On 13/09/05, uninvited(a)nerstrand.net <uninvited(a)nerstrand.net> wrote:
I did not "demand" adminship on the commons.
I asked politely and was
turned down, based on my lack of involvement at commons. Commons has
its own wikipolitics, which should be unsurprising. The "official"
criteria is 100 uploads or other edits. Sometimes this is enforced,
sometimes not. As is the case on en, commons adminship requirements
appear to have become more demanding with time.
It's not "wikipolitics". You had made two edits to the Commons beyond
your user pages before you applied for adminship. Not suprising you
were turned down, is it?
The point is that vandalism on commons affects en.wikipedia, and such
vandalism is likely to become a growing problem as more images get
migrated. For technical reasons alone it is harder for en admins to
track such vandalism, because it does not appear in recentchanges on
en, or in the "related changes" pages. The fact that vandalism, once
identified, cannot be properly addressed by en. admins (at least in
cases where page protection or a block is appropriate), makes matters
even more difficult.
Anyone can fight vandalism on the Commons (one-click revert is
available to any logged-in user). If you want someone blocked, ask in
#wikimedia.commons. If you want to be able to block users yourself,
establish a good track-record, then apply for adminship yourself.
If commons is a completely independent of en.wikipedia, perhaps we
should reconsider our present drive to move images to commons. I don't
think that would be wise. The original intent of commons was to create
a project that would serve all wikipedias rather than to create a
freestanding media archive unrelated to any of them.
Yes, the Commons is a repository of Free media, that can be used by
any project. What's that got to do with adminship?
Dan