Commons:Requests and votes/Rogerd

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Nomination unsuccessful, no consensus to promote. Please take on board the advice given and thanks for your contributions. —Giggy 07:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


Links for Rogerd: Rogerd (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

I have been an administrator on English Wikipedia for 2 1/2 years. I am an amateur photographer and have contributed several of my own images to commons, as well as uploading many PD (mainly US gov) images, as well as moving EN images to commons (and deleted the then-redundant image from EN). I am interested in doing the usual clean-up tasks. --rogerd (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obviously no question on trust given the service on en wp. However, equally obviously basically inactive here with very few edits this year. It would be great if you were to work on Commons & I am sure once the community had got to know you they would support a request in due course. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tools for well intentioned folks with perfect track records on as admins there should be sufficient criteria here as well. His edit count here is besides the point...there is no evidence he would maliciously misuse tools here, so no reason to not grant him them.--MONGO (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit count is beside the point, activity is not. Hopefully the local community will be able to reach a conclusion. --Herby talk thyme 07:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And no reason to oppose != a reason to support. We like to say edit counts don't mean anything but there's a reason people pay attention to them... interaction with the community is pretty important, IMO. Rocket000 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Technically you're correct on the first point, but "no reason to oppose" is a commonly used phrase basically stating that adminship is no big deal, so if no smoking guns were found, there's no reason not to sysop (thus no reason not to support). —Giggy 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I know, I know... ;) Rocket000 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. MONGO, a perfect track record on en:wp is a helpful indicator, but it is not in itself sufficient, sorry. That's pretty clearly established by community consensus, which active members of the community should already know... Commons is not an extension of any other particular wiki, it is an extension of ALL of them. Candidates are judged on their merits and their contributions here... just as a candidate with a controversial record elsewhere can go on to be a fine admin here, because they get the Commons way, so too can a candidate with a flawless record elsewhere can flameout spectacularly here, because they do NOT get the Commons way. This particular candidate? We do not have enough contribution here to go on to be able to predict one way or the other whether they are likely to be a suitable and successful admin here. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, Herby got a point. --Tarawneh (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but you haven't done many deletion requests, nor do you have many deleted edis. Your talk page is also very empty, try discussing more things with other editors. --Kanonkas(talk) 10:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mostly agree with Herby. Not doubt trustworthy, but I don't care if he only has 40 or so edits this year. What I'm more concerned with is he barely meets the 200 edit count minimum here. Just become more active here and you'll get the bit here too. RlevseTalk 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Herby - you lack the activity levels I would want to see in admin candidates. Once you are a solid part of the community be sure to ask again!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not WP; someone can be a good admin in one place yet not fitted for the other and there are plenty of examples to prove it.--Londoneye (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Londoneye. Rocket000 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose hey, i love these cool tags. Can we have them on WP?--Whipmaster (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a matter to take up at WP, not here. The images are here, what projects choose to do with them is their perogative :) ... HOWEVER, I think there has been some opinion voiced that using these tags makes things more votelike and less discussionlike and some votelike processes seem to be preferred to be less votelike. WP:RFCU uses lots of cool tags though! ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And the icons work very well on a multilingual project. :) Rocket000 (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You can't have the icons on en.wp - the lack of them annoys the hell out of me - so I put in a request for undeletion on the templates. It was rejected on the grounds that consensus is not voting, even though it's clear that sometimes there IS need for a vote - some issues are black and white with no middle ground. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - 7 edits in the past week, under 400 edits total, 20 deleted contribs over more than two years. I managed the 20 deleted contribs in a single day when I went for RfA. Sorry, but until you're a more active member of the community I have to oppose. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Please enable email. —Giggy 06:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry....done --rogerd (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, should this RfA not succeed (and there is no shame in withdrawing early if you so choose, nor in staying to the end if you wish additional feedback), take some of the feedback on board, get involved, and help your fellow Commonists to get to know you and your approach better... there are lots of ways to make additional positive contributions here. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)