Dan Grey wrote:
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?
It's becoming clearer to me that, for better or worse, commons sees itself as a separate entity that does not have close ties to Wikipedia. In that light, it is unsuprising that people's history and involvement at en.Wikipedia, or meta, or on other sister projects isn't much of a consideration in granting or denial of adminship at commons.
I do want to make it very clear that I'm not bringing this up here on the mailing list in an effort to try to get adminship for myself on commons. That is not my goal. My goal, instead, is to address the much broader matter of coordination and shared trust between projects. I realize that commons policies are not identical to en. policies, and that the projects despite their overlap do each have their own decisionmaking.
On the other hand, I believe that the en admins (and the de and fr admins, and those of other large wikipedias) are trustworthy, responsible people who are familiar with wikis and respect the rules. En (and de and fr) admins, in the course of dealing with vandalism, are likely to encounter it on commons images. If there is a shared goal between the projects, and shared trust, there is no reason that I can see to refrain from granting adminship on some sort of reciprocal basis.
I don't think that it's fair or appropriate to insist that admins from these large projects leave a message for someone from commons when they need to protect an image. They should be empowered to do so themselves.
On 13/09/05, uninvited@nerstrand.net uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
It's becoming clearer to me that, for better or worse, commons sees itself as a separate entity that does not have close ties to Wikipedia.
Exactly. Commons supports all projects.
In that light, it is unsuprising that people's history and involvement at en.Wikipedia, or meta, or on other sister projects isn't much of a consideration in granting or denial of adminship at commons.
Yes.
I do want to make it very clear that I'm not bringing this up here on the mailing list in an effort to try to get adminship for myself on commons. That is not my goal. My goal, instead, is to address the much broader matter of coordination and shared trust between projects. I realize that commons policies are not identical to en. policies, and that the projects despite their overlap do each have their own decisionmaking.
On the other hand, I believe that the en admins (and the de and fr admins, and those of other large wikipedias) are trustworthy, responsible people who are familiar with wikis and respect the rules. En (and de and fr) admins, in the course of dealing with vandalism, are likely to encounter it on commons images. If there is a shared goal between the projects, and shared trust, there is no reason that I can see to refrain from granting adminship on some sort of reciprocal basis.
It does no harm to prove themselves on the project concerned. If they are indeed trustworthy, it shouldn't be hard.
I don't think that it's fair or appropriate to insist that admins from these large projects leave a message for someone from commons when they need to protect an image. They should be empowered to do so themselves.
Well, they're not.
Dan
On 9/14/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Commons supports all projects.
By providing anouther avinue for vandals and makeing life diffiult for those who are trying to prevent it?
Yes.
slighly odd those if you consider what adminship is ment to mean. Clearly these users can be trusted.
It does no harm to prove themselves on the project concerned. If they are indeed trustworthy, it shouldn't be hard.
takes time out their primary objective.
Well, they're not.
Dan
and people wounder why there is that backlog at now commons.
One of the other difficulties is that I'm not sure how one establishes oneself as trustworthy on commons. On Wikipedia there are plenty of opportunities to see how users interact with one another, to see their general attitudes, to see what they're about, based on how they edit articles and deal with the inevitable conflicts and disagreements that come up.
On commons... I've uploaded a lot of things to commons, and I've even created some categories and written some sort "collection" pages up. But these are usually, at most, one sentence here, one sentence there.
What else can one do? I've nominated a bunch of things for deletion which clearly weren't free, and gotten back all sorts of nasty responses from people who seem to think deleting things from commons with suspicious or nonexistant licenses is a bad idea (I suspect much of this comes from either language barriers or an understandable lack of knowledge about U.S. copyright laws).
I don't think it's unreasonable that being an admin in good standing on another Wiki should be a major ticket to being an admin on Commons. One possible approach could be as follows: A Wikipedia admin self-nominates themselves for Commons admin on their own Wiki (i.e., in the same place they'd normally be nominated for admin). If it is approved, THEN it goes over to Commons and some sort of small confirmation process is held (at the moment, I don't know how this would work, but it wouldn't be an open vote, since those people likely know nothing about the candidate in question).
FF
On 9/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/14/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Commons supports all projects.
By providing anouther avinue for vandals and makeing life diffiult for those who are trying to prevent it?
Yes.
slighly odd those if you consider what adminship is ment to mean. Clearly these users can be trusted.
It does no harm to prove themselves on the project concerned. If they are indeed trustworthy, it shouldn't be hard.
takes time out their primary objective.
Well, they're not.
Dan
and people wounder why there is that backlog at now commons.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l