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)

[EricBarbour]

It appears that he will get it, too. So far only Ottava objected.

Increasingly it appears that the Commons "community" is the most toxic and intolerant of all
the WMF "project-things". I should look into this further.

[carbuncle]

It appears that he will get it, too. So far only Ottava objected.

I have no doubt that Ashley will get the bits he desires, but it will be interesting to see the Common's community's reaction to the opposing votes.

[carbuncle]

And I have my answer already...

Fear of canvassing of RfA Fæ

Hi everyone. I'm posting this as I fear canvassing on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ. All users who opposed after Ottava Rima didn't edit here for a long time. In particular RMHED (his first edit in two years) and Bali ultimate (he didn't edit here before). I could use some help overthere. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

(Where did he post that?)

[lilburne]

He seems to be feltching here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...%27_noticeboard

[Eppur si muove]

Muckbutt seems to be plastering the rfa with comments about the opposers. I wonder why he is so keen on Ash. I am almost tempted to change one more letter in his id. But that would be homophobic of me.

Besides he can't count.

[Peter Damian]

Bali ultimate blocked on commons, with all sorts of statements oversighted http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...s/Bali_ultimate and Fae deletes yet another comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=468007545 .

Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.

[EricBarbour]

Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.

Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.

So far the vote is 15 yes, 11 no. This is typical of how they "heel" a vote--by wearing people down.
Commons is a much smaller community than en-wiki, so they can pull stunts like this.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 28th December 2011, 8:22am

[tarantino]

Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.

Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.

It looks like there will soon be more main stream media coverage on wikimedia's governance.

Bali ultimate is Dan Murphy, former Middle Eastern correspondent and current staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

[lilburne]

It looks like there will soon be more main stream media coverage on wikimedia's governance.

Bali ultimate is Dan Murphy, former Middle Eastern correspondent and current staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

that pictures of penises, flaccid or engorged, should be handled with special care

Could have been better phrased.

This post has been edited by lilburne: Wed 28th December 2011, 4:14pm

[SB_Johnny]

Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.

Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.

It looks like there will soon be more main stream media coverage on wikimedia's governance.

Bali ultimate is Dan Murphy, former Middle Eastern correspondent and current staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

I guess Peter warmed them up for him.

[EricBarbour]

Bali ultimate is Dan Murphy, former Middle Eastern correspondent and current staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

Well well, so there is a Sanity Clause.

I remember Bali, and that people were semi-impressed with his work on en-wiki.
He obviously knew about problems with BLPs. So why does his block on Commons
surprise him?

(Could someone fix the title of this thread? Either spell Van Haeften's name correctly, or
go all the way and call him "Van Half-ton".)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 28th December 2011, 6:15pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

He seems to be feltching here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...%27_noticeboard

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t..._of_RfA_F.C3.A6

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64478556

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64487094

"Canvassing" accusations are silly. Wikipedia / Wikimedia is supposed to be about spreading information instead of keeping it to a select few, yet they're saying, "You can't discuss about Wikipedia / Wikimedia on a forum." Common's alleged allegiance to everything free speech and open is horseshit. They don't want us to talk; they want to live in a fantastical, walled garden where they could make decisions without having "outsiders" knowing or speaking out about what's going on there.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Wed 28th December 2011, 8:38pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64514639

Of course it's not wrong if people with a few edits vote here and everyone is of course allowed to give him/her opinion, but I noticed lots of users with few edits opposed. That made me think there was some canvassing campaign happening. Maybe it was not obvious canvassing, but clearly [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35962&hl= this] was the cause (which is an off-wiki discussion). I don't like it when people request others to vote (esp. oppose). Oh and for everyone reading here and on other channels: I'm not a '''HE''', I'm a '''SHE''' (yes, female, pfff). Kind regards, [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] ([[User talk:Trijnstel|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Wed 28th December 2011, 9:09pm

[Kelly Martin]

Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64517131

Now the person who stated the AN thread about alleged off-site canvassing is telling me to assume good faith.

[lilburne]

Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64517131

Now the person who stated the AN thread about alleged off-site canvassing is telling me to assume good faith.

Poor Fæ, Poor Fæ.

[Peter Damian]

Apart from the fact that "Fred the Oyster" has a silly name, he made a very good point here http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64516633 .

He says it is ironic that someone should complain about canvassing by going to the Administrators' Noticeboard in order to make his complaint known to a bunch of other people (who wouldn't otherwise have become involved).

See also our Michael Suarez' follow-up comment

Every time someone expresses their views openly on the WR, you (= the people of Wikimedia) [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A6&diff=64487261&oldid=64487094 go on a witch hunt] against the WR's use of free speech with "canvassing" as your battle cry. Your hostility against freedom of expression anywhere but where you permit it isn't really appreciated. The WR (and forums in generally) exists to make opinions and voices, including opinions some would rather not here, accessible to others, just as Commons exists to make free media, including images some would rather not view, accessible to others. You can expect a lot of oppose's if an opinion expressed on the WR is enlightening to others. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 28th December 2011, 10:14pm

[SB_Johnny]

I actually bothered to oppose. I feel bad for the 'crats... I've been there more than once, and it's not fun.