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.