Any failures to gain commons adminship probably has more to do with the attitude of those applying then any general policy (I note that you failed in your application, uninvited).
It is not unreasonable to reject adminship requests made by those who have no interest in the well-being of the project. I was recently voted an admin unopposed despite having no uploads and very few edits
- but I have actively fought image vandalism there.
Quite a number of other en.wp admins have also succeeded - because they did not simply "demand" adminship because they already have it elsewhere, but because they demonstrated that they care about the Commons.
I did not "demand" adminship on the commons. I asked politely and was turned down, based on my lack of involvement at commons. Commons has its own wikipolitics, which should be unsurprising. The "official" criteria is 100 uploads or other edits. Sometimes this is enforced, sometimes not. As is the case on en, commons adminship requirements appear to have become more demanding with time.
The point is that vandalism on commons affects en.wikipedia, and such vandalism is likely to become a growing problem as more images get migrated. For technical reasons alone it is harder for en admins to track such vandalism, because it does not appear in recentchanges on en, or in the "related changes" pages. The fact that vandalism, once identified, cannot be properly addressed by en. admins (at least in cases where page protection or a block is appropriate), makes matters even more difficult.
If commons is a completely independent of en.wikipedia, perhaps we should reconsider our present drive to move images to commons. I don't think that would be wise. The original intent of commons was to create a project that would serve all wikipedias rather than to create a freestanding media archive unrelated to any of them.
If commons is a completely independent of en.wikipedia, perhaps we should reconsider our present drive to move images to commons. I don't think that would be wise. The original intent of commons was to create a project that would serve all wikipedias rather than to create a freestanding media archive unrelated to any of them.
what drive? Last I cheacked the backlog at now commons was quite impressive. I'm quite happy to leave it that way for now. Othere wikis are somewhat more proacitve in this area. I don't know what their experence has been.
On 13/09/05, uninvited@nerstrand.net uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
I did not "demand" adminship on the commons. I asked politely and was turned down, based on my lack of involvement at commons. Commons has its own wikipolitics, which should be unsurprising. The "official" criteria is 100 uploads or other edits. Sometimes this is enforced, sometimes not. As is the case on en, commons adminship requirements appear to have become more demanding with time.
It's not "wikipolitics". You had made two edits to the Commons beyond your user pages before you applied for adminship. Not suprising you were turned down, is it?
The point is that vandalism on commons affects en.wikipedia, and such vandalism is likely to become a growing problem as more images get migrated. For technical reasons alone it is harder for en admins to track such vandalism, because it does not appear in recentchanges on en, or in the "related changes" pages. The fact that vandalism, once identified, cannot be properly addressed by en. admins (at least in cases where page protection or a block is appropriate), makes matters even more difficult.
Anyone can fight vandalism on the Commons (one-click revert is available to any logged-in user). If you want someone blocked, ask in #wikimedia.commons. If you want to be able to block users yourself, establish a good track-record, then apply for adminship yourself.
If commons is a completely independent of en.wikipedia, perhaps we should reconsider our present drive to move images to commons. I don't think that would be wise. The original intent of commons was to create a project that would serve all wikipedias rather than to create a freestanding media archive unrelated to any of them.
Yes, the Commons is a repository of Free media, that can be used by any project. What's that got to do with adminship?
Dan
Anyone can fight vandalism on the Commons (one-click revert is available to any logged-in user). If you want someone blocked, ask in #wikimedia.commons. If you want to be able to block users yourself, establish a good track-record, then apply for adminship yourself.
Not every can use IRC
Yes, the Commons is a repository of Free media, that can be used by any project. What's that got to do with adminship?
Dan
Nothing if we reupload everything localy. However if we don't you have become part of wikipedia thus it is legitimate to expect that admins should have the smae abilities there as long as they limit themselves to wikipedia only matters.