Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Ellin Beltz

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 25;  Oppose = 5;  Neutral = 1 - 83% Result: Successful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellin Beltz

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

Links for candidate: Ellin Beltz (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Dear Commons community.

As announced at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard I'm going to nominate some users for Bureaucratship today. For all candidatures please see: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests.

Common reason for these nominations, as discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, is the apparent lack of active crats to fulfill their role as described in Commons:Bureaucrats#What is a bureaucrat?.

Candidates have signalized at their talk pages to accept the nomination, and are welcome to add a personal statement and formal acceptance below. Thank you, yours --Krd 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal statement: I started editing Wikipedia in 2005 under the user name "Ellinbeltz". When my book was published, my publisher asked me to change any and all public accounts on the web to my actual name "Ellin_Beltz", so I opened a new account in March of 2006. I have tagged the old account, and have subsequently only edited with my current account. I became interested in Commons deletions when one of my photos was nominated and deleted. My friend who was also taking photos and uploading lost a lot more pictures than I did and they gave up on project which was sad. We used to have a lot of fun driving around and taking pictures. So I have seen first hand how deletions can affect contributors on the project. I became an admin on Commons after participating in the deletion processes for about a year. I am only an admin on Commons; I'm not a CU or in OTRS. I work mostly with deletions, somewhat with categories, and I upload my own photos to the project. I have read and understand Commons:Bureaucrats#Community role. I encourage users to remember that DN's are a "process not a judgement" although I wish we could rename them "Files for Discussion". I think the uploader angst would be reduced - particularly for new users - if the templates were a bit less strident. For admins I wish the Foundation would create a process utilizing Google API to determine all the images which have prior appearance on the web, and shunt those uploads to a special section where admins could work through them without the hit and miss "is that something which might be previously used or not" as we do it now. I don't think we'll reduce our backlogs without more help - either automated - or by recruiting and mentoring more admins - so I think that is very important to our community.


Votes

PierreSelim, can you show some filenames or diffs? Taivo (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The exemples don't matter for me, it's a question of personnality and leadership. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pierre, I searched both our names and found [1] that you and I are on the same side of most of the deletion nominations on which we've worked together. I don't remember any situation with you that would cause you to claim I prefer "deletion of obvious free media to fixing problems" and I don't see any such discussion in these Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adoptaunfamoso.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blooblah, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Florencia Palombarini.6.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hymalaya.jpg for only the top four examples where you closed nominations as "deleted". If you're referring to [2], I don't see that there was an issue after Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation fixed the file template. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Dan Garry thing is a good evidence of the leadership I don't want. You deleted legit images, with proof that author agreed to the publication under free licence, just to force someone to use OTRS and add burden to the few agents we have. Sorry, I can accept that for Sysop, not for Bureaucrat. Keep in mind, I appreciate the hard work you are doing. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [3][4] [5][6] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rs: I think it would be best to handle situations as they come up than to try to do a pile of Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking [7] after the fact. It is rarely productive to criticize from hindsight. At the time all this was happening, I read about it. As I had no involvement with any of those situations, I deliberately chose to stay out of it. Not every admin has to be involved in every situation and as I am nothing but an admin - I did not feel that my opinions on that situation count. If I had been a bureaucrat at that time; I would have waited for a request for involvement prior to butting into the situation. I don't think bureaucrat means "cowboy in white hat ready to leap into every discussion and have huge shoot out until cowboy is the only one standing". Rather, I think it means a quiet, careful thinker who is unlikely to be emotionally sucked into abusive situations, trolling and attempts to game the system. Specifically for your question about "removed globally by stewards or the WMF". In a similiar case, I would agree with the WMF and stewards due to their priority in the command structure of the project. In a real-life example... if a general in the army says "do this" and a sergeant says "no", the sergeant is wrong for having failed to work within the framework of the command structure to which he/she agreed by enlisting. As editors on Commons we've all signed up for accounts and agreed to work together within a framework of rules and guidelines. We here - as editors and admins - are in no position to revert the decisions of the WMF and the stewards without lengthy public discussions with all involved parties prior to reversion. Thanks for the query! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many ways to view the relationship between WMF and the volunteer community. I don't think the general/sergeant analogy you suggest is totally helpful, in the sense that WMF don't generally give commands that we then follow in order to do our normal activities. Nor is it the topsy-turvy illusion Abd offers. But yes, the "reality check" is that WMF do own the "OFF" switch and pay for the servers, and it is often said we have only two rights: the right to fork and right to leave. But they have devolved a lot of power to the volunteers. I don't believe Commons is a good example of "the wisdom of the crowd" since the vocal crowd here is rather small and mostly under-employed young men. Still, I hope you won't think you are now a god and can go about pressing buttons at will, and start reverting things merely because of who did it or that some process wasn't followed. I hope you will work towards us all viewing Commons as a team that includes both WMF and volunteers, rather than us-and-them battleground mentality that seems to have developed. One concern is your stated disinclination to get involved unless asked. I'd hope that a 'crat would sense when the community is dealing with a big issue, and not shy away from offering their carefylly-considered opinion, leading, and making constructive dialogue with all parties. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin I would never become a "god"... your most puissant "goddess" perhaps but never a god. Agreed my analogy was not what it could have been, but as this is (as you say) mostly a male environment it was intended to appeal to male perspective. And yes, WMF do not "generally give commands" but the initial question was what to do following the WMF blocking a particular user unilaterally (and completely within their rights to do so) and all the fallout thereafter. I was thinking of that particular situation for the analogy. And also, for that situation, I would have waited to be asked for opinion as I had no involvement in any of it and I would have needed to research the issues and personalities to even begin to put forward an cogent opinion. I think we are all one team working together - and the times we forget that, we only make ourselves weaker. I hope these small remarks help your understanding, if not I will be back at a terminal later tonight or tomorrow and can answer again then. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krd: As nominator, please could you make the case that these people are suited to the position? (i.e. Why did you choose them in particular?) Alternately the candidates may wish to suggest reasons they are suitable to take up the position. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    99of9, let me answer you as the person who started the BN discussion and suggested these names. 1. As I mentioned there, we are facing some difficulties in handling difficult situations where admin opinions are well divided. URAA and Russavia case are good examples. As all admins have equal rights it is difficult to manage them when they themselves start edit wars and all other bullshits. We need a higher authority to handle such cases. One existing board is crats. ("Bureaucrats are expected to be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki.") But unfortunately only a few crats are active nowadays. Two of them recently resigned and their seats are vacant. We need to strengthen the team. 2. Regarding the names I mentioned: I checked the last years' activity list and select some names familiar in discussion who have a talent to solve issues than boost them. I consciously avoided people who involved in the two disputes mentioned above. I avoided people who have some extra rights like CU/OS etc to encourage decentralization of power. Hope I explained enough. Jee 02:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jee @Jkadavoor: . I am asking about your point 2. So here you offer: active, not in two particular disputes, not CU/OS, familiar, and "with a talent to solve". The first four of these points are not contentious, but IMO do not add up to crat-material on their own. It's the final "with a talent to solve" that I'd like to know more about. Please can somebody point to some specific diffs or conversations that demonstrate this talent for each candidate? Other points of interest to me would be demonstrations of the requirements you quoted: leading/guiding/sensitive-dealing. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For Ellin Beltz, I remember how s/he helps to resolve conflicts through talk page discussions. I don't want to involve more in this discussion; prefer to leave it to others. Thanks. :) Jee 03:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidates are those suggested at the corresponding discussion at the BNB. My though as nominator was to not express my personal preference for any of those candidates by writing individual praise essays; this may or may not have been a good idea. Anyway I without any doubt can support all of those candidates. All are active and respected Commons admins, and the group to my opinion is well spread over timezones, home wikis and interests.
    If I'm not mistaken we currently don't have recruitment processes for the advanced roles besides self nominations, so we maybe should get some more active crats first to take care of such things. If there is a better approach, please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you write something about you? Like writing your own statements like what Steinsplitter and AFBorchert do?--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and will do it as soon as possible, but not before tomorrow. I am enroute after the holiday. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Ellin_Beltz&oldid=162444855"