Commons:Requests and votes/Monobi

 Support = ~16;  Oppose = ~11;  Neutral = ~1; struck out votes = ~8; several questions.

If we go on numbers, this candidacy fails to show consensus of the community to promote. I could leave it at that and (almost?) no one would fault me for a bad close. But I think more needs to be said here, and I'm just the guy to say more (grin)... it's true that right NOW the candidacy fails, yes. I think the big reason, if you boil it down to one, is that this community wants people to play straight with them. Work hard, tell the truth, and don't bring personality or personal conflicts into things. The community can overlook past indiscretions, it cares less about what people do elsewhere than it does about what they do here or are likely to do here, but it wants honesty and forthrightness. (as well as mellowness :) ).

Monobi, at this time, you haven't put together a long enough record. You are on the right track, disclosing things is a good start. Put in some more time blocking and tackling... show the community that you are willing to help, and participate in discussions to help the community get to know you better... there are always lots of deletions that need research, category moves that need thinking, featured pictures that need critiquing, and so on. Please don't give up, try again in a few months. No consensus to promote at this time. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

Monobi has been a regular on Commons since October. He has done lots of variety of work in his time here; notably he's a trusted Flickr reviewer, participates in admin areas such the deletion requests and noticeboards, and tags images both for missing information, and adding information such as image types and licenses. I think, with his experience in admin areas, and lots of deleted edits from image tagging, Commons would greatly benefit from him being sysopped. He is also active on the English Wikipedia, Wikispecies and Meta-wiki, and I hope you can support him. Thank you. Majorly (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept and am happy to answer any questions. Thanks for the nom Majorly :) . Mønobi 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support As nomination, of course :) Majorly (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dang you, Majorly; I was writing my own nom for this user, but it seems you've beaten me to it ;-)  Support; excellent user. --Boricuæddie 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no doubts about this user participating in administrator duties and therefore  Support. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (GMT)
•  Support Will make a good admin. Rocket000 12:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support no reason to oppose :) →Christian Nurtsch^TM 12:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a simple thing: This project needs much more Admins.  Support, because here's not a cause against. Marcus Cyron 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC) It seems, there are a lot of Causes against. I hate Sock Puppets.  Oppose Marcus Cyron 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support 'f course. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 14:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral He has a little contribution.--Ahonc 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)I didn't count deleted edits.[reply]
  • I have 942, but most of them have been deleted :) . Mønobi 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we should change the minimum number of edits required. He has 943 edits altogether (deleted and not), nearly 5 times more than the minimum. What, exactly were you after? Majorly (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Make that 1006 edits, including deleted ones. 500 deleted edits is rather a lot. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Ahonc 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support busy user with lots of deleted edits. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - per deleted edits. Just take it easy. — Giggy 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - yep, for sure. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support EugeneZelenko 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks ok to me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - all looks good. Sandstein 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral Changing to neutral per the concerns by others below. Waiting a month or two may be appropriate. Sandstein 14:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Johney (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I feel that Monobi needs more time to become acclimated to general wiki customs and policy, as well as Commons policy and customs. Keep up your good work. Hope to see you back later. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I cannot support a person who had undisclosed sockpuppets as he requests adminship. Sure, the accounts have been revealed now, but would you reveal your past history with CO or Pxma if Herby didn't ask? In my opinion, this is an abuse of the community's trust, especially as your previous RfAs here failed to reach consensus and was withdrawn. Running from your past history wouldn't solve anything, and this single-minded attitude to reach adminship is unsavoury. You had requests for adminship as both PxMa and CO, so I really question your intentions. As a further note, the opposes in your previous RfAs still stand. — DarkFalls ^talk 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had this rfa because Majorly nominated me. If I was seeking adminship badly I would have nommed myself much earlier. As far as "revealing my past", I was under the intend that it was common (no pun intended) knowledge and I wasn't hiding anything. Mønobi 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is usual convention to disclose prior accounts and RFAs during a new RFA. Hence the the surprise and the questions. I want add that I have no problem assuming good faith in that you were not attempting to mislead the Community. But I feel that since you did not understand the importance of dealing with this issue that it is likely that you need more time to learn other common Commons customs and practices. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Its not like he is a banned vandal or former troll seeking redemption, he was a prolific editor caught in the middle of misfortune and guilt what the heck am I talking about :P..Second-chance is always high in my books...--Cometstyles 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Monobi may be a good editor but his candidacy would benefit from at least another month or two of good editing under a single account. And never assume IRC counts for much... on-wiki is what counts. If there was no disclosure on-wiki then assume people don't know. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral for now. I'm sure that Monobi could be a great administrator here, however, I'd prefer to observe before making any significant objection to this request. Spebi 01:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  After some observation and some thinking about this, I've decided to (regretfully)  Oppose Monobi at this stage. I don't particularly like how his alternate accounts (albeit, perfectly acceptable, no policy violation) were left unacknowledged and I feel that he could benefit from a month or two of hard work. From what I have taken in from Monobi's behaviour, I feel that he could become a good administrator, however, I also feel that there are some potential trust issues that could be addressed before he does take on this role. Spebi 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. AndonicO ^Talk 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - For the record, I withdrew my support knowing full and well about Monobi being PxMa/CO - however, I wasn't aware of the hiding of it etc. I don't like the look of that. Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/CO also leaves a poor taste (I wasn't aware that Monobi = CO = PxMa in PxMa's RfA). — Giggy 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Per Giggy's. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 08:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support miranda 08:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per DarkFalls. I am uncomfortable with the lack of disclosure regarding the use of previous accounts. A much more consistent and more solid period of illustrating good judgment and gaining greater confidence from the community would be strongly advised. RedCoat 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - Your history with other accounts is not great, and the plaintive claims "that was when I didn't know any better" doesn't help your cause. You should have declared all your socks right from the get-go. I think there are some trust issues here that need to be worked out before anything else. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I see no reason to rush, and another request in two to three months is likely to go smoothly barring new issues. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose I'm very uncomfortable with this sockpuppetry--Wiggum 10:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose — Per Giggy. And Monobi has sockpuppets? --Johney (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he doesn't. Majorly (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By some definitions he does. See here, specifically the RfA voting. — Giggy 09:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, wow, back in May... and it was accidental. He doesn't have sockpuppets anymore. Majorly (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Helpful user, Commons really needs new active admins.--OsamaK 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moral support. It's a pity that you decided to not tell on this RFA about your previous accounts. I don't think it is a good idea to give you adminship right now, but I hope you stay at Commons and we can see you again at RFA in 1-2 months. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per Bryan. Cary Bass ^demandez 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Monobi's last 50 deleted edits (for non admins). — Giggy 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question Can I ask for clarification of the other accounts you have edited from here on Commons and, if necessary, elsewhere. The privacy of a fresh start is important, however so is trust when admin rights are requested. This will allow the community to make an informed decision here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't asked about your other accounts on your RFA. Why do you ask here? Majorly (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My single other account is a matter of public record on my wiki matrix and redirects to Herbythyme wherever I am active. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't redirect because I didn't see a need. I was attempting to vanish & restart, but I apparently suck at that, so I made a public statement ;) . Mønobi 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monobi's previous accounts are a matter of public record too. w:User:Monobi/a. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something there is no link to that page on the user page itself making it rather hard to find. I would appreciate confirmation (probably best if it is from Monobi) that there are no other accounts created on Commons by him. I would suggest that tagging/redirecting whatever the other ones would be a good idea --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--> Here. Mønobi 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are concerns about Monobi, they should be put forward. If there were concerns about Herby, they should have been put forward at the appropriate time. If there still are concerns about Herby, they should be put forward too - but Monobi's RfA is certainly not the place for that. Monobi's contribs look good, but I'll wait for the answer to Herby's question. Patrícia ^msg 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Majorly, thank you for the link, it's nice to see that Monobi was honest about it. Unfortunately, I see those three names in Commons:Flickr images/reviewers#Reviewers still; are these accounts Monobi's? Because if so, I feel the user may have abused community's trust. Patrícia ^msg 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia, I attempted to omit the accounts I edited under previously (see diff) but was revert. Mønobi 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this. At the time, I was aware of what was going on, but as it hadn't been made public I thought it best (for Monobi's sake as much as anyone else's) that they stay there for the time being. — Giggy 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they've now been removed (I don't object, I would've done so myself). — Giggy 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he owns the accounts, but has abandoned them. They should be removed, of course. Majorly (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a foundation basis there has been concurrent editing by those accounts? That is hardly abandoned? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herby, I was advised by an en.wiki sysop to ease out of 1 account into another instead of just stopping entirely and starting anew. Mønobi 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are abandoned now. Please go and oppose him already Herby, and stop grinding this issue. His edits were harmless, and did not violate any policy, but I know that doesn't matter to you. Majorly (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I am not the only person that thinks that you need to mellow out, Majorly and soon. You have a right to hold whatever views you like, but your comments are becoming unhelpful and are starting to verge on personal attacks. You know better. Please comment on the issue, not the commenter. Please present information that helps people decide what to do, and avoid making what may be perceived as disparaging remarks. People are making what many may think are valid points that need answering and you are not helping your candidate by not substantively addressing the issue. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sick and tired of you and your meatpuppet, Herbythyme. You and him are the precise reason I was absent for most of December, and I only returned after my new account was discovered. Perhaps it'll be best if I leave again. At least you'll have more chance of doing some bureaucrat work on Meta in that way. Majorly (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me, Herby, your erratic behaviour elsewhere, or Meta 'crats. This is a discussion of this candidate. Your comments are in my view not helpful because they are not addressing the issues raised, they are attacking those who raise them. I will leave further comments to others except to say that I am quite disappointed that you choose to behave this way whenever challenged. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Majorly, I kindly ask you to take back what you have just written. It is an unnecessary, and totally uncalled for, personal attack. Your admin status does not put you above other users in what concerns being civil. Please. I suggest we all wait for Monobi's answers. Patrícia ^msg 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly, if you are to keep behaving like this, I would suggest that leaving (at least temporarily) would be a good idea. — Giggy 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an explanation, from Monobi, of why it's necessary to have multiple accounts, what is going to be done to correct duplicate permissions, and the reasoning for changing from one to the next. That is very true for here at Commons, and to a lesser extent, for any accounts that Monobi has held/used at other wikis. To make an accurate judgement of a user, we need to know what all the accounts are, I feel. (Someone who thought that it's OK to vote in one RfA with more than one account, as recently as a few months ago, may need more time to become comfortable with the wiki way) ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I can email you the reason if you'd like, but it's been fairly hush-hush for many reasons. Mønobi 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lar. Why has Monobi not declared these previous accounts? I for one wasn't aware of any until now. The basic courtesy in declaring them, along with a previous RfA on Commons, would have been apreciated. RedCoat 16:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declared the accounts previously. My original reason for not doing so was an attempt to vanish and restart. I was under the impression that most knew (I've gotten pinged quite a lot in IRC ;)) and didn't think to link to it on my commons page because it only had to do with en.wiki. The only reason those accounts were created here was because I restarted on everyone wiki; commons, meta, etc. Apologies if the lack of linking caused any confusion. Mønobi 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was harrassed under his other accounts. He also stated the double vote was accidental. There's a good reason he did not announce it. Majorly (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an explanation from Monobi about this. There is no rush so whenever he gets a chance is fine. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/me points up. I can expand my replies if need be :) . Mønobi 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question (For Monobi, not Majorly) - Are you aware of when it's appropriate (and not appropriate) to execute RTV, and did it apply in your situation? — Giggy 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment, Monobi, it sadens me to read that, I personally think You should have been more open. I respect what You are doing under the account Monobi and got to know You as helpful, I don't think You need to hide anything (even if You say You did not try to hide anything it just looks like this now). Imho You should not give up now but continue Your good work under this account and try another rfa in a few months, I think that You could be successful then. Trust normally is not granted in advance but grown with time, I just need some time to trust You again. Please don't burry Your head in the sand. Thanks, and best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]