Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (4): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:59, 11 January 2022

1989

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

Scheduled to end: 23:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Today I'm asking for the restoration of the sysop flag I held prior Aug 2020. I'd like to continue assisting with the backlogs, including: investigating copyright violations + speedy proposals, closing DRs, etc. I am part of the Top 5 in both 2019 and 2020 in terms of administration activity, so best believe I stand by my words on my motive for the toolset. I believed I have addressed situations in my previous request which led to my clouded resignation. As for the year ago issue, I apologize for using harsh language towards someone who taunted me on my talk page and prior AN/U for speaking my opinion. I'll be sure to have a more appropriate reaction in the future. 1989 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose Simply no confidence. And persistently going for an RfA every couple of months certainly is not what might make me change my mind. --A.Savin 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too trigger-happy on speedy deletions, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saptarangi Saccos.jpg (FBMD is not a valid reason for speedy), Commons:Deletion requests/File:It-crispiano-scan-141102-0001e.jpg (reasonable possibility of PD in violation of COM:CSD#F1), or Commons:Deletion requests/File:SR Périgueux (4).jpg (COM:CSD#F3 "does not apply to photographs taken in a public place"). Even when the speedy is correct, they often fail to provide a good rationale/evidence, simply citing COM:NETCOPYVIO. They often do it on images that don't mention any external source in the file description, leaving the patrolling admin to wonder why it is a copyvio and have to do a search on their own. This is bad for documentation purposes, and I fear that if they become admin, they will delete images with a generic summary and when the uploader comes back a year later on COM:UNDEL challenging the deletion, we won't have any record of why it was deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a time I would tag files as COM:NETCOPYVIO while there was no source mentioned in the file summary. In my defense, when the image I tagged would easily show on Google that showed no Wikipedia mirrors, I thought that would be more than enough. However since then, I no longer do that.

I had no idea that the image in Commons:Deletion requests/File:It-crispiano-scan-141102-0001e.jpg would possibility be in the Public Domain. At the time when I tagged, there was no information in the file summary nor the licensing that would suggest such. Not sure why I should at fault for that.

The FBMD "not valid for speedy" is up to anyones interpretation. I have nominated plenty and others that mention copyright information in the Metadata section uploaded by single-purpose accounts for speedy, and they have been deleted.

For the fear and "trigger-happy" comment, when I was an admin, before deleting, I would always investigate whether or not something was a copyright violation, whether a source was mentioned or not. I received very little complaints in regards to use of the deletion tool. 1989 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You often oppose requests for adminship on the basis of what I would call relatively minor mistakes. Yes, every mistake is a potential concern, but I think we should be more forgiving, especially when you consider 1) the number of quality contributions in comparison to the number of errors, 2) the ubiquity of human error, even among the most experienced of admins, and 3) the ongoing process of learning and improvement that characterizes every good-faith contributor. I am satisfied with 1989's response above and have faith in their ability to effectively execute their administerial duties. Mysteryman blue 07:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --panda kekok 9 01:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have reviewed previous nominations and the desysop history and I am afraid that you are too emotional to hold extended permissions rubin16 (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubin16: What's your definition of "too emotional" and what can I do to improve? 1989 (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Commons has had and has less good admins. I may even be one of them in some people's eyes... Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to oppose per concern raised by King of Hearts and Rubin16. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is better to give a participant a try to rehabilitate than to refuse. - Gerarus (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably oppose per A.Savin. 1989 gives me little confidence of not making any problems that will lead to de-sysop once again. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
with questions I do not know what entitles me to vote in this referendum. Until now, I didn't even know that this candidacy existed. But since I take my participation in the community very seriously and have uploaded a lot of pictures in the last year, I would like to contribute to the discussion. In my opinion, the principle of equality also applies to former admins and the candidate should not be excluded because of incorrect behaviour in the past. I have read the previous discussions and think that a slightly too emotional reaction will not be a reason for future misconduct. It rather shows that the candidate has learned from his mistakes, his advantage is - it is known how to behave correctly and the admin tools can be used effectively. However, as I am still quite new to the community, I have some questions for the candidate, which he should please answer:
- How do you want to help newcomers in the community to understand the system and find their way around?
  I don't usually do that, however, if one came to my talk page with questions, I'd answer to the best of my ability. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you take action yourself to help new users understand why it is important to follow the process?
  It depends on the situation. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you approach users and proactively explain to them how to correctly follow the attribution process for non-self-shot images?
  If they need more clarification than the automated message telling them how, sure. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you send mails/info to users to remind them of deadlines in the submission process (e.g. 30-day deadline)?
  If you're referring to VRT, usually an automated message would tell them that, and it would best not to give pressure. An image can always be restored when they're ready. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name users/processes where you have helped new users to find their way into the community more quickly?
  Unfortunately, no. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What languages do you speak without a translation tool and are you willing to hand over processes to other admins if you don't understand the language correctly?
  My only understanding is English. If there is something I can't understand, I'd ping someone who will. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- what are your preferences in the community, finding and uniting users or handling administrative tasks ?
  Handling administrative tasks, it's what I'm good at. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- according to xtools.wmflabs.org you have only uploaded about 100 files so far, what do you think entitles you to be an admin here if you hardly upload any pictures yourself ?
  Quite simple, if you demonstrated basic copyright knowledge and scope content by appropriate copyvio speedies + DRs. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- will you continue to contribute even if you don't become admin ? Why am I asking this, you have very few edits in 2020/2021 as opposed to 2017!
  Probably, it's kind of difficult to leave. 1989 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for so many questions (and my badly english), but your application text doesn't say anything about that, so thank you in advance for answering.--Cookroach (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Their past behaviour was certainly unwise, but more in the sense of not poking badgers with spoons, rather than being damaging to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many issues. Disembodied Soul (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It sounds like they learned from their mistakes, and I am glad to give second changes. 1989 seems like he was a pretty good admin and I am happy to support the return of their experience, especially given the need for experienced admins.

As for the controversy that led to their desysop, I was not aware of it when it happened and did not participate in discussions at the time. I'll say that I don't think we should be using rollback for non-vandalism, because it is not a tool for exerting editorial power over other contributors. I also think that admins should not be above the block, though policy might not agree with me on that point. The most troubling thing to me about the whole controversy is that its roots appear to be in a personal spat between two admins. From what I can glean, it seems that 1989 and A.Savin have a history of unfriendly behavior toward each other, with A.Savin repeatedly (and baselessly, in my opinion) calling into question the quality of 1989's contributions. I don't know who started this, and quite frankly I don't care. Both, in my opinion, are in the moral wrong, and 1989 is only suffering consequences because they were caught on a technicality. I refuse to villainize them. We should never elevate a personal disagreement between two users to this level of community discussion. Unfortunately, we already have. The right thing to do, in my opinion, would be to return the state of things to the way they were before we blew them out of proportion. Mysteryman blue 07:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too soon since the last RFA and too soon since the desysop. --Rs chen 7754 01:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Эlcobbola _talk 01:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Herbythyme. Jianhui67^T★C 05:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mysterymanblue, i.a. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rschen7754. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Andy Dingley --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We are not perfect, we all make mistakes and people are going to do things they shouldn't do. If they show a pattern of learning, and promise to be more careful and never return to the old bad behaviours , we should assume good faith and forgive them as this could actually create the sense of meaning we are seeking in a multilingual projects such as Commons. T Cells^Talk 22:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I echo my rationale, as I did in 2019, that having 1989 as an admin is a net-positive. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Herbythyme, Mysterymanblue, Andy Dingley and others above. We do need more experienced admins to do the work 1989 was doing in the past. Agree 1989 was "poking badgers with spoons, rather than being damaging to the project". Krok6kola (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering my question below. I agreed with Chistian's unblock of Rodhullandemu who said on talk page, regarding another issue, that he was speaking in metaphors and he clearly was not making a "death threat". Also, you tried to speedy delete on December 24, 2021, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somdip Dey.jpg an image now in Category:Somdip Dey. So I have stricken my "Support" vote. Krok6kola (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Metaphors or not, he should of never said it. No comment on the DR, for obvious reasons. 1989 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since we need a few hundred admins, I'll give an AGF pro. Stay out of conflicts - it's not your strength. --Mirer (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pppery (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per T Cells. I can relate myself to this. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 04:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rschen7754 --DannyS712 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... not convinced, --Mateus2019 (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The candidate says above "I'll be sure to have a more appropriate reaction in the future". As regard with my recent interaction with that user, and seeing the clear result of that de-adm process, one (at least me) can think that 1989 is more inclined to act with haste and overbidding rather than guessing what the community might really want (and by community I mean the silent and majority community, not those who make the more noise and who are trolling the various noticeboards). So when I read "a more appropriate reaction in the future", personnaly I would want at first to see "that appropriate reaction". And all this is of course in addition of the previous behavior of the candidate, behavior that made him lose his administrator status a first time. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This did bother me greatly and I should have asked why. Since I could not see the reason for it, I am rethinking my support above. @1989: Why did you so recently recently launch this? Krok6kola (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons are stated on the rationale of the request. Christian performed questionable actions + behavior which sparked a discussion on them whether or not they are still eligible for the sysop role. The initial discussion ran for a couple of days with not much opposition against it, which made it hard to predict what would "the silent and majority" community wanted, as I'm not a fortune teller nor a mind reader. If the request was so out of line, a bureaucrat would of closed it as inadmissible, in which not one did. Despite the outcome, I stand by that request and the fact that despite them being lucky to keep their bit, of course it wouldn't stop them performing disruptive revenge votes similar to one who's unfortunately no longer with us who lost it, but I digress. 1989 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"being lucky" is not at all a thing that I feel in that story, Jdx, now blocked, made 144000 contribution to Commons, Rodhullandemu now gobaly banned, made 550000 contributions to Commons. I can't imagine they did so much contributions if they didn't like a bit the project and our community. I still think we should have find a way to solve this with much more humanity and temperance. If I could solve this by giving back my tools, or more, I will but I can not. Therefore to describe what I feel about this story I could find hundred of different adjectives, sad, disgusted, unhappy, frustrated, ect... ...but "lucky" is not one of them. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support More eyes on copy violations, “forgive our trespasses” … Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In your own words, what caused you to be desysopped less than 2 years ago? Can you explain how you have addressed those concerns and/or will prevent those situations from reoccurring in the future? How about Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (3)? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was desysopped due to poor judgement based on use of the block button against two administrators. I have expressed in my last request that I will not block another admin unless in emergency situations, e.g. compromised account, along with the reasons behind my actions. As of number 3, I told someone who I felt was taunting me to fuck off. I admit it was a bad choice of words, and should of not allowed my emotions to take control. As said before, I will give a more appropriate response in the future when dealing with someone like them. 1989 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was this my comment really wikt:taunt? --A.Savin 14:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 *:This did bother me greatly and I should have asked why. Since I could not see the reason for it, I am rethinking my support above. {{ping|1989}} Why did you so recently [[Commons:Administrators/Requests/Christian Ferrer (de-adminship 2)|recently launch this]]? [[User:Krok6kola|Krok6kola]] ([[User talk:Krok6kola|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 *::My reasons are stated on the rationale of the request. Christian performed questionable actions + behavior which sparked a discussion on them whether or not they are still eligible for the sysop role. The initial discussion ran for a couple of days with not much opposition against it, which made it hard to predict what would "the silent and majority" community wanted, as I'm not a fortune teller nor a mind reader. If the request was so out of line, a bureaucrat would of closed it as inadmissible, in which not one did. Despite the outcome, I stand by that request and the fact that despite them being lucky to keep their bit, of course it wouldn't stop them performing disruptive revenge votes similar to one who's unfortunately no longer with us who lost it, but I digress. [[User:1989|1989]] ([[User talk:1989|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
-*:::"being lucky" is not at all a thing that I feel in that story, Jdx, now blocked, made 144000 contribution to Commons, Rodhullandemu now gobaly banned, made 550000 contributions to Commons. I can't imagine they did so much contributions if they didn't like a bit the project and our community. I still think we should have find a way to solve this with much more humanity and temperance. If I could solve this by giving back my tools, and more, I will but I can not. Therefore to describe what I feel about this story I could find hundred of different adjectives, sad, disgusted, unhappy, frustrated, ect... ...but "lucky" is not one of them. [[User:Christian Ferrer|Christian Ferrer]] <sup>([[User talk:Christian Ferrer|talk]])</sup> 07:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
+*:::"being lucky" is not at all a thing that I feel in that story, Jdx, now blocked, made 144000 contribution to Commons, Rodhullandemu now gobaly banned, made 550000 contributions to Commons. I can't imagine they did so much contributions if they didn't like a bit the project and our community. I still think we should have find a way to solve this with much more humanity and temperance. If I could solve this by giving back my tools, or more, I will but I can not. Therefore to describe what I feel about this story I could find hundred of different adjectives, sad, disgusted, unhappy, frustrated, ect... ...but "lucky" is not one of them. [[User:Christian Ferrer|Christian Ferrer]] <sup>([[User talk:Christian Ferrer|talk]])</sup> 07:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *{{s}} More eyes on copy violations, “forgive our trespasses” … [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * {{o}} --[[User:Steinsplitter|Steinsplitter]] ([[User talk:Steinsplitter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (4): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:59, 11 January 2022

1989

Votes

Comments

Navigation menu

Search