Enterprisey (talk | contribs) →Questions for the candidate: answering questions 9 and 10 |
Andrew Davidson (talk | contribs) →Oppose: more |
||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
#'''Oppose''' The Wikipediholic thing seems quite insulting and contemptuous. And the explanation for the alternate account doesn't make any sense so there's something missing there. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' The Wikipediholic thing seems quite insulting and contemptuous. And the explanation for the alternate account doesn't make any sense so there's something missing there. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
#:APerson did not create the Wikipediholism test, he only created an automated version of it so that people attempting the test would not have to calculate their scores by themselves. [[User:SSTflyer|sst]]<sup>[[User talk:SSTflyer|flyer]]</sup> 18:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
#:APerson did not create the Wikipediholism test, he only created an automated version of it so that people attempting the test would not have to calculate their scores by themselves. [[User:SSTflyer|sst]]<sup>[[User talk:SSTflyer|flyer]]</sup> 18:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
#:: I understand that but the point is that, when asked about his contributions, he picks this work as the task he liked best. There's at least two problems with this, in my view. One is that this is an elaborate joke; an excessive digression from the business of working on the encyclopedia. The other is that test equates enthusiasm for Wikipedia with disorders such as alcoholism and compulsive behaviour. This does not seem to be a healthy attitude for an admin. Admins have power over other editors and it's not appropriate for them to regard keen editors as foolish or sick — it seems a contemptuous, disrespectful attitude which would encourage abuse of powers such as blocking. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 21:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 21:57, 12 September 2015
APerson
(talk page) (15/2/3); Scheduled to end 17:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Nomination
APerson (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia since April 2012, has been a rollbacker for two years and a template editor for more than a year. APerson has a clean block log, and nicely diversified edits and as you'll see from their edits, communicates clearly and civilly. Aside from the specialisation in technical stuff, APerson is also a content contributor, albeit none of their articles have been through GA/FA so !voters will need to check those edits for themselves. One of the areas where APerson has been active is AFD, as well as many articles where he was unable to find sufficient sources to justify another call than delete, there are also examples such as this where he supported the decision to redirect, and crucially ones where APerson found sources. APerson has a nicely balanced set of diverse experience in Wikipedia, sufficient that I would hope everyone who reviews them will agree with me that they would make a valued addition to the admin corps, especially as a bot writer willing to write or adopt admin bots. I commend them to the community and hope everyone agrees that they would make an excellent admin. ϢereSpielChequers 13:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you very much, WereSpielChequers. Also, the only other Wikipedia accounts I have ever had are APersonBot (talk · contribs) (obviously) and Thizzlehatter (talk · contribs) (an alternate account I used for four months last year while I had very limited access to my main account). APerson (talk!) 17:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I'll be mostly contributing to the MediaWiki namespace (drawing on my previous work on user scripts and gadgets), such as work on default-gadget tools like the DRN form. Given my experience at AfD, I'll be doing some (mostly) non-controversial work there. I don't have a possible admin bot planned yet, but if I were an admin and somebody designed a new admin bot or needed an admin bot writer to adopt an existing one, I could be interested.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Of the tools I've written, I really like the automated Wikipediholism test (even though it wasn't a major coding effort) because it scratched a huge itch and, evidently, made the test easier to take for a lot of users. I'm also partial to the very first bot I wrote (the one that notifies people whose articles have been submitted to DYK by others), because I've seen it help quite a few new users. {{Service award progress}}, while a bit HATSHOPpy, was a major coding effort and also scratched a large itch. Regarding content, my first few articles were written out of a sense of "I can't believe that doesn't have an article!" I particularly like MNIST database, as it explains the topic effectively, and Convolutional neural network, which was written as I was doing research for a related topic.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I had a hard time remembering conflicts I've been in, as (although it might be a cliché at this point) no conflict over editing is really that important. In general, when dealing with conflict, I try to go for compromises or, if it really isn't worth the conflict/waste of time, I'll drop the issue. When I get stressed as a result of something on-wiki (which happens rarely, if ever) I prefer to go after backlogs like the TfD holding cell.
- Additional question from Brustopher
- 4. Could you explain in further detail what you mean by contributing to the MediaWiki namespace? From what I can see it's not an area most editors are active in, so a more in-depth explanation would be helpful.
- A: Certainly. Although the MediaWiki namespace contains a lot of interface messages, I'd restrain myself to the pages written in JavaScript, and help fulfill edit requests made regarding them. I'd also help out with the default gadgets by adding requested features and fixing bugs.
- Additional question from Brustopher
- 5. You note on the userpage that your alternate account's name is a reference to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Do you ever contribute to Wikipedia related pages on Dramatica, and in what sort of way? (Any edits made to non-Wikipedia related pages are irrelevant for the sake of this question)
- A: It's been so long since I was active there that I forgot, but having reviewed my (brief!) history of contributions there, no, I have never contributed to Wikipedia-related pages there.
- Additional question from Kraxler
- 6. Did you learn something from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Wingo? And, what was wrong with your evaluation of the sources in the discussion on your talk page linked by you at this AfD?
- A: Yes, I definitely learned the value of quality, rather than quantity, in sources. My evaluation of the sources attributed undue importance to the press releases included in the list of sources I received from the article's author. Significantly, I neglected to check if the purportedly "independent" sources were actually independent, or if the sources had a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, as the WP:QUESTIONABLE guideline section says.
- A: Yes, I definitely learned the value of quality, rather than quantity, in sources. My evaluation of the sources attributed undue importance to the press releases included in the list of sources I received from the article's author. Significantly, I neglected to check if the purportedly "independent" sources were actually independent, or if the sources had a
- Additional question from SilkTork
- 7. Could you tell us a little bit more about the circumstances around the creation and use of your alternative account. You put your main account on a wikibreak - [1] on 22 August 2014, and created the alternative account on 4 September 2014 [2], with no link to your main account. You returned to your main account on 27 November 2014 - [3], at which point you abandoned your alternative account, apart from two edits on 15 December 2015. The edits look fine - though I did note that you !voted in a RfA - [4] with your alternative account. The community does allow the use of alternative accounts in various circumstances - but voting in an RfA without declaring that you are using an alternative account is not one of those circumstances. Was it your intention at that point to abandon your main account to make a clean start with the alternative one, and later you changed your mind?
- A: No, I wasn't interested in making a clean start. My rationale in creating my alternative account was that I knew I was going to have very, very limited access to my main account (as I noted in my acceptance statement) and I wanted to keep up with Wikipedia in the meantime. Regarding the RfA vote, well, I'm certain that it didn't constitute socking, as it wasn't at all meant to
mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus
.- Would you like to explain what you mean by "limited access to my main account" and why you didn't link the accounts? DexDor (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Like DexDor I would also like a much fuller account of the creation and use of the alternative account. The reason I've asked is it looks odd, and - unless you had fully abandoned the old account - you did go against the socking policy by voting in a RfA with an alternative account that was not linked to your main account. What we need here, just to clear up any misunderstanding, is why you were unable to edit from your main account, yet able to create an alternative account and edit from that. Why you didn't link the accounts. Why you voted in a RfA without revealing that you were using an alternative account. And why you later returned to your alternative account to make two edits. I think all these matters can be explained, and I am assuming good faith here, but if you hadn't abandoned the APerson account, then you were running the Thizzlehatter account simultaneously, and secretly, and you edited project space to vote in a RfA, which is inappropriate. I don't think these things are serious, just odd (I suspect - as you assert above - the RfA voting was because you didn't know it was inappropriate, rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive), and what some of us in the community like of our admins is that they are able to clearly and coolly explain odd situations. So the crux here is not your use of the alternative account, it is your explanation of it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- SilkTork and DexDor (and everyone else who inquired about this), I can't get much more specific before I get into personal information that I'd rather not post on a public page; however, if you email me, I'll happily respond with the full story. Sorry about the additional bother involved. APerson (talk!) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- A: No, I wasn't interested in making a clean start. My rationale in creating my alternative account was that I knew I was going to have very, very limited access to my main account (as I noted in my acceptance statement) and I wanted to keep up with Wikipedia in the meantime. Regarding the RfA vote, well, I'm certain that it didn't constitute socking, as it wasn't at all meant to
- Additional questions from Steel1943
- 8. I noticed that more than a quarter of your total edits are in the "User talk:" namespace, which is only second your amount of edits in the article namespace. Could you explain why your ratio of edits in the "User talk:" namespace is so high?
- A: To quote from my response to your !vote, "the two automated tools I use most heavily, the AfC helper script and STiki, both make posts in the user talk namespace as part of their normal operation. The AfC script makes posts to notify draft authors about reviews of their draft (among other things), and STiki puts warnings and notices on user talk pages." I estimate that the vast majority of my edits to that namespace come from these two automated tools.
- 9. Per question #4, you wish to edit the "MediaWiki:" namespace. To get a better idea of what types of edits you want to do in the "MediaWiki:" namespace, do you have any examples of protected page edit requests you have made for "MediaWiki:" pages that were implemented?
- A: While I don't have any examples of edit requests to interface pages ready, I can point to my experience developing user scripts (e.g. AFCH) as an indication of the sort of development work I'd do on the JavaScript in that namespace. Of course, I'd be much more careful when dealing with that namespace, including taking performance considerations into account.
- Additional question from SSTflyer
- 10. A completely new editor creates an article as their first and only edit, with its entire content being "The ncase m1 is crowdfunded via indiegogo." What do you do? (For this question, assume that you are not an administrator.)
- A: Well, I had absolutely no clue what "ncase m1" meant, so I consulted Google and discovered that it's the first high-profile crowdfunded Mini-ITX case. There's definitely a lot of interest in the case within the PC-building community, and even some good coverage (from PC Gamer, for instance). At this point, deletion is out of the question, as this term clearly deserves a search result, even if it's only a redirect. I could simply redirect the article at this point to a section of Lian Li (the manufacturer), but I need to check if it could ever be a viable article (in which case I'd add references, context, and a stub tag). How much could be written about this case? I went hunting for existing good computer case articles to see what sorts of things the finished article would cover... and didn't find any, with the possible exception of Hybricon SFF-4 Small Form Factor. Thus, I would redirect the article to a new section (that I'd create) in Lian Li. Finally, of course, I'd welcome the new editor and add a note about what I did to their article and why.
Discussion
- Links for APerson: APerson (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for APerson can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support Good mix of mainspace to project edits, good track record at AfC and AfD, technically minded and civil - clean bill of health and will make a good admin. The opposers don't convince me; unless you've got actual diffs of APerson disrupting Wikipedia, this just sounds like a witch hunt :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support We desperately need experienced editors to assist with AFC. I generally admire any editor who is willing to work there; it's a thankless job and it takes particular patience and understanding to explain the rules and policies to new editors. A precursory look through their talk page revealed a cordial editor who often took the time to explain their rationales in their review of AFCs. The editor more than meets my RfA standards to which I mostly use as a guideline these days. Obviously a WP:NETPOSITIVE. Mkdwtalk 18:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per strength of nomination, cursory review of contributions, and answers to Q1, Q2, and Q3.--John Cline (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Edits show a clear-headed, reasonable person with a good grasp of policy. Stays calm under pressure. Refrains from adding fuel to fires. Yes please. --Ashenai (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support A helpful, knowledgeable editor who I feel will make a good administrator. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- APerson's breadth of experience and expertise in a few niche areas will make him beneficial to Wikipedia as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, clearly will be a benefit to the project. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I dont see any issues. Net positive. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Kraxler (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Seems fine, no issues --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support They are clearly very experienced, and I don't see any reason not to support. KSFTC 03:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Experienced, stable and trustworthy candidate. I don't see why not. Jianhui67 T★C 03:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. While perhaps not a traditional admin candidate, APerson has a solid record and reason for needing the tools. He has my trust. — Earwig talk 05:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support has worked productively in several areas such as DYK, AFC, experience with tools like uploading, moving, patrolling. Seems to interact with others well enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. I originally wanted to post this in the "neutral" section since the nominee seems like a good faith editor, but there is one aspect of the nominee's edit ratio that concerns me: the rather high ratio of edits in the "User talk:" namespace. The amount of edits this editor has in this namespace is the 2nd highest (next to the article namespace). This is a concern of mine since to me, this equates to the namespace this editor might still be editing a lot even with the admin tools; editing the "User talk:" namespace is not enhanced in any way with the admin tools. The only way that I can rationalize a high amount of "User talk:" edits is if the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is higher, which it is not for this editor by far: if this was the case, this would just prove possible WP:TWINKLE usage, and would no longer be a concern of mine. My recommendation to resolve this concern would be to gather more edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace; most of the discussion venues are in this namespace. As it stands right now, I don't see the nominee's need for the tools, nor do I see enough experience in key areas to warrant them being granted. Steel1943 (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Steel1943, the two automated tools I use most heavily, the AfC helper script and STiki, both make posts in the user talk namespace as part of their normal operation. The AfC script makes posts to notify draft authors about reviews of their draft (among other things), and STiki puts warnings and notices on user talk pages. Would this help provide a rationale for my large quantity of user talk edits? APerson (talk!) 02:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@APerson: I appreciate your responsiveness to this concern of mine. However, I personally still have a concern with lack of edits in the Wikipedia namespace, so at best, it will move me down to "neutral". I'll post an official question for you above here in a moment so that all editors reading this discussion can see it for everyone's benefit. Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)- @APerson: Sorry for kind of flip-flopping here, but I guess I read the previous statement incorrectly. But no, it doesn't really resolve my concerns since it sort of enforces my belief of your lack of participation in the discussion forums where administrator assistance is of the greatest need. In my opinion, it doesn't take an administrator's mindset to work in venues where administration tools are seldom used (such as WP:AFC since the pages edited as part of that venue are not in the "Wikipedia:" namespace; in theory, since anyone can help with the AFC backlogs, the only time when admin tools would be needed for AFC is if the draft's title in the article namespace is taken up by a redirect or if the title is WP:SALT-ed). Either way, I'll leave my "user talk" question above for the benefit for other editors who may share that concern. Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Steel1943, the two automated tools I use most heavily, the AfC helper script and STiki, both make posts in the user talk namespace as part of their normal operation. The AfC script makes posts to notify draft authors about reviews of their draft (among other things), and STiki puts warnings and notices on user talk pages. Would this help provide a rationale for my large quantity of user talk edits? APerson (talk!) 02:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The Wikipediholic thing seems quite insulting and contemptuous. And the explanation for the alternate account doesn't make any sense so there's something missing there. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- APerson did not create the Wikipediholism test, he only created an automated version of it so that people attempting the test would not have to calculate their scores by themselves. sstflyer 18:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that but the point is that, when asked about his contributions, he picks this work as the task he liked best. There's at least two problems with this, in my view. One is that this is an elaborate joke; an excessive digression from the business of working on the encyclopedia. The other is that test equates enthusiasm for Wikipedia with disorders such as alcoholism and compulsive behaviour. This does not seem to be a healthy attitude for an admin. Admins have power over other editors and it's not appropriate for them to regard keen editors as foolish or sick — it seems a contemptuous, disrespectful attitude which would encourage abuse of powers such as blocking. Andrew D. (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- APerson did not create the Wikipediholism test, he only created an automated version of it so that people attempting the test would not have to calculate their scores by themselves. sstflyer 18:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral. I will move to support after reading APerson's reply to DexDor's question. --Action Hero (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral until reading APerson's reply to DexDor's question and Steel1943's more recent question. --Rubbish computer 17:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral - Temporary, waiting on a more detailed response to Silk Tork's and DexDor's questions (#7). BMK (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
General comments
- Maybe I can shed some light on where sysops are useful in the AFC draft space as someone who does a bit of cleanup there. The sysop tools are used there more than might be expected. CSD is quite common there: we specifically have WP:G13 for abandoned drafts and likewise WP:REFUND requests; there are also a number of newly created vandalism and non-sense pages there that need to be cleared out; quite a few companies created advertisement-like pages that are deleted; and lastly as already pointed out, there are technical issues such as clearing out redirects, merging duplicate versions, and so forth. There aren't too many admins who work in the AFC space to begin with and handling them should take extra consideration. For example, unlike pages in the article space, a draft has the opportunity for improvement before immediately needing to meet some of our critical polices like GNG. Often as a sysop, I evaluate the progress of the discussion such as how the editor has responded to feedback and to see if there's genuine intent to adapt the draft to the policies before I delete ones like blatant advertising. I also come across quite a few copyright violations, not only in the words on the page but also for the accompanying images that new editors upload for these drafts. Many times they lack proper licensing information even if the person does hold the copyright and could release it under a creative commons license. Hope this helps the discussion. Mkdwtalk 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Looking through APerson's user talk contributions, a huge number of them are variations on "Welcome to Wikipedia!" and "Your AfC submission has been reviewed"; exactly what I would expect from heavy AfC usage as it's best to tell new users directly on their talk page what's going on. I've got a large amount of user talk edits (probably 1,000+) for exactly the same reason; yet somehow this never came up at my RfA and didn't seem to be a problem at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)