Commons:Administrators/Requests/Dragons flight

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 16;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 0 - 94.1% Result = successful Consensus to promote (temporarily) seems clear. Was provisionally promoted before end of RfA so could get on with tasks needed. It now being well over a week since the request was made, this request is closed as successful. Community expectation is that when tasks are done, we will be notified and bit will be turned off again. If at that time the bit is to be retained, another RfA will be required. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons flight

Voice your opinion

Links for Dragons flight: Dragons flight (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

This is an unusual request. I am one of the leaders of the WMF licensing update committee (listed under my real name: Robert Rohde). During the next several weeks (June 15th to approximately Aug. 1st), the WMF will be migrating a large amount of GFDL content — text and images — to CC-BY-SA-3.0, per the licensing update. In thinking about the work that needs to be done here, there are a large number of protected templates (e.g. {{GFDL}} and kin) that need to be modified, as well as a smaller number Mediawiki messages. Initially this will take the form of a simple notice that the licensing update is in progress, but it will get somewhat more complex as we create categories and notices to manage transitional work, etc.

I am applying for adminship here to make working on the licensing update project easier (i.e. so I can make changes myself rather than filing dozens of protected edit requests). There are already Commons admins on the update committee and working with the License Migration Task Force, so it won't be the end of the world if the community does not allow a request such as this. (Since the start of the transition is hypothetically only three days away, the protected edit work will be initially started by others, regardless of what happens here.)

If this request is granted, I won't use any tools outside the scope of the license update, and plan to resign Commons adminship at the end of the license update project (Aug. 1st or thereabouts, we hope).

Though not terribly relevant, I am a long-standing contributor and admin on enwiki, and have ~600 contributions on Commons going back to 2006.

Granted

I have went ahead and flipped the bit, since it is limited scope and temporary. However this discussion is NOT closed. (it has until at least 16:05 UTC 19 June to run till) If the community consensus ends up that Dragons flight should not have this temporary right, I will ensure that it is removed again (as a steward, I can do that myself, although for completeness I'll probably document it as a request at M:SRP and let one of my comrades do it)... I will also expect that Dragons flight will let us know (Aug. 1st or thereabouts, we hope)... that the work is done, and I can remove it at that time or, again for completeness, document it as a request at M:SRP. Any questions or concerns you know where to find me! :) ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.  Support Mainly because I know Robert personally and trust that he's capable of being a valuable administrator on Commons. --Bastique demandez 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose What's needed are admins with a commitment to the project in all areas, not individuals who want admin powers to drive a personal agenda (however deserving) before abandoning Commons. I see no reason why requested changes can't be tabled and enacted by current admins, or if no oversight is deemed necessary for batches of files to be unprotected for short periods.KTo288 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support Admins play lots of different roles - if their adminship improves the project they shoudl be approved. AndrewRT (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Sensible user. Majorly talk 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Let the best do their best. ~MDD4696 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 05:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support good contribs. – Innv | d | s: 06:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - Adminship don't means to be Admin everytime, everywhere for everything. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Shouldn't be a problem.--Giants27 T/C 02:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support - see no reason not to trust the user; net benefit. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support I thought you were an admin already. odder 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support, of course. There's no reason to refuse help that's being offered, and he's a trusted user anyway. I also agree with Lar in the comments below, let's move this faster, past the usual bureaucracy, given that it's a special (meaning different, not superior!) case. --Waldir talk 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support Well explained request. feydey (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support The extra help is appreciated. Rocket000 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support per Rocket000. Sv1xv (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support -- WonRyong (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I suggest to the community that since this is in essence a temporary request, for work that could commence shortly if DF were an admin already, and for activities that are very limited in scope, that (unless there are a body of admins ready and willing to do this work, under the direction of those who know what needs doing, who speak up now to identify themselves) that we not wait the customary period, to grant this request. Instead I suggest we do so immediately, so the work can get under way... I request that the community find it is within discretion of the 'crats to grant it (given the limited scope of the request) summarily. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are feeling generous, now would be a good time, otherwise I'll be starting to file {{Editprotected}} requests in a few hours tomorrow. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect I find Lar's suggestion to be dangerous, misguided and utterly objectionable. Misguided because Dragon Flight is well on the way to becoming an admin here without such an intervention and that the admiship will be granted in a matter of days if not hours. I find it dangerous as it will set a precedent in which deserving individuals can be granted adminship on the "discretion of...'crats". I put it to all that such a move will circumvent the adminship process of allowing the will of the community to be reflected. In this case the will of the voting community is pretty clear cut, what if in future a similar case was to present itself, that work needs to be done and that the individual was known and trusted on a sister project? I find this suggestion objectionable as adminship is not a gift to be given by crats, but a responsibility granted by the community, anything that deviates from the established and accepted procedure is a step on the road to an administration by the dictat of autocrats.KTo288 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are already processes elsewhere to grant temporary adminship. I'm not suggesting a carte blanche discretion, but instead a shorter process for urgent temporary requests. Some community input would be needed, (unlike temporary requests elsewhere) just not necessarily the full process. Sorry if that was not clear. However, with all due respect, I find your response to my suggestion rather ... polemic. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guilty as charged I guess, though I can't help but see rhetorical flourishes in your own initial statement. Would you prefer:- I would be unhappy with any shortcuts to the established adminship process, as to do so would bypass the scrutiny of the community at large. You better then anyone should know that Commons is not elsewhere, there are rules elsewhere that do not apply here and vice versa. Processes used elsewhere were decided by the communities elsewhere to deal with the needs elsewhere. If similar processes are needed here they should be presented to, discussed by and either accepted or rejected by the community here.KTo288 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is what I did. Process here tends to get created ad-hoc, via a case coming up and then a consensus based decision being taken. This is the case and I'm asking for a consensus. Take me through why granting adminship early in this case, given that it's to be temporary and limited in scope, would be a bad thing. Be specific to this case, please. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • First to be specific to this case it probably is not going to happen but there could be a sudden groundswell of opinion in which voters will turn out to vote and that this request fails. To rule out this possibility would be to make the presumption that an apparantly clear cut request based on the initial number of votes, validity of the request etc that this request should go through. This is bad because as you admit it is not specifically about this case "Process here tends to get created ad-hoc, via a case coming up and then a consensus based decision being taken." I cannot read anything in your words then that individual cases create precedence, and with the creation of precedence policy. Allowing this first case then creates precedence, and with precedence policy. It would mean that a case would exist and be on record as such that a request in which a 'crats considered opinion that an individual should be an admin should be and can be speedily granted. Where does such a precedence lead? To second, third and fourth cases. Can the process be cut to four days, three, one. We would be on the road to the day where a request could be made for adminship where 3 or 4 regular voters immediately endorsed the request, and where an admin would immediately close the request as an obvious case for a deserving individual.
          • When I say that proposed "...processes should bepresented to, discussed by and either accepted or rejected by the community here." I do not mean just those who turn up to vote here or even those who bother to read these pages, but the community at large, to be presented, discussed and decided on formally and transparantly by the community at large.KTo288 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taking your objections on board... how about this (given that this is time sensitive) In this specific case, we grant early, but leave things running and if at the end of the normal period of discussion it's not a clear cut promote, we turn it off then and there, as if it never happened. In future cases where it's stated the need is immediate and temporary, with a definite end date, if after there are at least 5 comments, the consensus at that moment is to promote, we do the same thing... promote but leave running and undo if at the end there's not a clear consensus. How's that? ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds reasonable to me. --Waldir talk 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was all ready to start negotiating when I realised that I have as much right to accept concessions and offer compromises as I have of selling you the Brooklyn Bridge or the Sydney Opera House, that I have neither the right to accept or concede. I have a constituency of exactly one, you on the other hand have faced election and have been endorsed by the community. Although I still believe any short cutting of the admin process is wrong, ultimately the decision is for you to make,for you to use the authority the community has entrusted to you and all other administrators (who have mostly remained silent). Maybe I have been mistaken and quixotic and no one else is uneasy about the speedy granting of adminships, even temporary ones, and that I'm making a big fuss over nothing. I therefore surrender the floor, and ask that you all do what ever you in good conscience and judgement think best.KTo288 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not so much that we're "negotiating" as it is that you've raised objections/concerns, and I've tried to address them rather than just dismiss them outright... if you feel I've not addressed the objections, you should say so... we are none of us perfect and maybe I missed something! Anyway, this nom has only one more day to run, so I think if I close it early now, we're not taking a big risk that it was going to come out differently. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again do as you think best, if I come across as being slightly huffy, its more because no one else sees the danger of the risk of the acceptance of a system where we have appointed admins, may be no such danger exists, and not with you. I cannot believe that you personally have anything but the best of intentions and goals with your suggestion, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Again my objections are not with this particular case, but that it creates precedence, if precedence is created you will not always be the one to endorse a shortened process. Already there is the appearence in Rfas of back scratching and the formation of cliques of mutual support, there will be a long way to go before a shorterned rfa process is used to promote cronies and friends from elsewhere to be admins, but on every road there is a first step.KTo288 (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nod. I think there's a lot to what you said, we do not want to short circuit thoughtfulness, or set up a crony system. Which is why I've modified my thinking... the bit was flipped but the RfA itself isn't over... people should still feel free to oppose (and in fact if DF misuses his bit that would be something to highlight!) or support. I think that's a good compromise for urgent situations (and it fits, in some ways, with the precedent we set when we gave someone a provisional approval). I hope you do too. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I can at least speak for me, but it's probably true for others as well. The reason I didn't oppose (or support) this idea was because I didn't really see it as a big deal. In a way, there's a comfort in seeing little discussion about this (obviously others had a chance to speak up if they felt inclined to). We can still do what makes the most sense in each situation and are not completely carried away with bureaucracy and formalities that sometimes gets in the way of doing the thing that will help the project the most. Yes, there is always a little inherent danger in bending the rules, but well, I won't throw an "Ignore all rules" link at you but there's an important message behind the hypocrisy. Rocket000 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Dragons_flight&oldid=36532557"