think this has anything to do with policy, anyone can oppose or support someone for whatever reason they feel like. I can understand the arguments from both sides here, and IMHO it's all about the question: Why is a person an administrator here? Because it's "no big deal", and everyone who's trusted (e.g. anyone who's already an admin on other projects), or because he seriously wants to help this project by investing a hour a day or so here, doing cleanup work and other maintenance tasks? I don't think this can be answered, it's just a thing of personal opinion. I think adminship should be at least a small deal here, because commons is all about images and media, and you can't undelete them, unlike normal articles. Just my two cents. --Conti| 19:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure, if I think the Swedes are bad people, and vote against an admin candidate because he's Swedish, I can do that and can even announce it as my reason - but at the same time I don't think you'll have many people wanting to count that as part of the "consensus" about someone's suitability, because it has nothing to do any of the stated criteria. There's a good reason why the adminship criteria don't say anything about what one intends to do with it; how would you evaluate an admin's performance? Are you going to de-admin people for not following through on their "election promises"? "You only deleted 10 images last week, and the history timestamps showed you only spent 20 minutes doing it, not a full hour!" Thuresson is basically telling candidates they just have to say what he wants to hear, not unlike RL elections I suppose, but I would hope we're a little more clever about it here. Stan Shebs 20:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal" and is supposed to be open to anyone unless there are good reasons why NOT to give it to them. I disagree strongly with the opinion that adminship should be restricted to those who have the time to put in significant custodial work. Admin powers, in my opinion, fall into the class of "In a perfect world, all editors would have these". Morven 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a follow-on question, Thuresson: are you saying you will simply not vote for someone who doesn't say they'll work for the community, or are you saying you will vote against them. I have much less problem with the first than the second. Morven 20:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have made myself perfectly clear. I'm opposed to self-nominees who want to become administrators only because they're still making mistakes with their uploads and I'm interested to hear why they should be given the authority to block other users or delete images. If somebody has too little spare time, then maybe they shouldn't waste it here? Thuresson 21:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have a skewed view of how a wiki works. Anything I am doing on this wiki that makes it better is for the good of everyone. Are you saying that you have never made a mistake uploading a file, or creating an article? If it's a matter of trust or you just plain don't like me, I can understand. But what I don't understand is how you think that it's better that I don't make an improvement at all if it "only benefits me" (as if I'm getting paid for what I do). Any improvement is good, no matter where it comes from or why it was done, that's how the wiki works. Being an admin is no reward or status symbol, it's just an extra tool in getting work done, and it's not like there is a limit as to how many admins there could be. Dori | Talk 22:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to have such a thing as admin status - we would be able to trust every user to only delete the right things, etc. Empirically though, we find that not everybody can be trusted not to act hastily or in ignorance, and so we just need a way to filter out newbies and trolls. Psychologically, admin status, as minor as it is, does increase a user's sense of ownership and responsibility - before I was an admin in en:, if I saw a speedy-delete article, I let it go by with the attitude that it was some admin's problem, but as an admin I would stop and go through the steps to check that it could be speedied, and did the deletion. Stan Shebs 23:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to say that I am very concerned about the suggestion that sysop status is anything particularly special. I myself had about 50 edits when I was made a sysop - not a great deal. The point is that we sysops are here to help when and where needed. We are not some privileged élite, masters of all that we survey, but, instead, the servants of the community. If someone notes that they wish to be responsible and help shoulder the burden, even if in only a small way, we should not say "no" to them unless we have a very great reason to do so.
James F. (talk) 00:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Thuresson that administrator should not clean up after himself/herself only but also overlook recent changes, particular area of interests/expertise. Is this point should be must or will be great if in granting administrator privileges decision? I don’t know... --EugeneZelenko 01:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the whole discussion does not make much sense. I know people who present themselves as "gurus" and if you take a look at their work a few months later you might be disapointed. Who can tell what will be in a half of year, in a year? I know other people who do not talk much about themselves. What candidates write here are "just words".
Everybody can and should "grow" and we should expect from everybody that his / her contributions will help to bring this project one step further. Regards Gangleri | Th | T 18:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear. (in other words: strongly agreed). We cannot tell how great an admin someone will make just from what they write here. All that Thuresson and similar-minded people will end up doing is making candidates recite some meaningless, rote pledge of service in order to get admin-hood. I think one of the main parts of the Wiki Way is assuming the best, having faith that if you let people, they will, by and large, go off and do great things.
It feels like an attempt to bully people into doing cleanup work; but I find encouragement is better than bullying. Morven 23:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Ok, first of all: judge people by what they do, not what they say (or don't say). Have a look at their contributions, the discussions they too part in, the images they uploaded, the mistakes they made and how they reacted when told about it. If this makes you feel you can trust this user, vote for him. Secondly: being an admin is about cleanup work. It's not that you must clean up when you are an admin - it's that ther's no point in being an admin if you don't clean up. Keep that in mind when nomination someone, especially yourself. -- Duesentrieb 23:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll about minimal criterions for admin requestsEdit

This poll is now closed villy 09:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Today, in order to get the admin status you have to :

  • be an editor in the Wikimedia projects for at least 2 months and to understand and agree with the goals of the project;
  • have a user page on the Commons and be a contributor here;
  • follow relevant policies and respect consensus of the Commons' users;

and

  • There is a consensus amongst users here that you would be a suitable administrator. or a general agreement as it is stated afterwards.

Being a bureaucrat here, and basically the only active one, I'd like to modify this last criterion in order to be more specific and less vague. I recommend to adopt the criterion in use on meta : sysophood will be granted by a majority of at least 75%. Plus, a minimum of 4 votes should be imposed, 4 full votes allowing the straight ratio 75 %. Then, I'd like to check a minimum of commitment to Commons itself and, again, to take from meta the following rule : being, or having been some time ago, an active contributor on Commons, i.e more than 100 contributions.

So that I suggest to add those criterions :

En

  • Sysophood will be granted by a majority of at least 75%
  • Minimum of 4 votes
  • Minimum of 100 contributions on Commons

Fr

  • Le statut d'admin est conféré à une majorité de 75 %
  • Minimum de 4 voix
  • Minimum de 100 contributions sur Commons

Nl

  • Het admin-statuut wordt toegekend bij een meerderheid van minstens 75%
  • Minstens 4 stemmen
  • Minstens 100 toevoegingen aan Commons

Zh

  • 至少有75%的票為贊成票
  • 至少有4人參加投票
  • 候選人在共享資源的貢獻達到100次

Sl

  • Administrator je izvoljen z vsaj 75% glasov
  • Najmanj 4 glasovi
  • Najmanj 100 prispevanj k Skladišču (Commons).

Thanks to express your viewpoint below from 20:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC) to 00:00, 10 June 2005 (UTC).

villy 19:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

YesEdit

  1. villy 20:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Firefox 20:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (But I'd rather the majority was higher - 80%, 90%.)
  4. Richie 08:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mormegil 08:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Paddy 10:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oldak Quill 12:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jhs 13:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. Yann 14:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. Anthere
  11. Morven 16:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (Can we clarify: 100 media file contributions or 100 textual edits? I'd support either way.)
  12. WεFt 18:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Gbiten 18:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. notafish }<';> 01:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  15. Seems reasonable, maybe more contributions?? muriel@pt 09:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  16. Patrick-br msg 12:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. Aoineko 13:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  18. Dbenbenn 23:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC). 100 media file contributions might be even better.
  19. ran English talk|中文對話 18:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  20. Decumanus 05:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. Eleassar777 07:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC) The number of contributions should be higher. Textual edits should be worth the same as media file contributions.
  22. As JamesF - I'd prefer a greater percent of support votes. 100 media files is far too high a threshold; all edits should count the same. — Dan | Talk 20:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  23. Chun-hian 07:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Paulo Juntas 20:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  25. EugeneZelenko 21:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Jon Harald Søby 19:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. WernerHerdecke 22:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Aphaia 02:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Or 100 edits including upload would be better.
  29. 84.173.97.86 12:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • I question the number because i have way more than 100 and i am not a frequent contributor. muriel@pt 09:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Meta has also a set of rules for desysoping. And I think it is fine and fair - "if you need it [=sysopship], get it, keep it, if the community trust you. Lost it, if you aren't trusted, throw it back, if you don't need it (sorry, my memory is always LOOSE)". Shortly in case either the community loses trust for you or you become inactive, you will lose sysopship. Would it better to introduce such rules too? --Aphaia 02:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The change to require 100 edits will have virtually no effect. Of 65 current admins, only 1 has less than 100 edits. Dbenbenn 02:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NoEdit

Request for de-admining...Edit

I note that someone has started a request for de-adminship on a user. It's a very worrying way of going about things, using an ad-hoc procedure nobody has discussed or mentioned before to request that someone is deadmined. Also, had there been something akin to somekind of RFC so we can see what the community at large thinks? One would seem neccessary to me before such rash action is taken. -- Joolz 21:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some kind of discussion should be made before some wayward admin starts deleting files that are used far-and-wide across many many many Wiki* projects.
As to your assertion that the Wikipedia policy is the only policy that should be followed, I say shame on you. Wikipedia is degrading into a political mire so fast it is pathetic. This de-admin request came about because of apparently malicious removal of front-page images from http://en.wiktionary.org/ not Wikipedia. We have much more sensible procedures there. So, here, my request for someone's de-admining is just that: A REQUEST FROM THE COMMUNITY. If Wikicommons chooses to ignore the community, then I guess Wiktionary will need a more reliable place to keep its images and audio files.
--Connel MacKenzie 22:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
On reflection, and after being calmed down by others on Wikt:, I sensibly approached the #commons.wikimedia channel yesterday. In a herculean effort to be polite, I rationally discussed my concerns. The conversation(s) migrated to Skype, and consumed MANY hours of my day yesterday. I feel it is reasonable to charge whomever it was that was responsible for wasting my time, for about ten hours yesterday. You see, after all the back-and-forth, I was again ignored, and the image in question AGAIN was deleted.
I had hoped that the "commons" community would realize the error of their approach. To whit, under no circumstance can you ever delete a valid (duplicate) image on commons, given the constraints of the current software.
It was pointed out to me that I was not being a "team" player by mounting an attack. While it is true I could have taken a softer approach, I doubt I would have gotten your attention. No one on the commons even seemed to realize that their activities were destroying front pages of Wiki projects. NOR CARE!
Perhaps if you replaced an image with a very small image, such as a circle with a slash through it, then people from remote projects could at least FIND the link on commons...from there one would be able to see the discussion regarding the deletion of the image. If the replacement image stayed in place for a month or a year, the references could gradually be migrated to whatever commons "thinks" the "correct" image reference should be.
The approach of deleting duplicate images is horrific and MUST BE STOPPED!
--Connel MacKenzie 00:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If we would have used the time of discussion we could have together as a team replaced all the hidden used images many times. This whole dispute is costing far too much time and I try now only to replace all images in the wiktionary templates in the other languages. This approach makes more sense than carrying on to talk about what happened. It happened and I am Sorry. But now we need to make plans how to centralise all the logos. And I would be glad to get some help. Because if a logo will be replaced or modified in future I do not know how we will find all the different versions of it?! --Paddy 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Paddy, that is not true and you know it! We can not possibly fix external references to images! Once a media file's filename has been created, there must remain a static marker of some sort that preserves the link of what used to be there. Currently, WikiMedia software does not provide for any such link! So you, as one of the few chosen stewards of (all the other Wiki* communities) all of our non-text data, need to somehow assure that the content will be there when we look for it.
The notion that all external links can be fixed is absurd. But even with that aside, why is it OK to delete an image, when http://www.juelich.de/avatar/check-usage/check-usage.php?saved=29vY45a7Bj shows that the image is still in wide use all over the place?
If you encounter ONE Wiki* site, anywhere, that has a protected page that you cannot fix, YOU MUST NOT DELETE the image it references. Period.
Even if you can't fnd a reference to it, if you do not have the ability to effect an image redirect, then you SHOULD NOT DELETE valid content.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not talking about you making a minor mistake here or there: I am talking about abolishing the practice of deleting valid content! Do not delete! The delete function is only for copyvio & vandalism!
--Connel MacKenzie 21:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Look it is either still in the cache in wikipedia (avatars tool is not able to solve this) or it has been changed back. I am not responsible for change backs but as far as I can see I done all of them because the links shown there are lilac for me and not blue.
We can not possibly fix external references to images. See if I care about external references if they do not pay. If they reference some image that has been replaced by a better I can not change the world. Yesterday I needed to ensure that Wikipedia projects are alright now I am responsible for the www? No I am not to be frank to you! Wiki* references however we can fix and I will do my best to do so! Even if this means work and a lot of confrontation with people like you, who sadly do not believe in me and the work I am trying to do and that do not work with me but against me and that antagonise me.
Do you mean valid content or valid duplicate content?
If you encounter ONE Wiki* site, anywhere, that has a protected page that you cannot fix, YOU MUST NOT DELETE the image it references. Period. First of all I did not know that check usage dit not tackle the problem. Period. Look tell me if there was a problem and stop Perioding me!
AND PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT OR SAY WHAT TO DO. I can talk to you without F**K or capitalising every word I say. thank you and greetings. --Paddy 01:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Greetings Patrick,
Do you really not understand why I am upset? I think that may be the case. I would *love* to be able to assist you. Especially in Skype, I thought I was very clear that I want to help. But when front page images magically disappear with no apparent trace off a front page, it is very disconcerting. Having spent many hours with you finding some of the links, and knowing, for certain that we did not get them all, I was more than slightly astonished to see the image turn up missing again.
You wish for me to stop saying "PERIOD" and typing in caps and bolding words. Hrmmm. I've gotten complaints from others on en.wikt regarding my hostile tone during this exchange. So it would be absurd for me to try to defend my nonsense. Well, if I do stop doing that, will you please stop deleting images because they are duplicates? Pretty, pretty please? With sugar on top? I want to be able to think of commons.wikimedia.org as a sacrosanct repository, once again.
--Connel MacKenzie 02:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I fully understand! But now let us get this sorted out on Commons:Village pump/Deleting of images finding an agreement for the future is more important then talking about the past. And believe me I want to come to an agreement on this! There seem many different opinions on that and I think only objective discussion with many participants. I am thinking on summerising all the points too so we do not turn in circles with the discussion. --Paddy 14:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

RulesEdit

We have no rules for de-adminning requests. What about taking the same rules as nominations? Remaining for seven days, for votes and comments. Admin status will be removed by a majority of at least 75% and a minimum of 4 votes. In this case, the request should be referred to a bureaucrat such that it can be made to happen.? --Avatar 08:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent and logical. I would strongly support such. - Amgine 17:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems fair, although this should not be the preferred way of dealing with conflicts with admins. An honest attempt at mediation should be required first. -- Duesentrieb 21:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I consider that a mediation should be attempted first before de-adminning someone for very bad conducts. We should consider a written rule.--Jusjih 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Inactive adminsEdit

Enforcing the inactive admins policy, I've asked the stewards to remove sysop rights for :

  • Grunt - no edit since 23 April 2005, 1 edit in the last 12 months
  • Nadavspi - no edit since 20 February 2005, 45 edits in the last 12 months

villy 07:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • User:CryptoDerk has no edit since 7 August 2005, 21 edit in the last 12 months. Removing request done today. villy 22:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about Admin PaddyEdit

User:Paddy has admin rights and is deleting pictures on his own without putting them onto the list on Deletion Requests for discussion.
In details, this effects the images Image:Theodor Eicke 1.jpg and Image:Theodor Eicke 2.jpg. -- Simplicius 09:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Clear copyright violations may be a case for speedy deletion. See Commons:Deletion guidelines. Thuresson 13:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The photos of Theodor Eicke (d. 1943) were uploaded 9 months ago. German copyright distinguishes "Lichtbild" and more creative "Lichtbildwerk". For the first category of photographies there is a period of 50 years due to § 72 Abs. 3 Satz 1 UrhG. This concerns snapshots etc. For this reasons there is no need for a hurry and a speedy deletion but for a deletion request and a discussion.
Achim Raschka from German Wikipedia informs me that "Paddy" is using external pages for derogative comments about my photos, for example here. Paddy is acting completely inadequate as an admin. -- Simplicius 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Quote from de:Bildrechte: Als Lichtbilder galten ursprünglich auch Urlaubsfotos und Pressefotos, weil sie, spontan oder unter Zeitdruck angefertigt, nicht als Schöpfung angesehen wurden, doch fasst die Rechtsprechung diese Fotos zunehmend als Lichtbildwerke auf. (rough translation: originally, snap shots and press photos where considered Lichtbilder, because they are created sponaniously and thus not considered creative work - but courts increasingly tend to consider those Lichtbildwerke). I don't think we can rely on anything to be considered a "simple" Lichtbild (photographic image) today, we have to stick to treating everything das a Lichbildwerk (photographic (art-)work).
Writing about you in his blog is not very nice, but I don't cosider it a serious offense... I'll leave it to others to judge that. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What happend is easy. Anathema deleted the photos in the german article because they are clear ©-vio. I asked two other german commons sysops in the commons IRC-chan if the pictures are a ©-vio. They both agreed. So I deleted the picture on commons. Now what Simplicius tries to do in his impertinent way of handling matters is to try to get us to discuss the matter and this even though the matter has already been discussed on his discussion page. Even histograf agreed with a speedy deletion. I suggest to finish this preposterous discussion. greetings --Paddy 12:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ack Paddy. --AndreasPraefcke 13:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely not a clear violation of copy rights. Not every photography is a so called "Lichtbildwerk", neither every portrait. If the personality of the photographer is not expressing itself in the photos, it is a "Lichtbild", protected for 50 years after origin/publication.
The right place for a discussion is Request for Deletion - before deletion. Not only in this case the behavior of Paddy is inadequate.
Meanwhile admin Paddy is blaming me as "Trottel" (German for "idiot") in blogs [1] and on my discussion page on Commons [2]. -- Simplicius 11:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
No I just said, considering your behaviour fool or moron would be the right expression for you. I did not say you are one! That I already stated in my blog. I never called you an idiot though. --Paddy 13:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, namecalling is not a good thing, even less so if done by an admin - I will not take sides with Paddy on that. But to the matter at hand: the distinction of "Lichtbild" from "Lichtbildwerk" is very blurry, and recent court decisions seem to indicate that every photograph is considered a "Lichtibildwerk" (photographic (art-)work), and the notion of a "trivial" Lichtbild is abandoned. In any case we should not rely on a legal concept that is weak like that, and easily challanged in court. Afaik, it is established policy on the german wikipedia to regard all images either reproductions (i.e. only the license of the original counts), or as a Lichtbildwerk (i.e. the creator gets full rights for 70 years pma). We should probably also make this policy explicite for the commons. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Relevant discussion in the german wikipedia: [3] - quote: "Seit 1.7.1995 gelten allgemein geringe Anforderungen an die Schutzfähigkeit von Fotos als Lichtbildwerken. Es ist kein besonderes Maß an schöpferischer Gestaltung erforderlich (Schulze in: Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 2004, § 2 Rdnr. 195). Das gilt auch rückwirkend für vor dem genannten Datum entstandene Bilder!" -- Duesentrieb(?!) 14:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Proof that it is a "Lichtbild" is not available. It is a false assertion. I can not confirm. greetings --Paddy 16:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Duesentrieb's statement "recent court decisions seem to indicate that every photograph is considered a "Lichtibildwerk" is wrong. The decisions Wagner-Familienfotos (OLG Hamburg) and Eurobike (OHG) draw a line between "Lichtbild" and "Lichtbildwerk".
So this is not a matter of a One-man-Paddy-Show including agitation on external websites to avoid an de-admin here. -- Simplicius 11:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Only 7 days voting?Edit

Is 7 days long enough? I know it's the same as en, but I have a feeling this page doesn't get the same percentage of traffic as en. For example, Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Omegatron failed because it only received three votes, even though they were all Support.

Or alternatively, perhaps votes could be transcluded into COM:VP to increase traffic? pfctdayelise 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

7 days is theoretic ; I've never rejected a request just because it failed after 7 days precisely. In the case of Omegatron, I considered the request rejected after 24 days ... And 7 days or so were quite enough for 84 people or so ; only 7 persons failed, from the beginning of the project. So that I'm not sure this is a big issue. villy 13:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, good point. Sorry I didn't read the dates more closely. >< (I'm going cross-eyed) pfctdayelise 13:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Aw, c'mon. So I can't become an admin unless I spam people for votes? :-) — Omegatron 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Username changeEdit

Moved to Template:Changing username/Current requests. villy 14:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletionEdit

Anyone working on speedy deletions lately? It seems like it's not so "speedy" anymore. haha. -- WB 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

haha yourself, see deletion log and look when these files were taged. --Saperaud 09:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Willy on WheelsEdit

WoW is harder to spot here since there is no "recent changes" on commons (yet?!?!!?).

Here is another sockpuppet: User:Cararamireza9.

Fred Chess 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked this user and reverted all his contributions. Thryduulf 20:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What about Special:Recentchanges? pfctdayelise 03:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Is there a minimum requirements for voting here? It's my first day here and I don't think I should be voting. I know some of these people from Wikpedia though. -- Folder88 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No minimum requirements for now. But in the future I intend to open a debate about it. Too often, people are coming from their local pedia's to support their known people here and make them get the Commons sysop rigghts. Maybe it was a necessary step at the beginning of the project. But now, there seems to be the beginning of a special Commons community. So that it could be fair that *this* community alone can vote. For instance, we could just replicate the criterium imposed on admin candidates : You have a user page on the Commons and are a Commons contributor with 100 edits (uploads or texts) minimum.. What do you think ? villy 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: additional nomination standards, minimum edits voter requirementEdit

I propose that these requirements are added (bold is new):

1. You have a user page on the Commons and are a Commons contributor with 100 edits (uploads or texts) minimum. You list your langauge skills on your user page (for example, in the form of Commons:Babel boxes), and you are willing to respond to Commons enquiries on your Commons Talk page (ie, don't redirect it).

This is not intended to be retroactive, so existing admins are not affected by this additional requirement. In exceptional cases the Talk page requirement could be waived (eg, developers).

I also propose this requirement that users must pass to be eligible to vote on a RfA. Non-eligible users can still comment, but not vote.

2. Users must have established their Commons account before the RfA was made, and have a minimum of 50 edits (text or uploads) on Commons.

This is intended to stop vote stacking as described above by villy, although it could be circumvented pretty easily - many wikimedians have commons accounts that they use only occasionally.

Perhaps we should instead add a line: "Candidates for adminship should not advertise their RfA outside the Commons." That would more or less stop them going to their local wikipedia to drum up support. pfctdayelise 05:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the Commons Talk page requirement? — Omegatron 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
How users could communicate you on Commons? Why they need to go to other place since you administrative actions take place on Commons not other project? --EugeneZelenko 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's just more convenient to get all messages in a single place. — Omegatron 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
More convenient for you, but not for Commons users! pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, note, this requirement is not an official requirement. It's my proposal (that obviously hasn't caught on), although others may agree with me. But then others may not care. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Spanish speaking person neededEdit

to talk to user:Yuse70 from Argentina. He never credits sources. E.g. Image:Amad2.jpg and Image:Liber8.jpg. See his contribution [4].

Fred Chess 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-requesting adminshipEdit

I tried before, and my nomination lost apparently only because it didn't get enough attention. How do I re-apply? Create a Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Omegatron 2? — Omegatron 15:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Is there a category for images that have a no-license info and need deletion after the customary 1 week wainting period? Please answer on my talk page. Thanks. jossi 19:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You should add {{subst:nsd}} (no-source-date, meaning the date is automatically inserted). Then on that template you can copy and paste a warning to the uploader. In Category:Unknown you will see the hierarchy of categories. Feel free to delete anything in a folder older than a week (it would be nice to check-usage, remove from usage, make sure uploader has been notified and didn't reply on their talk page, etc). Obvious copyvios (Pokemon, Coke logo) can be speedied. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Administrators/Archive 1".