Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin? Options

[carbuncle]

I guess Ashley wants to delete the rest of his embarrassing uploads without the fuss of having to ask an admin...

I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last year I have committed to Commons projects, mostly in my role as a volunteer leading the GLAM UK programme, my work as an OTRS volunteer (for which having tools would mean a wider scope of the types of ticket I would pick up) and also my work as a trusted user (using my own scraping tool to help check and empty the Flickr backlog queue of dubious uploads every now and then). I run Faebot, though I recently paused in using my iMacro scripts as I would like to move to more standard batch upload tools for larger upload projects. In 2012 I will be part of a number of Commons projects and partnerships, including my continuing involvement in the future batch upload tool and some very high quality uploads with our UK GLAM partners; though it would always be useful to have a GLAM-knowledgeable admin available to help out, more important will be my experience of helping with all types of admin tasks on Commons to inform these projects as well as continuing the support I already give to the institutions on how to encourage Wikimedians to join in with making these projects a success, as well as promoting the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution. Fæ (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

[Kelly Martin]

It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.

[mbz1]

It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.

But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ?
OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo?
If yes, please tell me why.

[melloden]

It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.

But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ?
OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo?
If yes, please tell me why.

"very good article" my ass. Gregory rarely writes very good articles. He sometimes writes very interesting articles, and other times very biased articles, but they're hardly very good articles.

I'm hoping he might learn a thing or two from Bali ultimate about writing articles that actually contain a small bit of credibility.

Gregory, do you write for the Patch? I think you would be very good at it, especially tracking local corruption and the like.

[thekohser]

"very good article" my ass. Gregory rarely writes very good articles. He sometimes writes very interesting articles, and other times very biased articles, but they're hardly very good articles.

I'm hoping he might learn a thing or two from Bali ultimate about writing articles that actually contain a small bit of credibility.

Gregory, do you write for the Patch? I think you would be very good at it, especially tracking local corruption and the like.

"melloden", I will happily answer your question about the Patch, if you'll just kindly tell me who you are. I don't feel the need to cooperate with some pseudonymous git who enjoys insulting my work. Fortunately, others can conclude that "good" articles can be written from a very biased perspective. For heaven's sake, with what do you think the op-ed page of any newspaper is filled?

Anyway, in less than 18 months of writing for Examiner, I've had over 58,000 page views. It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.

[melloden]

"very good article" my ass. Gregory rarely writes very good articles. He sometimes writes very interesting articles, and other times very biased articles, but they're hardly very good articles.

I'm hoping he might learn a thing or two from Bali ultimate about writing articles that actually contain a small bit of credibility.

Gregory, do you write for the Patch? I think you would be very good at it, especially tracking local corruption and the like.

"melloden", I will happily answer your question about the Patch, if you'll just kindly tell me who you are. I don't feel the need to cooperate with some pseudonymous git who enjoys insulting my work. Fortunately, others can conclude that "good" articles can be written from a very biased perspective. For heaven's sake, with what do you think the op-ed page of any newspaper is filled?

Anyway, in less than 18 months of writing for Examiner, I've had over 58,000 page views. It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.

It's OK, Gregory. If I told you who I was, you wouldn't believe it, now, would you?

Op-eds aren't news. They're more opinions that happen to be opposite the editorial page. Even Wikipedia says so.

Also, I feel obligated to point out that 58,000 pageviews is a little over one-third of what some article about an octopus garnered in one day. The moral is that people like reading about octopi more than Wikipedia. And no one cares about journalistic integrity when reading about octopi, I hope.

[Fusion]

Also, I feel obligated to point out that 58,000 pageviews is a little over one-third of what some article about an octopus garnered in one day.

This point was already made by "melloden", Fusion. Please keep up with us!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It is not the same. Melloden said that one article about an octopus had attracted many views. I was asking (not making a point, genuinely asking a question to get information) how many articles in total in Wikipedia had had so many views.

[thekohser]

It is not the same. Melloden said that one article about an octopus had attracted many views. I was asking (not making a point, genuinely asking a question to get information) how many articles in total in Wikipedia had had so many views.

Oh, you were being sincere?! I'm not used to that here, sorry. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

We can probably deduce an average page views per Wikipedia article statistic in a couple of ways.

Some facts:
There are about 16 billion monthly page views of all language Wikipedias, (I assume) including article and non-article pages.

English Wikipedia articles represent about 20% of all language Wikipedia articles.

Some assumptions:
Article traffic probably constitutes at least 50% of all page traffic on the English Wikipedia.

The English Wikipedia probably gets at least 150% more than its relative "share" of multi-language global page traffic, given that it's the largest Wikipedia and English is a globally dominant language.

+++

Given those facts and assumptions, one might conclude:
16,000,000,000 x 0.20 x 0.50 x 1.50 = 2,400,000,000 English Wikipedia article page views per month

Given that there are about 3.9 million English Wikipedia articles, that's about 615 page views per article, per month, on average.

###

Another way of checking might be to take X random English Wikipedia articles, then check their actual monthly page views with the Henrik tool.

I tried 15 random articles, and their November 2011 page views were as follows:

166
3359
75
908
375
60
248
76
200
312
2476
189
104
7877
243

Or, an average of (13143 / 15) 876 page views per article per month.

Note that my 58,000 Examiner page views are now spread across 53 articles all together, but I began 18 months ago with just 1 article, so is it somewhat fair to say that my average page views per article are something like 58,000 divided by (let's say) 30, or approximately 1,933 page views per Examiner article, which we would then divide by 18 months to get an average of 107 page views per Examiner article per month?

Or, we could look at the 3,400 page views I've had in December, across 51 or 52 existing articles, which would be in the neighborhood of 65 or 70 page views per Examiner article per month.

Therefore, one might conclude that my Examiner articles are proportionally anywhere from one-twelfth to one-seventh as popular as a typical Wikipedia page. Plus, I get paid. For both.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[melloden]

It is not the same. Melloden said that one article about an octopus had attracted many views. I was asking (not making a point, genuinely asking a question to get information) how many articles in total in Wikipedia had had so many views.

Oh, you were being sincere?! I'm not used to that here, sorry. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

We can probably deduce an average page views per Wikipedia article statistic in a couple of ways.

Some facts:
There are about 16 billion monthly page views of all language Wikipedias, (I assume) including article and non-article pages.

English Wikipedia articles represent about 20% of all language Wikipedia articles.

Some assumptions:
Article traffic probably constitutes at least 50% of all page traffic on the English Wikipedia.

The English Wikipedia probably gets at least 150% more than its relative "share" of multi-language global page traffic, given that it's the largest Wikipedia and English is a globally dominant language.

+++

Given those facts and assumptions, one might conclude:
16,000,000,000 x 0.20 x 0.50 x 1.50 = 2,400,000,000 English Wikipedia article page views per month

Given that there are about 3.9 million English Wikipedia articles, that's about 615 page views per article, per month, on average.

###

Another way of checking might be to take X random English Wikipedia articles, then check their actual monthly page views with the Henrik tool.

I tried 15 random articles, and their November 2011 page views were as follows:

166
3359
75
908
375
60
248
76
200
312
2476
189
104
7877
243

Or, an average of (13143 / 15) 876 page views per article per month.

Note that my 58,000 Examiner page views are now spread across 53 articles all together, but I began 18 months ago with just 1 article, so is it somewhat fair to say that my average page views per article are something like 58,000 divided by (let's say) 30, or approximately 1,933 page views per Examiner article, which we would then divide by 18 months to get an average of 107 page views per Examiner article per month?

Or, we could look at the 3,400 page views I've had in December, across 51 or 52 existing articles, which would be in the neighborhood of 65 or 70 page views per Examiner article per month.

Therefore, one might conclude that my Examiner articles are proportionally anywhere from one-twelfth to one-seventh as popular as a typical Wikipedia page. Plus, I get paid. For both.

I'm rather impressed.