Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rodhullandemu

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 15;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 2 – 94%. Result: Successful. odder (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear ladies and gentlemen of Wikimedia Commons, I'm here today to nominate Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) for administratorship. He is currently an autopatroller, file mover, and rollbacker with a clean block log and over ten thousand contributions to Wikimedia Commons. He has participated in quite a few administrative areas like DR 1, DR 2, and DR 3, the latter demonstrating his mastery of Commons policies and copyright like {{FoP-UK}}; he has also clerked a bit at Commons:Undeletion requests. I think his familiarity with Commons policies and practices would make him a great addition to the administrator team, and will have him participate more in administrative areas. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: Thanks for the nomination, which I humbly accept. If appointed, I will try to familiarise myself with a wider range of policy areas and will tread carefully in applying that knowledge. I am, of course, open to any questions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support As nominator. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Definitely. -FASTILY 23:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support to let him prove he can do it; with more than 130,000 edits here, lots of experience, no blocks and the block of enwp is history for me Trijnsteltalk 11:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Absolutely not. In my experience based on a few recent enough interactions, Rod seems to think consensus building is just a vote with some extra words, where everyone gets to present their "honestly held" opinion, and that's that. If you query something he has said, sometimes he will simply ignore you. He is apparently unaware that this sort of stonewalling is a textbook example of the non-sweary kind of incivility. I'm all for the principle of ending a back and forth once it has become circular or unproductive - users can and should be able to simply agree to disagree - but Rod seems to me to believe that on Commons, he is under no obligation to present any kind of counter-argument at all, even if it's just to give a single reply explaining how the other person are themselves mistaken. That's simply not how consensus works, and by extension it's not how Commons should work. It's certainly not the mindset any admin should have, even on Commons. Ultra7 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ultra7. In order for the rest of us to make a determination, could you please provide evidence in the form of diffs or pages? I realize it's a pain, but the rest of us don't have the knowledge you do. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't keep a record of such things, but I recalled Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ultra7 quite easily as it was only a few months ago and I remembered what specific file it involved. It is a classic example - he declined to answer the challenge to his view that the images were "too blurred to be of satisfactory use", except to pointlessly restate it once in slightly different form. Later on, in a follow up undeletion request where someone else again challenged this view, all he did then was literally vote. After that user complained about his ongoing refusal to engage, Rod provided in his own words a window into the problem - "Now listen here, y'all. I am not here to be cross-examined. I understand the difference betwee a consensus and a vote. If my reasons for voting to delete or keep any image are insufficient, by all means let the closing admin disregard what I have to say. But I'm not prepared to be hounded. That's all I have to say, apart from urging others to apply a little good faith. End of.". Fine words, but in reality, in these two linked debates, he'd done nothing except vote, first with words, then without. Being cross-examined is an integral part of consensus building, and calling their requests "hounding" was frankly ridiculous, disgraceful even, as it's a direct accusation of misconduct. And AGF does not cover users who deliberately choose to ignore others for no good reason (that debate having never even got close to the 'agree to disagree' stage). Commons doesn't need (any more) admins who lack such basic understanding of the fundamentals of how Wikimedia projects operate, and it certainly doesn't need any more admins who think nothing of accusing other users of misconduct just because they're not willing to explain themselves to them. We should be working to get rid of the ones like that which are already here, but that's hard to do when others protect them from scrutiny just because they're good at high speed button mashing/vote counting (a class of admin I fear Rod will be elevated into if successful here). Ultra7 (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed another reason to oppose - I found this comment Rod made a couple of days ago to another user to be wholly problematic for a potential admin to make - "There was a cogent structure in place, which you could have realised was your intended goal in this process, and which you've now undone. I'll leave it up to you to fix it in your own time, as I have other things to do" [1]. Not only is the tone arrogant and condescending, what he was saying didn't even make any sense. The user had made it clear to Rod in the preceding post that he was aware the structure existed and what it was for, and that he knew what his goal was before he began, and that he had not yet completed that task. He also told him he thought he was acting on the advice of an admin on how to fix a perceived problem, and this was not with the structure, but with its contents. It's as if Rod didn't read that post at all, or if he did, he couldn't alter his initial perceptions about the situation to take account of it. It's lucky that particular user didn't take that post the wrong way, but I can imagine other good faith volunteers reacting very angrily to being treated this way, especially when a full explanation for the edits could be found a short distance up the page. Ultra7 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{o}} - I'm sorry, but I think your record speaks for itself. The number of blocks you received on en.wp is evidence that you are not fit for adminship. (Aside: the number of unblocks and lost case at Arbcom only show that R is good at gaming the system.) I realize it's been a few years, but I really trust Arbcom and Jimmy Wales when it comes to character judgment; if R is unable or unwilling to follow some standards put forth by Jimbo, that is a huge red flag. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I missed a few zeros TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most people call me Rod for short. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not at my best at that time, but then I don't think that ArbCom was either. It was several years ago and I was living in unhelpful personal circumstances, from which I have since moved away. The conditions set by Jimmy Wales for my return to that project could not have been reasonably met by me, and I have decided not to return to Wikipedia; the past should remain nothing more than a painful memory as well as a learning curve. However, I am not the only person banned from one Wikimedia project who has been able to contribute positively to others. I hope I have been able to have been of some use here, categorising images and some uploads. The type of stress suffered by Admins on Wikipedia does not seem to occur here. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since that block was made in 2011, I hoped Wikimedia Commons would be able to overlook that in the three-year timespan since, and focus more towards Rod's recent contributions. But I guess I should have included that for transparency. I've also noted administrators here like Russavia have also been banned on the English Wikipedia, so I think it should have minimal impact for Commons administratorship competence levels here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that is going to come up, but it's good that he's had a chance to address it. The condition set by Jimbo does seem quite intrusive and extreme. As a former en.wiki admin myself, I know that things are more intense there than here at times, especially when Arbcom is in the picture. INeverCry 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find the Jimbo condition disgusting. Jcb (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, when a non-admin nominates someone to be an admin, there really should be a big red warning highlighting that fact to commenters. If I hadn't just happened to look, I wouldn't have realised that this nominator not only isn't an admin themselves, but a quick look at their talk page shows that they really aren't in any position to be claiming that anyone has a "mastery of Commons policies and copyright" or has "familiarity with Commons policies and practices". Obviously you would hope supporters are doing their own research and not just relying on the nominator to tell them if Rod is a capable candidate, but I think it's odd to say the least that he took this inexperienced users advice to run, even though he himself doubted whether or not he had the necessary knowledge to do the job. This is a post for life after all, on Commons anyway, so it would be good to know if he's going to be asking people to AGF all the time in the event it turns out he does lack the necessary knowledge. Ultra7 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most admins, myself included, gain experience as they go. I started off on more simple DRs and CSD, and through observation and experience got to know more about FoP and licenses. As Rod states in his acceptance, he's ready and willing to learn, and will be careful as he starts out. As for adminship being a "post for life," admins are subject to COM:AN/U, etc, just like anyone else, and to criticism/correction from fellow admins, which is definitely not a rare thing. We also have a desysop process here for extreme cases. INeverCry 17:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know full well what we have and how it's all supposed to work in theory. I also know exactly what actually happens in practice, through bitter experience. Ultra7 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The implication that only Admins should be able to nominate for adminship reeks of the sort of cliquism I thought we try to avoid here. But as I say, I would not be doing anything likely to be controversial if chosen. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were still having some of your speedy deletion tags converted to regular DRs as recently as last month, I for one am not convinced you would even realise what sort of action might be controversial before you did it. This is why people really need to be warned who exactly is claiming you have "mastery of Commons policies and copyright". Ultra7 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with that; another editor disagreed with me and put the matter potentially before a wider audience. That's not in the least bit controversial, IMO, it's the way Commons works. I don't remember them individually, and you haven't provided diffs, but my recollection is that in at least one, the closing Admin agreed with my initial reason for requesting a speedy, and that was upheld at a DR. It might be foolish of anyone, most of all me, to claim complete mastery, but I feel my knowledge gained here over the last six years is at least adequate to make a start in dealing with some of the Admin backlogs if I'm elected. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin gave a one word closure even though it was obviously not going to be sufficient and would be challenged. He does it all the time, because he's far too busy clearing backlogs to do that sort of thing. Only when asked did he clarify that this was yet another case where he deleted an image based on what could be seen when zoomed in, which is a clear violation of COM:DM. But I know from past experience at AN/U that on Commons today, there is absolutely no point complaining about stuff like that (less so when the admin in question is an efficient backlog clearer). I filed a UD, and it was closed after just one comment and less than 12 hours. He closed a few like that, so this was presumably just another backlog clearer in motion. The single comment came from an admin who made some claims that quite clearly don't stand up to any scrutiny or even logic, but which he still stands by because apparently it all falls under the umbrella of 'subjectivity' (which to me just seems like another version of your 'honest held opinion' mantra). When I complained to the closer at his talk page, pointing out all the erroneous things that he and the other two admins had said about this image, and listing all the things that prove this image should not have been deleted, he justified the decision using a logical fallacy (prove a negative), a poor comparison to completely dissimilar image, and by claiming that because the other two admins said delete, he must be right. At no point did he address the substance of my complaints, and he very quickly (the 2nd post in fact) reached 'ignore user' mode, based on the bizarre pretence that because I had taken the other admin's argument to its logical conclusion, to prove that it was clearly indefensible, he was "done talking". Although alarmingly in the 3rd post he then went on to suggest the deletion might also be OK because our CC licenses require derivatives, and that's hard to do for COM:DM cases, so maybe we just shouldn't. Obviously that's completely against COM:DM and CC itself. And of course, he claimed this was all OK because the remedial action to make this image OK is easy. With just his 3rd post there, we had reached the "I have made my point quite clear" stage, even though he had not bothered to reformulate or expand his point since post 1. As always, my failure as a mere non-admin (who registered 6 years before he did, 5.9 years before he became an admin) to understand his logic the first time he replied, and my continuing issue with it, was of course all my fault, and has absolutely nothing to do with his knowledge/understanding/logic. And there we have it. Another classic example of how perfectly good images get deleted from Commons because there are admins here who apparently don't understand policy or even copyright, and more importantly can't or won't explain their decisions to the ordinary users, not least because they're ever so busy doing the important stuff - clearing backlogs. If you get elected as an admin Rod, I am not seeing how you would act any differently to any of those admins did, at any stage. In fact I'm seeing how you would bypass all that potential fuss and lost backlog clearing time if you were elected as an admin, as you would have the power to simply delete such images with a single click. I'm still not entirely sure if you are even allowed to speedy delete COM:DM cases, are they covered by the FoP exception or are they just a DW variant? That seems to me the sort of thing an admin should know, right? Do you know? It certainly seems to me to be the sort of thing that would lead to controversy if it were left to on the job training, perhaps only noticed after you'd made significant headway in clearing all sorts of backlogs using speedy deletion. Ultra7 (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ultra7, could you please stop to abuse this page for your feelings/complaints towards other admins? Thank you. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And can you please note that the above post included plenty of feelings/complaints about what this specific candidate would do if he became an admin, and that the whole thing refers to a situation that he himself started with a speedy deletion tag. I'd like to hear his answers on those issues, even if you don't. Ultra7 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. I think Ultra7 has said his point and given the necessary diffs, so continuing the discussion is becoming unproductive. We will, and I encourage everyone else to, definitely look at the diffs however and make a judgment based on them, as well as the points listed in the nomination. That's the best I can hope for as far as objectively making an informed decision as to Rod's competence level. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against you TeleComNasSprVen personally, just the process. By all means let's have anyone nominating anyone for any reason, let's just make sure the process isn't misleading people into thinking it works differently. Ultra7 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rodhullandemu&oldid=117596495"