Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (2)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 19;  Oppose = 5;  Neutral = 4 – 79%. Result: successful. --Krd 06:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1989

Vote

1989 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 23:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Today I would like to nominate myself to become an administrator here on Commons. With my local user page gone or not, I would like to disclose my previous account (User:Blurred Lines), in which I have failed to do on my first RfA. I have committed sockpuppetry here (CU case exists) and evaded my blocks on enwiki without knowing any better. Since then and later, I have learned and grown a lot from my mistakes. I no longer sock or do edit experiments with VFC. I am allowed to edit on enwiki again without restrictions and have not been blocked there ever since.

Overall, I have contributed over 290,000+ edits here. I am familiar with how things go here. I am experienced in filing a majority of successful DRs, CSDs, and etc with my deleted count being 16,000+. During the time I have here, I would like to assist in the admin backlogs and help in clearing them. I wanted to wait, but the backlogs are pretty bad and there are plenty of DRs that need closing. I'm an account creator, license reviewer, file mover, IP block exemption, and rollbacker. I am currently an OTRS agent as well, and would need the tools to assist me with that so I won’t have to bother the deleting admin to review it themselves. I hope you agree with my self-nomination. Thank you for your time. 1989 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Updated my vote after 1989 retracted their "keep" vote on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Michaela Dietz. Feels too much like a people pleaser now. Adjusting your opinion because you gained a new insight or learned something is good, highly recommendable even. Adjusting your opinion because someone else told you to, unforgiveable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I’m sorry if my abstain vote made you change your mind. You may view me however you like, I was having second doubts of me being involved anyway. Happy editing. — 1989 (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have ignored an "edit conflict" error. That's not good either. I hope it was an accident. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was. My apologies. 1989 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: I changed my vote again, to neutral. Not that it'll matter. I hope you'll be a bit more assertive, not to be confused with being dead set on being wrong which is the opposite end of the spectrum. Try not to let others tell you what to do. Some support votes on a DR for your uploads: great, but ask yourself if you support keeping them. If you don't, walk away. If you do, vote support. And don't retract that vote to please people in an RfA. You were either following the supporters on the DR before or Rehman's concerns after. As an admin, you shouldn't follow others unless it aligns with your own beliefs. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: I have addressed me being blocked in 2015 in my statement. -- 1989 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to add a link to any specific concern. Commons has no equivalent to WP:Offer, but intuitively 3 years ago is ancient history for Wikimedia projects. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but i still have concerns. Then the user retired (self block request), etc. See also what A.Savin wrote. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I feel the need to take breaks, I will do so without hesitation. I have also addressed the uploads concern with Rehman below. — 1989 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. As it happens, I have always advocated against requested blocks, and in my view 1989 should not have been granted such a block. In recent years these have been mostly rejected as unnecessary. Unless the editor is demonstrably erratic, or their behaviour creates a hostile environment, taking wikibreaks for personal reasons seem irrelevant to the correct use of sysop tools. I certainly would not be comfortable with RFA outcomes being conditional on physical or mental wellbeing, if there is no direct evidence that their actions are likely to be unacceptable.
Examining the example cases from A.Savin, these are hardly egregious. Let's be honest, we have several admins that appear to barely do any uploading of content, and some that have uploaded many dubious files in terms of policy and quality.
I understand you have doubts, but I am not seeing negative tangible evidence of unacceptable actions from the last 2 years that might change my own vote.
Should 1989 gain sysop tools this time, the doubts expressed in this RFA should be seen to be taken seriously. --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, you advised Alexis Jazz to nominate this image for deletion. I believe that was a poor judgement for two reasons (1) The image is an image of a wikimedia event (2) the image was taken by a Wikipedian who is also an active contributor to Commons and while the other guy was arguing blindly, you made no attempt to leave a note on User:Kaizenify's talk page, at least to ask if my claim was true. This makes me worry about how you will deal with similar issues in the future and possibly other unrelated issues. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating images for deletion is for discussing the files purpose and copyright status. Them adding the LR template did not do that at all. I suggested they make a DR to discuss the files instead of doing what they did. They didn’t have to take my suggestion to heart, but they did. The first step in the right direction is not to make pointless LR reviews with no source provided because they’re afraid of drama. You may have seen the DR pointless, but I see it in a different view than you. If that alone was the sole reason for your oppose vote, so be it. I’m allowed to think differently. Good day. — 1989 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that some nominations are in fact disruptive? It doesn't occurred to you to advise them to seek clarification from Kaizenify? But you think they should nominate it for deletion? I apologize if I expected too much from you but advising them to nominate an image of a Wikimedia event taken by a fellow Wikipedian for deletion is a classical case of poor judgement in my book. As a side note, the way you respond to oppose voter alone is enough for me to oppose you. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry if that’s the way you feel. No matter how much work I’ve done, your reasons to oppose seem valid in your point of view. I’m not bothered by it in the slightest, if that’s what you implied. We all have different opinions and strategies on how we do things. It seems you can’t accept that, and your only way to tell me that I was wrong was to oppose me instead of talking to me about this weeks ago. Don’t expect much from me again if you reply. At this regard, it’s pointless to argue over different views. It does not help the backlogs nor does it contribute to anything in a positive and mellow manner. 1989 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons for opposing you was stated in my first comment. Potential administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism but it does seem that you don't want your action criticized which is another reason to oppose you. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me responding to criticism means I can’t accept criticism? That doesn’t sound right. 1989 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to criticisms is not the same as taking criticisms. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. T Cells, you should have provided a visible permission statement from the author. As you have been told repeatedly. Instead, after all that's happened, you continue whining about me being disruptive instead of taking action and fixing the issue. How in the world you ever managed to become a license reviewer is beyond me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t had a problem with automatic tools since 2015. I am determined to use the toolset in a wise manner. 1989 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The user is able to use the tools, and I am sure he will work hard on the backlog. Good. But COM: says
Administrators are experienced and trusted members of the Commons community
Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project
that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
No Trust. He does not show understanding of the goals. He is not fully aware of what Wikipedia/Wikimedia is.
Jan> What concept/idea of WMF is important for you?
1989> I feel building a dark mode and the willling to hide the sidebar without a script works.
Jan> What activites directly by WMF are you aware of?
1989> I don’t know what you mean by this.
Janwikifoto> what does the GLAM logo mean?
1989> irrelevant in terms to my decision. If donated images are uploaded without permission of the author, it can’t stay unless permission is sent to OTRS.
WMF> GLAM [|GLAM] cultural institutions share resources through collaborative projects with experienced Wikipedia editors
The first would be deleted if I were not to find the OTRS ticket they claimed to have sent
He could possibly do the same as Patrick Rogel, file useless speedy delets for GLAM pictures, which will in the end be OTRS-cleared. Why then create bottlenecks? Deleting GLAM/Wikimedia material, causes ::economic damage/loss to Wikimedia, and somebody could possibly be sued for that. No, not Wikimedia Foundation, they did not add or delete any content, but the Administrator, personally. I am not saying it is ::so, but it could possibly happen.
Fae> required to act in compliance with Administrators, which includes being publicly accountable for their actions.
1989 has not (to my knowledge) deleted any GLAM material - but the examples where given, so he could in fact show his deep understanding of how Wikipedia and Commons work.
Janwf> "How" do you decide if a picture is personal? What criteria do you use?
1989> I just told you above (read COM:SCOPE and COM:DP if you’re unfamiliar).
He will have a problem explaining to other contributors, why he deleted material. He does not want to discuss with other Admins, so why would he discuss with regular users? He has used (on this page) formulations that to me does look like fully respecting other users.
Good day (twice)
Don’t expect much from me again if you reply.
Me responding to criticism means I can’t accept criticism?
I’d recommend you’d leave and be on your way
Other admins here have noted
the way how he is cleaning up his talk pages so quickly, giving an impression to hide something. (also Ellin Beltz have stated the same)
He is claiming a native English speaker;
"Also, my benefits are to make the project better, so I would appreciate it if you don't criticize my edits." Sorry but it has been the opposite, you've been doing more harm than good. Also if you don't like the criticism, don't edit. Bidgee (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC). Yeah, sure. 1989 05:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion about pictures of Michaela Dietz makes me wonder if he considers personality rights? He wants to be anonymous, but why should he then not let another person disapper from WP - at least the bad pictures? To me this does not seem like the personality that inspires the trust that COM:Admin policy requires. I would recommend delaying Admin until there is a better track record. I conclude with another of his remarks: I've never met an editor in real life, and honestly, I hope I never will
Personally, I would be interested in meeting 1989, in person. I hope I will do so, some day. --Janwikifoto (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Jeff G.: See here. – 1989 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I remember the previous RfA by Trijnstel and I privately shared my concerns to her that this can be very much Blurred Lines. I was watching this user carefully; but didn't see any serious issues other than some immature mistakes. Hope they learned and grown a lot from their mistakes (as commented in this RfA). One point I'm not very happy with is, they didn't disclose this previous account earlier which can be considered as a breach of trust. Jee 02:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit I have made the mistake of not disclosing it sooner. I wanted to do a clean start, where I would leave my past behind (leaving enwiki forever and focus on Commons). However, down the line when I was confronted by a few users about it, I realized that my decision wasn’t a good choice and disclosed my previous account on my now deleted local user page, and filed an appeal to ArbCom to allow me to edit and remove account restrictions from me. 1989 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm not very active nowadays; especially in EN. Let us see what Trijnstel has to say on this case. Anyway I have no plan to make a vote. Jee 02:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Trijnstel for this explanation. He may be much improved now. But I still have some hesitations on the way how he is cleaning up his talk pages so quickly, giving an impression to hide something. He is claiming a native English speaker; but his style of communication is near subpar ([8], [9]). Not better here too. He should learn to communicate in a more tender manner. Hope he will take this advice in good spirit. Good luck. Jee 02:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: My babel is on my user talk page. Should be enough right? If not, I may re-create my user page after this. -- 1989 (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Your response in the DR does not reflect what you had just agreed above. For example this file uploaded by you - which you opposed deletion, is not the best of your collection, and quite clearly not something Wikimedia can make use of. What has changed? Rehman 08:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: I apologize. I originally planned to not contribute to the decision, but the keep votes kind of made me change my mind. I don’t mind at all if the images are deleted. I thought of my keep vote for a while now, and I regret taking part of the discussion because my intentions were not to cause drama or show that I lack knowledge of the project scope. I have strucken my vote, and will no longer take in part of DRs that are based on my uploads unless necessary. — 1989 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. Since this is an RFA, I'm afraid it cannot stop there. Do you agree that (at least) the image I had linked above, doesn't belong to Commons? If yes, why now? Rehman 09:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: My best response is I have uploaded much better images of her from the same event. However, I thought the keep votes were getting somewhere. They could be used for other articles to express something, I don’t know. Every argument counts if valid by the admin whom closes the discussion, however my vote will certainly not change things for the better as it wasn’t even that good anyway. — 1989 (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbythyme: The Babel is shown on my talk page. I have enabled the ability for users to email me. 1989 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Babel Box should be on the User Page. Per Commons policy "Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities". Maybe you erased that part in customizing your page look. But, that is where the users normally look --Janwikifoto (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Janwikifoto: Per which Commons policy? 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at Talk page "User_talk:Gbawden" there is a auto-generated message in a blue box stating "Goodies, tips and tricks" and "Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can see the files you have uploaded in your gallery.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing (tilde tilde)". So I assumed it was policy, though possibly not mandatory. Else no auto-essage should be there. Anyway, that is where users look. --Janwikifoto (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a policy. That's just the text of Template:Welcome and Commons:Welcome. That's a good practice and recommendation, but not mandatory, even for admins. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

 Question Hello 1989, for voting in your Admin nomination I would like to know more.

a. what/how did you become interested in wikipedia (and commons)?

b. what concept/idea is the most important, for you personally, with wikipedia/wikimedia?

c. what do you think is the most important/useful work you can contribute with?

d. what wikipedia/wikimedia activities (in general) are you aware of? What activites directly by WMF are you aware of?

Thanks for any info you can give! --Janwikifoto (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a. I don’t know about Wikipedia. Most likely there were pages I couldn’t edit, that’s probably why I made an account. I became interest in Commons due how it mostly deals with images.
b. I feel building a dark mode and the willling to hide the sidebar without a script works.
c. I find me tagging nonsense that doesn’t belong here the most important. This is not a free storage to keep whatever they want. If it violates COM:L, or COM:SCOPE, don’t expect it to be here for too long.
d. I don’t know what you mean by this. I solely edit here and Wikipedia because I like to volunteer. I’m not sure what activities you’re referring to. — 1989 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. You write "tagging nonsense". Can you give some examples? Can you explain what is nonsense (to you)? You refer to COM: policy, but what is the aim of commons, really? (again, to you) --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Janwikifoto: There are users whom upload photos of themselves, logos, etc to self promote or treat Commons like a photo storage. That’s one example. The aim of Commons is for to upload images that can be beneficial to Wikipedia. That’s why the project scope exist after all, to remind uploaders of such. — 1989 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please explain how people uplading photos of themselves can be a problem. That would be interesting to know! How do you decide, if the photos is useful for the aim of commons.wikimedia, or not useful? You wrote "I became interest in Commons due how it mostly deals with images", what do you mean by that? I understand the words, but not what they mean. Thanks again, --Janwikifoto (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Janwikifoto: If the personal images are used to display themselves on their user page and they’re contributing to the project they’re on, there is no issue. If the images aren’t being used at all and it’s purpose is to clutter, it doesn’t need to be here. There are other photo sharing websites that allow this. As for clarification of why I’m here, I have a better understanding on dealing with images. With Commons being an image host for beneficial purposes, looking through things that aren’t suitable here makes things worthwhile. 1989 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personal images, how do you really decide/determine if it is a personal picture, or a useful picture? Tell me how, technically, a 1000 private pictures will be a problem! Question 2: You probably know about self-release and timer pictures. If I set my camera for 20 sec delay, give to you so you hold it and point the camera to me, then it automatically takes a picture . Who owns the picture copyright? Me, because I own the camera? You, but you did not press the shutter, and I composed and posed. Please explain what alternatives you see! If more than one possibility, please give all? Was it yur mother, or father, who you learned english from? Thanks again for any info, --Janwikifoto (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Janwikifoto: If the images are not in use, and are solely for personal purposes, it is determined out of scope and needs to relocated elsewhere. If you have set a self-timer and gave someone the camera to hold in position, most likely you’ll be the owner. For them pressing the shutter, I’m not sure. I don’t usually run into images like that. English is my native language, I was thought as I was being raised. Not sure what the question had to do with what I do here. 1989 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the question was "How" do you decide if a picture is personal? What criteria do you use? I did not ask 'out of scope'. By the way, which country do you live in? Maybe I have visited your country! --Janwikifoto (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just told you above (read COM:SCOPE and COM:DP if you’re unfamiliar). 1989 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will read read COM:SCOPE and COM:DP, sorry. But, which country do you live in? Maybe I have visited your country! It would be interesting to know! --Janwikifoto (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
USA. 1989 (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I was in the USA many times, in DC and Florida. Where are you? --Janwikifoto (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disclosing such. 1989 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, why not tell us about where you live? Do you really speak Arabic? I speak some german, frensch and spanish. --Janwikifoto (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have the right to not tell you where I reside. I only speak English, I don't know why you and Taivo assume I speak Arabic. Is it because of my edits on arwiki? Those edits were based of a GlobalReplace change I did back in 2014. 1989 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why soo private? Then, does anybody (on Wikipedia) know you, have anybody met you? That would as well be interesting to know. --Janwikifoto (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've never met an editor in real life, and honestly, I hope I never will. It is my preference to be private, and nothing you say from here on out will change that. I really hope that's it because your starting to get too personal for some unknown reason, and I've never seen you before until now. 1989 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you write "editor"? Why that word? I can send you my phone number, if you want to talk. That is ok for me. --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is a person whom contributes to whatever project they are editing on. Please refrain from anymore personal requests. If you don’t have any more questions regarding my editing, I’d recommend you’d leave and be on your way. 1989 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say "user"? That is the name WP uses, "User:1989"... Where can I see the sockpuppet and block logs, please? I would like to go over them a little. --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why did you remove my comment on your talk page about babel box? As I understand it, comments should be left, to be openly traceacble. Transparent is another word. Please explain why. --Janwikifoto (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you made the comment here as well, I removed it accordingly from my talk page was it was redundant. 1989 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Where are the sockpuppet and block logs, CU case, so I can look at them? --Janwikifoto (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been answered above. On the first line of the Comments, you’ll see a question by Jeff G, asking the same thing. I linked it there. 1989 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found it. After searching for 5 minutes. You could have disclosed that at the beginning, where you write CU case. I still did not find the block log, but never mind. --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What Do You See in these Images ?

(a) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Šandor_Hartig,_Rad_na_bisti_Todora_Manojlovića,_1981.jpg
(b) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladimir_Spasic,_Večiti_mladoženja,_J._Ignjatović,_NP_Sombor,1963.jpg
It would indeed be very informative to see what data, facts, information you find in the files. --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first would be deleted if I were not to find the OTRS ticket they claimed to have sent (I just asked the uploader for the ticket number, if answered, the OTRS received would be added, postponing the deletion), the second would be kept as it was verified by OTRS. 1989 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, what does the large GLAM logo on the pictures mean to you? --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find it irrelevant in terms to my decision. If donated images are uploaded without permission of the author, it can’t stay unless permission is sent to OTRS. 1989 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Q Janwikifoto> what does the GLAM logo mean
1989> irrelevant in terms to my decision. If donated images are uploaded without permission of the author, it can’t stay unless permission is sent to OTRS.
  • GLAM [|GLAM] cultural institutions share resources through collaborative projects with experienced Wikipedia editors

.

The pictures where created as part of a programme by Wikimedia Serbia, with money from Wikimedia Foundation (who runs the Commons servers). First these where tagges "speedy delete", then re-uploaded with DR, and now awaiting final OTRS. However, the local Wikimedia chapter has only limited funds, and now with the increased workload, it means an economic loss for the Wikimedia chapter. Even though OTRS was sent initially. Anyway, this media was made by a Wikimedia chapter, and follwing COM:AGF we should probably assume Good Faith, that the Wikimedia chapter will actually fix any formal problem. Now it is clear that 1989 does not read the text "Wikimedia Foundation", he is also not familiar with Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia that owns the Commons servers. Ok, the deletion was not made by 1989, the question was give to check knowledge of Wikimedia - apart from the deletion tools. As a side note, the WM chapter has suffered a quantifiable econom loss, though not following COM:AGF, through negligence in not taking in that OTRS ticket was sent initially. Who could possibly be sued (lawsuit) for the economic damages? Certianly not Wikimedia-server, they just run the servers for use on "your own responsability". In this case, I would think the deleter might be liable for economic damage. Maybe it could be useful to know a little more about Wikimedia and Copyrights, than just the deletion tools. Just my 2 cents. No personal criticism of 1989 intended, more that everyone should contribute to the aims of the projcet, not just focus on small parts of rules. --Janwikifoto (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


why am I unable to see my comments? --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You weren’t supposed to edit under a collapsed discussion. 1989 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken wikibreaks. I take breaks because if I feel the need to rest and clear my head, I’ll do so. Good day. — 1989 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why you changed my comment here? This is not OK. Yet a other reason not to support. I also noticed you did a number of license reveiws with COM:VFC, e.g. here, you checked them all by hand? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I did was add the question template, like the others did above. If that’s another reason to oppose me, go ahead. The image I reviewed with VFC was part of a photoset, so yes, I did check everything before performing the action. — 1989 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question You write "you’d leave and be on your way". Is that how you are going to respond to contributors (editors, users) when you deleted their material? Polite? Creating trustfulness? --Janwikifoto (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think I won’t have to say that to anyone else besides you, as I have a strong feeling they would respect my privacy. 1989 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As multiple users asked me to leave a reply here, I'll now do so. I have thought about it a lot, as I wasn't sure about what I should say and what is public information & what's not. Either way, I'll tell you what I know. When I nominated 1989 as an admin almost four years ago, I fully supported it and I didn't know about his background. Only after it failed, he told me privately that he had a history of sockpuppet abuse - with a small role for me in it as I performed a CU on Commons in 2013. I therefore decided to take a step aside. Years later a courtesy vanishing request was at first partly performed, and at a second try partly declined. And now this RfA is popping up. Let's say we were all young, once. I'm willing to give him a chance, especially as he now publicly admitted the use of sockpuppets. I think he learned from his mistakes. Therefore I support this request. But that's my 2 cents, and it's absolutely no guarantee: I cannot predict the future. Trijnsteltalk 21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question I have been advised that this user is active as the kind of extreme deletionist (my term, sorry!) who tags images for speedy deletion because OTRS is required, knowing that the backlog at OTRS will get the files deleted without the uploaders' getting a chance to see the problems & correct them. Is he? This is a practice I have complained about here and it would be impossible for me to support this nomination if the answer to my question is "yes". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: I have never tagged a file for CSD because it requires OTRS permission. If I notice a file that requires permission, I add the no-permission tag which sends the uploader a message giving them seven days to have the owner send an email to OTRS. When verified, a OTRS pending tag is added, giving the file 30 days before it’s deleted if the ticket sent is insufficient. The file can always be restored if deleted.
I see from the discussion you have a major problem with how OTRS works. I understand your frustration, but I don’t understand why I should be at fault for it. If I were to process tickets, sysop rights would help tremendously. 1989 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are your views on the 200 day OTRS backlog versus the 30 day deletion time? Do you feel "the file can always be restored" is a solution for the hundreds of probably OK images that are now being deleted in 30 days only because of that backlog? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the backlogs are terrible here because the files were already deleted. I’m one of the users who agrees with OTRS memebers having the ability to view deleted files while processing tickets. For some reason, it was never approved. For your last question, I don’t have much to say. OTRS is a complicated process. 1989 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a slight tangent, but I think it is worth highlighting again that Commons Administrators are elected and required to act in compliance with Administrators, which includes being publicly accountable for their actions. In comparison, OTRS volunteers are appointed using a closed undocumented procedure without any Wikimedia Commons community feedback required, and there is no transparent means for the Wikimedia Commons community to hold OTRS volunteers to account for their actions. Were OTRS volunteers given special access to sysop tools, or a subset of sysop tools, this would effectively bypass the Wikimedia Commons community agreed policies, and make it impossible for the Wikimedia Commons community to hold them to account for their specific use of those tools.
For example, a vote of the Wikimedia Commons community to grant or remove OTRS access for a volunteer would have zero authority and would be likely to be ignored by the OTRS appointing body (OTRS administrators). --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that we should oppose the administratorship nomination of an already appointed OTRS volunteer, for these (apparently good) reasons alone? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My words mean what they appear to mean. So no, that is clearly not what I have written. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd clarify that I was not being facetious. English is my first language, and I've taught it intermittently since 1963. What you meant by that slight tangent was not clear to me. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989_(2)&oldid=337675913"