comment |
Juliancolton (talk | contribs) →User:Ks0stm's RfA: reply |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
I had a question for you about this user. While I have gone through his contributions and I see things that were troubling enough for me to oppose, I'm sure that you have done a lot more research into this editor's background than I have. I'm curious what your thoughts are about the concerns I listed in my oppose argument. The only thing that has given me pause is that you nominated him, and I doubt for a second that you would nominate someone you were in any way unsure of. I'm overall extremely impressed with their abilities, and want to believe they would be a good administrator, as you seem to believe. [[User:Trusilver|<font face="papyrus"><font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver</font></font>]] 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
I had a question for you about this user. While I have gone through his contributions and I see things that were troubling enough for me to oppose, I'm sure that you have done a lot more research into this editor's background than I have. I'm curious what your thoughts are about the concerns I listed in my oppose argument. The only thing that has given me pause is that you nominated him, and I doubt for a second that you would nominate someone you were in any way unsure of. I'm overall extremely impressed with their abilities, and want to believe they would be a good administrator, as you seem to believe. [[User:Trusilver|<font face="papyrus"><font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver</font></font>]] 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:As I understand it, your main concern is that Ks0stm still shows signs of residual maturity and judgement issues, and another six months would do him good. If I'm perfectly honest, I do think there is merit to that, and overall the objections are, to an extent, more persuasive than some of my other experiences with nominating users. I'm not going to try to deny that the whole "Q3" thing represents a not insignificant lapse in judgement, but to me it becomes an issue of whether it's actually representative of a ''lack of'' judgement rather than a ''lapse'' in judgement. I don't think it is. I have to admit that I was not aware of this particular incident prior to nominating him; I nominated him largely, if not mainly on the basis of my previous experiences with him. Through talking to him and viewing his work, I felt comfortable that he had a thorough understanding of the project's principles and fundamentals. I think there are additional benefits of promoting college students to the position of sysop, and while of course I'm not saying we should blindly nominate them, this was an added factor in my considerations. However, even after reviewing the mounting concerns, I'm still convinced that the candidate would make an excellent administrator. I believe it's entirely possible to perform exceptionally well 99.7% of the time, with the occasional quarrel or a tendency to get a little frustrated. In that case, if the admin has a comprehensive basic understanding of how the project works, and has the knowledge and resources to make a difference, the benefits outweigh the small issues that may crop up. Also, I think it's increasingly likely after this RfA concludes (successful or otherwise) that Ks0stm will be more transparent about his mistakes and willing to admit to them. I know it's not especially reassuring, but I do believe that users can change fundamentally over the course of a week (or even a day). In any case, I really appreciate you taking the initiative to delve deeper and consider all sides of the spectrum. [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] ([[User talk:Juliancolton#top|talk]]) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:55, 8 September 2011
Featured Article promotion
Congratulations! | |
Thanks for all the work you did in making Hurricane Eloise a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to comment on another Featured article candidate... or perhaps review one of the Good Article nominees, as there is currently a backlog. Any help is appreciated! All the best, – Quadell (talk) |
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
- Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
- PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
- Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
- Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
- Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
- Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
- Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
- Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Lee
I am extremely sorry for the action. Since i have seen people discuss on the talkpage, i redirected it to the 2011 Lee without reading the disambiguation. I shall see that this never happens again. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
User:Ks0stm's RfA
I had a question for you about this user. While I have gone through his contributions and I see things that were troubling enough for me to oppose, I'm sure that you have done a lot more research into this editor's background than I have. I'm curious what your thoughts are about the concerns I listed in my oppose argument. The only thing that has given me pause is that you nominated him, and I doubt for a second that you would nominate someone you were in any way unsure of. I'm overall extremely impressed with their abilities, and want to believe they would be a good administrator, as you seem to believe. Trusilver 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- As I understand it, your main concern is that Ks0stm still shows signs of residual maturity and judgement issues, and another six months would do him good. If I'm perfectly honest, I do think there is merit to that, and overall the objections are, to an extent, more persuasive than some of my other experiences with nominating users. I'm not going to try to deny that the whole "Q3" thing represents a not insignificant lapse in judgement, but to me it becomes an issue of whether it's actually representative of a lack of judgement rather than a lapse in judgement. I don't think it is. I have to admit that I was not aware of this particular incident prior to nominating him; I nominated him largely, if not mainly on the basis of my previous experiences with him. Through talking to him and viewing his work, I felt comfortable that he had a thorough understanding of the project's principles and fundamentals. I think there are additional benefits of promoting college students to the position of sysop, and while of course I'm not saying we should blindly nominate them, this was an added factor in my considerations. However, even after reviewing the mounting concerns, I'm still convinced that the candidate would make an excellent administrator. I believe it's entirely possible to perform exceptionally well 99.7% of the time, with the occasional quarrel or a tendency to get a little frustrated. In that case, if the admin has a comprehensive basic understanding of how the project works, and has the knowledge and resources to make a difference, the benefits outweigh the small issues that may crop up. Also, I think it's increasingly likely after this RfA concludes (successful or otherwise) that Ks0stm will be more transparent about his mistakes and willing to admit to them. I know it's not especially reassuring, but I do believe that users can change fundamentally over the course of a week (or even a day). In any case, I really appreciate you taking the initiative to delve deeper and consider all sides of the spectrum. Juliancolton (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)