Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (5)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- Support = 24; Oppose = 12; Neutral = 1 - 66% Result. Unsuccessful. --Krd 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Related requests:
1989 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
- Scheduled to end: 19:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am a contributor for over ten years and I was an active administrator from 2019–20. If I were to hold the role again, I would continue closing DRs, handling copyvio and speedy requests, dealing with spammers, etc. I feel I have addressed my actions that led to my clouded resignation and later events on my previous requests already. If I missed something or you want a newer perspective, let me know. 1989 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Votes
- Oppose --A.Savin 21:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please argument your oppose? Thanks, A09 (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Same as previous run. --A.Savin 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please argument your oppose? Thanks, A09 (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- I think 1989 should be given a chance.FitIndia Semi-retired 15:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support We can give a second chance and we face a high demand for new admins. GPSLeo (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I didn't support the desysop in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support OK, it's been three years, I'm willing to give him a chance as long as he's able to take it. EPIC (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose.--RZuo (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Admittedly I've never dealt with 1989 that I'm aware of, but it seems like what they lost the privilege for in the first place was pretty biennial and the fact that other admins support this helps reassure me that the problems aren't chronic. So I don't see any reason why they shouldn't receive a second chance at being an administrator. I'm sure there will be increased scrutiny this time around and that they will lose the tools again if they do anything to justify it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Bedivere (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Adamant1. T CellsTalk 21:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Definitely deserves a second chance -- 94rain Talk 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mirer (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to support. Last time I gave an AGF-pro (we need hundreds of admins more ...), why not this time. Just stay away from conflicts. ;-) --Mirer (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think we are losing more then we are accepting at this point. Someone needs to make a list of reputable users and ask them to apply. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to support. Last time I gave an AGF-pro (we need hundreds of admins more ...), why not this time. Just stay away from conflicts. ;-) --Mirer (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support like last time --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the answers don't convince me that past issues won't be repeated. Natuur12 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Юрий Д.К 17:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Thanks for offering to work on the backlog of DRs. This is much needed and I am open to second chances. However, I cannot fail to notice that there is barely any activity at Commons since the desysop with two exceptions, one significant peak in December 2021 short before the candidacy in January 2022 and now a small peak in November 2023. I expect more continuous activity from prospective admins to keep up with current developments. And I noticed in November a long series of similar DRs that should be handled as mass deletion request using VisualFileChange. Otherwise this puts unnecessary burden on the closing admins. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't do mass DRs on backlog review categories as it causes issues like this to happen. 1989 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It would be great if the subpage could be more easily changed in VFC. But it is still possible to avoid this problem by creating a temporary category, adding this category to the to be deleted files (can be done using VFC), and then executing VFC on that category. This way you will get a unique DR page name. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't do mass DRs on backlog review categories as it causes issues like this to happen. 1989 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I also think that second chances are good however I have concerns about actual activity as outlined by AFBorchert I'm afraid. Herby talk thyme 08:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Thanks for volunteering, but your very low activity since your desysop is not enough for me to support your candidacy. I'd like to see some sort of an endurable track record with laudable and friendly edits as a regular editor before an editor becomes an admin.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm willing to give him a second chance. Jianhui67 T★C 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Herby --Mateus2019 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for volunteering. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support As a gesture of good faith and redemption. The candidate is knowledgeable and long serving. I sincerely hope they have a sober appreciation of the impacts of previous interactions. We are servants and not masters. Take that seriously. If there is another fire that needs put out, it will be the last one. GMGtalk 14:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think its time to give them a second chance. A hard working admin and we need more of those right now Gbawden (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support go forth and prosper --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Has been inactive for months over the past years. I'm willing to offer a second chance to the candidate, but not at this point. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- That argument would apply if this was a new user applying for adminship. 1989 has sufficient experience and edits on Commons. Sometimes taking a break from being on Commons is good for balance. Gbawden (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with User:A1Cafel. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
SupportNeutral. I changed my vote: already 5th admin-related nomination. Seems a bit problematic user --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)- Support -- per GMG above -- Schlurcher (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Taivo (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Per the questions below. I would have liked to give my support but I think they need to refresh their understanding of what a derivative work is and what types of works are covered by COM:Screenshot. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support An admin who is active even one month out of the year will do more to reduce the backlog than a user without the mop. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Concerns with activity levels and misapplication of {{Dw no source since}} below. -Fastily 08:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support —MdsShakil (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I did support this candidate during the RfA where they became a sysop, but I just can't trust this candidate with the tools this time. Abzeronow (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- Question Today you marked File:Jembatan teluk lais musi banyuasin.jpg for speedy deletion as a file containing derivative elements without evidence of permission. What aspects of the file do you see as derivative? From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The whole picture really. It looks like a screenshot, and the information provided by the uploader was quite vague. It was also unlikely this image was released under a CC 3.0 license, as there was no proof of that. If the image is in the Public Domain, they would need to provide verifiable information. Also, a speedy deletion would mean the file being removed ASAP. The tag I added gives the uploader seven or more days to resolve the concern regarding the image. 1989 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was hoping that you would either acknowledge the image has no derivative elements or identify a derivative aspect I may have missed. In this case {{Dw no source since}} appears to be the wrong option and {{No source since}} would probably have been better. It may seem like a minor difference as they both allow deletion after 7 days but the key difference is giving advice on derivative elements when there aren't derivatives is likely to confuse editors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Screenshots are considered derivative works. 1989 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the image to indicate it is a en:Screenshot. It is a simple photograph sourced from an unknown medium. Whether the uploader scanned it from a physical source, saved it from a website or used screen capture software to extract only the photograph (and no other aspects of the screen) doesn't make much of a difference. With a single item subject to copyright, there are no considerations of derivatives regardless of source. It is simply a matter of the licence for the single item in the file. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Screenshots are considered derivative works. 1989 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was hoping that you would either acknowledge the image has no derivative elements or identify a derivative aspect I may have missed. In this case {{Dw no source since}} appears to be the wrong option and {{No source since}} would probably have been better. It may seem like a minor difference as they both allow deletion after 7 days but the key difference is giving advice on derivative elements when there aren't derivatives is likely to confuse editors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The whole picture really. It looks like a screenshot, and the information provided by the uploader was quite vague. It was also unlikely this image was released under a CC 3.0 license, as there was no proof of that. If the image is in the Public Domain, they would need to provide verifiable information. Also, a speedy deletion would mean the file being removed ASAP. The tag I added gives the uploader seven or more days to resolve the concern regarding the image. 1989 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question Do you apologize for things like this [1]? And can we trust that things like this will not happen again? GPSLeo (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. It was in the heat of the moment, but like Rubin16 said, I should have not reacted so quickly. There are moments like that where I wished I could have logged off. During that time, I found the threatening message repulsive as I don't think I've done anything so bad as to get reported to WMF. It also didn't help that earlier on, I had told them to leave me alone. I felt during that time maybe I needed something stronger to help them get the message. However, a simple "stay away from my talk page" would have been sufficient. I later realized from that point moving forward, especially after the ANU drama, that me and A.Savin should avoid each other at all costs. As for if it would happen again, very unlikely. It should be the first and last time I tell someone to fuck off. 1989 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo: Please note that a) there never was any personal apology for the f-word summary, and b) this edit is only one single example out of the long track of hatespeech by 1989 against me; including demand of my ban in the discussion linked above, and also the block of mine is part of that. It's been always a puzzle to me what have I done to deserve this. --A.Savin 23:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Please enable receiving emails from other users in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done 1989 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question A major reason for your desysop was your blocking, on separate occasions, of two different admins. What precautions do you plan to take in the future before blocking well-established users? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- If I feel there is a situation where an admin or a well-established user is doing misconduct, I will bring that to the attention of an appropriate discussion board like ANU. Anything like a compromised account or blatant admin abuse like deletion / blocking sprees, should be met with swift action to protect the community. 1989 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question Were you active in another Wikimedia project when you were not active on commons? I mean you have very few edits on commons mainspace and own user talk since 2020 and maybe it would be good to have a track record of some friendly talk page behavior. Your past RfAs are not showing the best of you and judging from them I tend to oppose.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The only other place I edit is enwiki. I've gotten very little messages since 2020, which explains why there are a few edits on my talk page. Regarding the Commons namespace, most edits there were me closing a lot of deletion requests. 1989 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure your cognizant of this already, but the deletion request back log really needs to be dealt with. So it would be great if you continued to mainly work on closing deletion requests if or when you get the privileges back. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure thing. 1989 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure your cognizant of this already, but the deletion request back log really needs to be dealt with. So it would be great if you continued to mainly work on closing deletion requests if or when you get the privileges back. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question In your last Rfa you said to me that I was "lucky", I quote: " (...) being lucky to keep their bit". 1/ I never felt lucky of that outcome as I already said, and I still don't feel "lucky", I would give a lot for a different ending of that story. 2/ to think that the result of a Rfa or a Rfda is the result of luck is somewhat insulting towards the community vote. Hence my very simple question: when you have writted the statement for this request, and when you answered to your colleagues above, are you sincere? or do you count on "luck"? The question is very simple and expect a very simple and short answer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Christian Ferrer, I'm being sincere. 1989 (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)