Commons:Requests and votes/Maxim

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Maxim

This RFA is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. (closed by Bastique)

 Support = 15;  Oppose = 2; This vote meets the necessary requirement and therefore passes. User:Maxim is now an administrator. Links for Maxim: Maxim (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I'm an admin from en.wiki (w:User:Maxim) and a user here as well who originally created an account to help with the image categories from en.wiki. Now, I think I can be trusted to help clear the backlog in Category:Unknown here. I do a very big chunk of image-deleting work at en.wiki, and I know the policy very well there. I know the policy here as well, and I intend to help clear the ever-occurring backlog here. I speak Russian, English, and French very fluently (userpage), and that will only aid with communication. As I have a lot of experience of communicating with angry and upset uploaders (feel free to look through my archives at en.wiki), I think I will be an effective sysop here as well. Maxim(talk) 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Let me be the first to  Support—no foreseeable problems. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:23, 31 December 2007 (GMT)
  •  Support welcome. __ ABF __ ϑ 21:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Looks good to me. Rocket000 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Misunderstands what trolls are (i.e. thinks trolls are people who don't agree with him). I think he could be a newbie biter in this case. Commons can be a hard place for editors to settle into, and I don't think this user has the good enough communication skills required. Huge runs of bot deleting images on enwiki is not enough for me. Majorly (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was under the impression that a troll is someone who purposefully tries to disrupt and/or break rules of either Wikipedia, Commons, or whatever Internet space. I could have mislabeled someone as a troll, after there is some judgment involved to say to that someone is purposefully disruptive, that is very regrettable and I do not wish to drive off n00bs and other users off the project. As an admin at enwiki, I realize I do make mistakes, but one thing I don't shy away from is admitting them or apologizing for that. And I'm not going to change that at Commons. --Maxim(talk) 00:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - will make a good Commons admin. Videmus Omnia 01:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding the anti-recall stuff (which doesn't have a direct relevance to Commons at this time (though I'd like it too)), Maxim has abused the tools on en. Here he protects a user's monobook after removing twinkle (a revert script) from it. He then goes on to systematically revert the user on a truckload of category pages, knowing the user can't easily revert (due to the removal of Twinkle). [1][2][3][ etc. Maxim has frequently misused the rollback function, and will not discuss or explain an action when appropriate. I know I'm normally against crosswiki opposition, but in this case Maxim hasn't had access to rollback/protect on Commons yet. If granted them, I see a potential for abuse, and thus I  Oppose. For the record, Maxim opposed my RfA on En, as noted by Majorly above. — Giggy 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, in his work deleting fair use images on En has deleted many that were rationalised appropriately - I know because I wrote the rationale myself and have had it reviewed by others. Commons deletions require more review, in most cases - not comfortable with that at all. — Giggy 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Giggy, with all due respect, you missed some key points. Neutralhomer has a history of abusing TWINKLE, and I removed it again, that's proper procedure. Neutralhomer was removing CfD notices, that's why I used rollback. My deletions are almost always with policy, I always review before my deletions. Maxim(talk) 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hate when people bring up stuff after you vote ;) I see that you were correct in reverting the CFD removals, but editing and then protecting another user's monobook.js was inappropriate. Twinkle is just a tool - if the user was truly abusing it, blocking the user would have been better. The user still could have made the same edits without the tool if he was set on disregarding policy. I haven't been following policy/drama on en.WP lately, so if this is some new policy, then I don't blame you. As for the "troll", it's been misused and generalized so much, it's understandable to misuse it (kinda like how "vandalism" has). I have no comment on the opposing for the recall thing.
I'm not changing my vote because I like how you respond to criticism (like here) and everything else I have seen on Commons. Rocket000 04:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree in regards to the TWINKLE thing, I consider (and so do some other admins I know quite well, that's where I picked up the idea) that disabling one's js is a better alternative that blocking all editing privileges. After all, blocks are preventative, and removing the js works better, IMHO. Maxim(talk) 04:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a largely uninvolved editor, I have to say that disabling Twinkle for users that habitually abuse it is well within the bounds of what an administrator should do. It doesn't prevent them from contributing, it just prevents them from abusing a set of scripts time and time again. Twinkle abuse is a small to moderate problem on en.wp, and I wholeheartedly support any measure that attempts to address that while simultaneously not losing otherwise good editors. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He still had popups (and undo) so he could still revert. Oppose stands. — Giggy 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also incredibly easy to revert without the use of monobook. Example, on enwiki I don't use the monobook but can make lots of reverts without it (this was before I became an admin of course). Locking the monobook, and then ironically mass reverting with a tool supposed to be for vandalism only just makes things worse - in short, abuse of admin tools. I'm also concerned the other supporters here aren't taking these concerns on board. Majorly (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for all the supports, but I can verify that I acknowledge the arguments being presented, but don't see them as evidence of abuse, especially considering that one of the entries in Neutralhomer's block log specifically states that there was some twinkle abuse.[4] Removing the tools that are being abused is not abuse of power in my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I guess it's just a personal preference then, but I don't really like the idea of users editing others' userspace (with the obvious exception of the talk page), especially anything to do with JavaScript. A lot can go wrong, and stopping the user from changing it makes things worse. They can fix anything or add/remove other functions (besides TW). Plus things like TW are essentially just interface tweaks, those same functions can be done without TW. It doesn't give the user any new powers. I guess I see this the same as changing someone's userpage or CSS settings, but if this practice has become acceptable then there's no problem. Rocket000 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the practice has become acceptable; the only reason I feel that the edit/protection was valid was because of the abuse. I certainly wouldn't change anyone's monobook unless (a) they were abusing tools, as happened here, or (b) I'm attempting to fix a problem for the user. Other than that, nope, stay out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to EVula citing the block log above, I must say that I don't think Moreschi is the best person to be basing your admin actions on (based on that block). — Giggy 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, you. You've got a problem with me, take it up with me at enwiki, OK? You most certainly do not dare to have the temerity to slag me off across Wikimedia and sully my reputation when you think I'm not looking. Such an action on your part reeks of pusillanimous pettiness and duplicity. It is downright dishonourable - not to mention patently thick, because, as it happens, I'm always looking :) Thank you. Moreschi 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a quick double-check of the user's contribs. Removing CfD tags just because the person doesn't understand their purpose[5] (and made ridiculous demands[6] and didn't even follow-through with his own stipulations[7]) is disruptive, and doing so with Twinkle equates to an abuse of the script suite. Moreschi's block and Maxim's subsequent administrative edits seem to be perfectly reasonable to me; my trust in Maxim as a potential Commons administrator remains unshaken. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Maxim&oldid=67545199"