Commons:Administrators/Requests/Aude

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Successful. Momentum since about halfway through the RfA has been nearly unanimously in support, with only one weak argument – "no need" – being presented in dissent. That Herby withdrew his oppose after the candidate showed receptiveness to concerns confirms this. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aude

[edit]

Vote

Aude (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 22:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was desysopped without any warning for "inactivity", though I've done 7 log actions since I was last notified (10 August) which I think is enough to remain admin. (when was the last "run"?) I admit I'm not the most active, but do use the admin bit from time-to-time, and handle OTRS/deletion requests such as here that don't always show up as admin log actions, as the case there.

Where I will especially need the admin bit in the next months is for my increasingly active GLAM collaboration work, with institutions including the US National Archives (see also WikiProject FedFlix for video uploads), and the Smithsonian (see WP:GLAM/SI). As we do bulk upload of images and video, there sure are to be some mistakes, things to delete (e.g. redirects), and other cases where the admin bit is useful. I can see from looking at deletion requests / media missing permission items here on commons, that you don't need me and our GLAM work to be adding to the backlog of admin tasks. Best, if I can handle them, and when I have time/ see admin tasks that need doing, I can help out. And, I now see that media missing permission category backlog, and it really annoys me that I'm unable to help out with that now!

Also, I can handle Arabic language requests (ar-3). I don't see any other Arabic speaking admins, except one ar-1. As well, I have access to OTRS and have looked at deleted contribs here when dealing with OTRS tickets. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  •  Support. Former admin here, a longstanding Wikipedian, and a trusted sysop on multiple wikis. Good work! :) Rehman 06:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Ra'ike T C 07:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC) like Rehman and as an otrs member he needs the sysop flag anyway[reply]
  •  Support --Saibo (Δ) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC) well, more more actions would be good - but OTRS is also a very good reason. Continue![reply]
  •  Support —DerHexer (Talk) 17:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am sure I'll be the lone voice here but that never has bothered me. Reviewing your activity as I would any other RfA I find 100 edits covers 2 years activity and this is just not enough for me. Your admin activity when it was there shows that 100 actions covered over three years. I understand OTRS would make sysop useful but I'm afraid that is not enough reason for me. Sorry but... --Herby talk thyme 19:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hum - I really am not sure here. I have real concerns and share Cecil's view to a degree. However what Jim says makes sense too. For now I'll not oppose for now because I see someone who appears to be responsive to the concerns here and that is rare and worthwhile. I may return with an actual vote later. --Herby talk thyme 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose When ABF wrote about your case on bureaucrat-board, I already looked in your contributions and decided to not act for you. We have backlogs over backlogs over backlogs. Even rather simple stuff that take hardly any time and can be done in multi-tasking. The reason why you were not notified this time, is also simple. It was because your inactivity-count missed an extremely low goal the second time in a row. And considering how much work we really have here there is no good excuse for that except real-life. But if you are busy in real life, then like all the others with that reason accept that you loose the rights. And when you have time enough again for Common,s then come back, work a bit, show that you are willing and able to contribute again and then nobody will have problems to give back your rights. But you have not done anything to show that you are willing to contribute. The whole activity you are willing to do is just a future maybe, that considering your past admin-activity is IMO quite likely never happening. In my experience those people who use their admin-rights only once in a blue moon, are those that most likely make mistakes because of a lack of Commons knowledge. -- Cecil (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Herby and Cecil. Concerns with lack of recent activity. You're a great editor, but the desysop policies were created for a reason. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't like being on the other side of a discussion from Herby and Fastily, but here goes:
I've never really understood the "10 edits or you're out rationale" -- either it should be some meaningful number such as 100, or it should be more flexible. After all, eight of us do half of all Admin actions and fifty of us do 90% -- we could remove half of all Admins and lose only 1% of the actions.
So here we have a former Admin, Arabic reader, OTRS member, active volunteer, who tells us that he or she is going to need the Admin bit for specific work in the next six months. If we don't support this, then, he or she says that it will generate more work for the rest of us. Why not just say "yes" here -- it costs nothing except bending policy a little and given the combination of skills here, bending policy seems to me to be appropriate. This is not a problem person after all -- far from it.
Also, I just asked for, and got, OTRS permission to help with my Admin work. I admitted, when asked there, that I might not do much on OTRS, but was approved because, apparently, it made sense over there. Seems to me that we could show the same flexibility here for the mirror reason.
Nuff said.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  •  Comment I am not sure whether I will vote here or what that vote will be. I did notice you mention you were a Commons admin at Meta which made me check as I was unaware you were and I found you one of the many less than active admins here. It really is a pity given the vast amount of work that does need doing here that people cannot manage to be a little more active and help out - 7 admin actions is probably around one minute's work for most active Commons admins. --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I regret not being more active, but have been crazy busy working to get partnerships going with the Archives, Smithsonian, and getting other outreach/project ideas going, and learning to handle batch uploads / work on tools. Still, I'd like to also help out more with admin tasks here, as time allows. Is there anything in particular that most critically needs admin attention? Would working on the missing permissions backlog be most helpful? or something else? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a question would be "what is the point of being an admin if you are not going to help out". That said I doubt much has changed since you were actually active - deletions always require work - both speedy and DRs. --Herby talk thyme 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I guess I feel obliged to point out to the community that 100 edits covers 2 years work which would not get you the rights conventionally. --Herby talk thyme 19:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was on wikibreak (burnout) from ~Nov 2009 - August 2010, with zero edits on enwiki + everywhere for several months. [1] I'm back and busy, gearing up for bulk uploads from our GLAM partners and also Wikipedia Takes DC / Baltimore events. I'm not really not at all comfortable doing bulk uploads, training newbies / GLAM partners, or organizing such events if I can't support them with any issues or problems that arise. And when I'm less busy with these things, I'm happy to help out with other admin tasks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth pointing out that my issues are not with trust but I feel Cecil has a point as far as experience/knowledge is concerned. Despite folk who hold views in other places Commons admin really does need to know rather more about legal issues for example and the only way that can be proved is via actually showing the knowledge by the work they do. I realise that the community must have considered you had that in the past but policies etc do evolve. --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...agree that knowing about the legal / copyright issues is so critical. I made mistakes early on (~2006) with some uploads, before being an admin, about freedom of panorama and derivative works. Lessons learned, very very well-aware of these issues, and I'm able to explain these issues to GLAM partners and others. For deletions, if I have one bit of doubt, I don't hesitate to let another admin handle it or to ask someone. And, re-read the policy pages too. For the "policies evolving" point, that makes me think... would it be useful if we covered things going on here in Commons in en:Wikipedia:Signpost, such as something that appears there monthly? I'm a semi-regular on the signpost and be interested in doing that? It could also cover content donations, batch uploads, etc. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither your present activity nor the proposed projects seem in particular need of administrator access. It was even shown to be problematic when administrators try to do their first batch upload. Images got deleted before we could even review what they were trying to do or what went wrong. Why don't you attempt to do one of the activities you plan to do and then apply? --  Docu  at 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to be accountable for batch uploads, especially those coming from content donations, and be able to assure the GLAM that we'll deal with any problems. It's not okay for any problems (e.g. something we later discover is copyrighted and not rights-released) to sit around in the backlogs. I hope situations like that are rare, but assurance and accountability is still necessary. As for "problematic when administrators try to do...", I'm doing everything possible to be careful, working with User:Multichill, will make my code open source (on the toolserver), and discuss on the batch uploads page. As a start, I'm working on Commons:Batch uploading/US Coast Guard. Cheers. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - Do you have any comments or feedback on Commons:Batch uploading/Adams? Do you want us to try to get higher resolution photos, if possible, from the National Archives? I can email them tomorrow to ask. Cheers. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Aude&oldid=58106092"