Commons:Administrators/Requests/Yarl

With respect to Odder for being upfront about advising Polish Wikipedia, here on Commons we don't have set in stone a canvassing policy. Disregarding a couple of votes which obviously came out of that notice on plwiki, I am still seeing plenty of long-term Commons editors providing their support for Yarl, and as such I am closing this request off as successful. russavia (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yarl

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 21:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear community,
it is my pleasure to present for your consideration — as my first-ever nominee on this project — the candidacy of Yarl. Based in Poland, Paweł has been a long-standing Wikimedian, editing at least since early 2006, and is a current administrator on the Polish Wikipedia as well as an image-reviewer, filemover, patroller, rollbacker and operator of several bots here on Commons. He is also the creator and maintainer of Commons:VicuñaUploader, the better version of Commonist.

I have been watching Yarl edit on Commons for a long time, and feel that he will be more than capable of dealing with the everyday work of an administrator here, especially considering his experience on the Polish Wikipedia, and also because he has been much help in dealing with copyright violations on the IRC channel #wikimedia-commons, pointing myself and other administrators to various wrongdoing users. All in all, I am sure that Yarl will be a positive addition to the Commons administrators' team. odder (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Yarl has accepted this nomination. odder (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've got nothing to add except previous, old (4 years, wow!) self-nom. Yarl ✉ 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support As nominator. odder (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seeing the work that he does, cannot disagree with the nomination. Wpedzich (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support He asks from time to time people to do something on Commons (and I don't remember that he asked about something wrong), if he'd get rights, he could do it by himself. We aren't firends personally, but I can't say anything bad abuot his work, so I'm sure to support him. Rock On! Krzysiu (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alan ffm (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good nomination Pitak (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl can into adminship russavia (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust odder in finding good admin candidates and thus I trust Yarl. Good luck in advance. Trijnstel_talk 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted and experienced nominee. INeverCry 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very experienced, has my trust. --Avenue (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support about time--Morning ☼ (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomasz Wachowski (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Experienced and trustworthy.--FAEP (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Foroa (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Radmic (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support John Belushi (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jakub Kaja (✉) 08:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Boston9 (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Known and trusted user from pl-wiki and now with all knowledge and skills required to become a Commons admin. Full yes for him. Masur (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Experienced and trustworthy. PMG (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99kerob (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy user with a lot of expierience and cool head Masti (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pablo000 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ! Beax 19:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darekm135 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rzuwig^► 20:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Érico Wouters ^msg 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I do not see problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Udufruduhu (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, expirienced user, very good candidate - my full support & thanks for contributions! Orem (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. I do not see problems. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 07:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sounds good, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really care if it's considered "tradition", but I feel that informing Polish Wikipedia about the RfA on another project is canvassing. I know that this is going to pass, even if the votes of the people that aren't ever active on this project are discounted, because enough of the actual regulars are supporting this, and truth be told I'd probably be supporting it too if not for the canvassing, but when it comes down to it, I think that what's been done is inappropriate, and I want my vote to reflect that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is canvassing and is inappropriate. Quite a few of the votes above are a direct result of the posting at pl.wiki. I don't think RFAs should be announced anywhere. INeverCry 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read the definition of canvassing, then, just as I did before I posted that message onto pl.wiki. odder (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That page says that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The posting at pl.wiki brought over several votes from users who have little or no experience here, so I don't see how posting a notification there added anything to the discussion of whether or not Yarl should be an admin on Commons. INeverCry 19:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "Broadening participation" is not a license to bring in people from other projects that have no real depth of experience with this project. Instead of building consensus, what you're doing is encouraging ballot stuffing. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests and votes/Yarl, the previous attempt, has been blocked mainly because of the canvassing, so it seems to work both ways. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, of course. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Info As per the usual local tradition, the Polish Wikipedia community has been informed about this RfA. odder (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What means local? Of which project? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The local tradition of the Polish Wikipedia community. odder (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about the vote stacking

My wiki experience shows that discrimination in drafting of admins is ubiquitous. The situation where the guy x with P(x) = q (where P is a certain attribute and q is a certain value) can easier have access to admin tools that those with P(·) ≠ q is common and is not especially detrimental. Of course, I am not happy with the fact that Poles (more precisely, the people of pl.wikipedia) have increasingly strong hold on Wikimedia Commons, relatively to other nations. But, since I consider the local community, given in isolation, as irresponsible and depleted of intelligence, due to well-known causes, I do not see anything inherently wrong in colonization of Commons by Wikipedians. Poles want to have more compatriots in the administration; well, let'm have it, just let other nations do the same.

My wiki experience shows that a real trouble starts when the guy x with P(x) = q cannot be desysopped. It is obvious that user:Jimbo Wales obtained a sysop due to a strong positive discrimination. It was not a great problem when he started to apply a personal agenda using the tools, though – in 2010, the community had no tolerance to abuse of power and wheel warring. But is Commons ready to cleanse itself of wrongdoers now? I feel that it is not so ready as 2½ years ago. If Commons will promptly expel wrongdoers from the administration in the future, then there would be no problem with Polish (Spanish, English, Russian and so on) "colonization" now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Yarl

Contents