Rootology RfA on Commons Options

[Giggy]

I certainly zOMG'd when I first saw this.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...votes/Rootology

[Proabivouac]

I certainly zOMG'd when I first saw this.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...votes/Rootology

Go, Rootology!

[Giggy]

Go, Rootology!

Yes, I think I forgot to say that.

[Alex]

ZOMG all the trolls are taking over!

[guy]

Even Bastique has supported.

On the other hand, all Lar has done is carp about his lack of user boxes, so it's not a WR mass-support conspiracy.

[jch]

Even Bastique has supported.

On the other hand, all Lar has done is carp about his lack of user boxes, so it's not a WR mass-support conspiracy.

They've got a "policy" requiring them, since there's a ton of non-English speakers on Commons. This way, you're more likely of finding someone that speaks Left Elbowneese or whatever language you edit with.

[prospero]

Ouch, got denied by poetlister!

[Viridae]

LOL @ MONGO opposing.

[Giggy]

I suggest he still has to prove by demonstrated editing and collaborative evidence that he can be someone that should be entrusted with admin tools...be it here or on Wikipedia.

... except he's done that on both Commons and Wikipedia for the last few months. I'm glad I won't be closing this one.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

MONGO:

When I logged in there to ask him repeatedly why he failed to admit his own shortcomings, he banned me from his site...

Go figure.

[Rootology]

MONGO:

When I logged in there to ask him repeatedly why he failed to admit his own shortcomings, he banned me from his site...

Go figure.

No, thats not what happened, and those that were there on my site may recall quite differently. The scope of Wikiabuse before everyone went nuts and outside factors led me to pull the plug was articles on strictly administrator+ users, and strictly and absolutely based on "on-wiki" stuff, and the point as I intended it was strictly to be a catalog of breaches of trust and/or policy--basically, an RFC/evidence primer sheet or work space, the sort of thing which cannot be maintained on English Wikipedia indefinitely or even in some cases at all on some users due to political reasons. I spent 50% of my time deleting/scrubbing/oversighting external things. An admin, checkuser, b'cat, that literally did nothing wrong, followed consensus, and didn't act like a fool would literally have had an article on Wikiabuse that said, "Mr. Jones is an admin on English Wikipedia since January 1, 2005," and that would have been it. That's not what it ended up as, since it became completely unmanageable because of halfwits like Joseph100, that Barber nutjob that had it in for JzG to the point where him reverting a YOU SUCK COCKS!!!! vandal was deadmin worthy, and everyone and their second cousin posting IP information that I spent all my time removing.

MONGO had kept repeatedly recreating [[Rootology]] on the site, and got more and more agitated and upset over the fact I wouldn't let him as I wasn't an admin, so I finally asked him to leave after spending about a day and a half trying to reason with him as nicely as I could. When it degenerated into him insulting me and others on my own private website, I finally hit the block button.

I'm sort of surprised that the fact I blocked MONGO from my own private website that I own which had nothing to do with Commons is a reason I shouldn't pass an RFA on Commons...!

I suppose if I ran for RFA when I was 65 years old he'd finally accept that I'm a "good faith" user...

This post has been edited by Rootology: Sat 26th July 2008, 3:26pm

[Giggy]

I get the feeling introducing Collard to this forum would have interesting results...

[Rootology]

Since Commons is so mellow and low key, and all about "Is this image right for us to have?" as the main question any day, I'm not surprised more commons folk aren't over here.

[The Joy]

I get the feeling introducing Collard to this forum would have interesting results...

We could invite Redvers, too. Now, THAT would produce interesting results!

[Giggy]

I get the feeling introducing Collard to this forum would have interesting results...

We could invite Redvers, too. Now, THAT would produce interesting results!

I would say this guy, too, but we've already got him. Teeheehee.

[Robert Roberts]

neither of those "oppose" votes have anything to do with his actions at commons, so should be disregarded.

[Shalom]

The RFA passed.

[that one guy]

Congrats Root. Big step to be even more accepted in the en-wiki community.

Course, some wank like MONGO is going to say "Well lar promoted him, and both of them go on WR, so it was an inside job", completely ignoring the results.

This post has been edited by that one guy: Thu 31st July 2008, 11:09pm

[Giggy]

Course, some wank like MONGO is going to say "Well lar promoted him, and both of them go on WR, so it was an inside job", completely ignoring the results.

I supported early so I could bail out of closing it, just to avoid the flack. That said, I can't see how there isn't consensus, so complaints based on the closer's percieved bias are weak, in my opinion.

(My quoting that comment doesn't imply that I consider MONGO a wank.)

This post has been edited by Giggy: Thu 31st July 2008, 11:30pm