Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 14 September 2015 (→Support: +1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

APerson

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (39/13/3); 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
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.
Further discussion has been moved to the talk page, see: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/APerson#Discussion from question 7
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.
Additional question from CookieMonster755
11. Do you think the Articles for Creation project is an important project for the Wikipedia community and new editors?
A: Yes, I think it's an important project. The point has been raised that AfC functions as a valuable filter against all sorts of highly undesirable stuff that would otherwise make its way into mainspace, which I agree with. From my experience assisting editors at the IRC help desk, AfC is often the preferred method of submitting articles as articles submitted directly to mainspace might get deleted by quick CSD tags, whereas the worst thing that can happen to a (normal - i.e. not copyvio or attack) draft at AfC is a decline.
Additional question from Lankiveil
12. If you could change any one rule or policy at Wikipedia, what would it be?
A: I don't have a ready answer to this question; having read all the policies I deal with regularly and many of the rules, I feel like Wikipedia's policies have evolved to a point where they're all effective.
Additional question from Carrite
13. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name other than APerson and Thizzlehatter? If so, what are these names?
A: I haven't used any other individual accounts, though as this question asked about all of the user names I have used, I'll note that I renamed my account two years ago from APerson241 (talk · contribs).
Additional question from Stfg
14. An editor's first edit is to create an article in their sandbox beginning as follows: "<companyname>, established in 1995, we are pioneers in becoming the first online bookstore from <countryname>" and ending as follows: "We also expect your valuable feedback for improving our service." The editor's second edit is to place an AFC submission template on it. How do you proceed in dealing with this AFC submission?
A: The tone is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, judging from the first and last sentences you provided, so I would decline with the reason "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
15. What is your view of Process is important?
A: Process is important because without it, Wikipedia wouldn't really be able to operate. That essay points out "due process of law" as an example of why this is true, and I agree that process is one of the main reasons why the community-driven aspect of Wikipedia is possible.
16. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: Very strictly. CSD wasn't meant to be something to be expanded to borderline cases; we have the other deletion processes for that. CSD was meant for uncontroversial cases in which administrators don't need specific community consensus, so there has to be no possibility that the community could object to a deletion before applying one of the CSD criteria.
17. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you give some examples of things that are and are not valid claims of significance?
A:
18. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A:
19. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A:
Additional question from BMK
20. In looking at your edit counts, I note that your participation in Wikipedia has steadily declined since your real start in June 2013 (not counting the prior 10 months of very minimal edits) until now, and that your percentage of article edits has declined at the same time: in other words, you edit less, and less of the edits you make are content-based. What would you say is the reason for this? Is it an indication of declining interest in the project, and is your desire to be an admin based on being somewhat bored with being a rank-and-file editor and looking for something new to do? BMK (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: The reason for my declining monthly edit count is due to more of a focus on coding and bots, I'd say. So it's definitely not an indication of declining interest in the project; rather, it's an indication of moving towards ways of contributing to the project that don't raise my edit count that much.
Additional question from Fylbecatulous
21. Following on from question #7 above and the ensuing discussion moved to this talk page where you state your access to Wikipedia was taken away involuntarily. I do not wish for details, but can you guarantee this will not be an issue in the present or the future? Whatever entity had control at that time to prevent you from contributing here; this cannot feasibly happen while you are an administrator. I am in no way negative to your candidacy at this time. Thank you.
A: Yes, I can guarantee that this won't be an issue in the future.
Additional question from Ritchie333
22. As a follow on from Q14 (and related discussion), can you please tell me what are the problems with copyright violations on Wikipedia, some of the forms they can take and what tools and noticeboards can be used to spot and fix them?
A:


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. 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 2015/15:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Support A helpful, knowledgeable editor who I feel will make a good administrator. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. Support, clearly will be a benefit to the project. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I dont see any issues. Net positive. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Kraxler (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seems fine, no issues --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support They are clearly very experienced, and I don't see any reason not to support. KSFTC 03:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Experienced, stable and trustworthy candidate. I don't see why not. Jianhui67 T★C 03:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 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)[reply]
  14. 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)[reply]
  15.  Y Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, understands Wikipedia processes. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support KrakatoaKatie 23:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Should be a net positive in the areas the candidate intends to work in. 91.3% AfD hit rate. sstflyer 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support This candidate is too good enough to use the administrative tools, I, as reviewer at AfC are lacking administrator’s actions for such as reviewing deletion tags takes way too long because of lack of administration in that field, I would definitely support this candidate since he has the ability to work in that role. I believe he will be good enough to use the administration tools to make a positive manoeuvre in review process with other reviewers such as myself. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 05:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - net positive, and the opposition is weak, as ever. GiantSnowman 09:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: seems level-headed and will make helpful technical contributions. A good answer to question 10. BethNaught (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Why not? Uğurkent (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support to counter the ridiculous opposes. Graham87 10:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support The best option--SaməkTalk 10:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Qualified enough for the tools, the clean block log is quite good too. RMS52 Talk to me 11:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, I do not see any problems for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Answers satisfactory, good contributions will make a good administrator.Aparslet (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support – definitely. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Net positive. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 15:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I don't see any issues with this candidate After looking at his edits, i think he would make a good admin Class455fan1 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: Why do we give extreme leniency to some when they maliciously sock but call others villains for a very minor socking incident? Anyway, the candidate would be a great asset to the technical part of Wikipedia. Esquivalience t 18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Answers to questions have satisfied any concerns I had; will be a useful asset to the project. SpencerT♦C 22:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. We need more vandal-fighting admins like @APerson here. Epic Genius (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Thizzlehattersupport - Don't care that you had an alternate account or that you used it to edit while on a wikibreak (wikibreak people, he did not create an account to edit whilst blocked)..Editors should take wikibreaks in between 2 or 3 years or they may burn up fast....APerson is a GoodPerson so I don't care if he created an 'alternate sock' without tagging it as such, its not like he used it to vandalize wikipedia, GROW UP...silly that such comments are coming from an admin..--Stemoc 00:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per Stemoc - I've been on the fence for a few days but I'm shoving myself here - I'm not entirely happy with the account business but as far as I can see they've not used it to WP:GAME any system nor vandalize .... Despite not naming the account on there userpage they've used the account legitimately (bar the RFA !vote) - It seems for personal reasons they've decided to keep quiet which is understandable, Anyway at the end of the day any admin here could create an account and we'd never know so I can't really see the point in opposing - They've fucked up to a point but IMHO it's not as bad as what the Opposes make out, All in all the candidate seems experienced on this place and we should trust them. –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Antrocent (♫♬) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you but you already voted as #16, so Im indenting this. —Soap— 05:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I could understand people being uncomfortable about a candidate who accepted AFCs despite them containing copyvio, but tagging one for deletion per G11 and then moving on rather than looking for other deletion reasons doesn't seem unreasonable to me. ϢereSpielChequers 09:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @WereSpielChequers: He didn't tag it per G11, he merely declined it. It was I who tagged it (G11 and G12). See User talk:Rokibbd. (I cannot see the article history, as you can.) --Stfg (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project, enquiries appear to have been fully and honestly answered in detail so far. Rubbish computer 11:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. —Kusma (t·c) 15:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weakish support. Deceptive illicit sockpuppetry! Oh my stars! Next thing you know we'll be finding out that he jaywalked and has been sloppy about sorting his recycling and once called in sick with "food poisoning" when it was really a hangover. I really cannot endorse the speculation that he might be deceptive or deliberately vague in explaining admin actions on the basis of hesitancy about discussing real-life personal circumstances. On the contrary, by all available evidence he's quite responsive, helpful, and receptive to feedback, which is an important trait in people who contribute in technical areas. Missing copyvios at AfC seems to be a pretty common thing, and as copyvios go a copy-paste of some company's website in an AfC draft is not an emergency; if this had been a clunky answer to a hypothetical it'd be a trivial issue, but the fact that it comes from a real and recent situation weakens my support a bit. (Surveying a sample of AfC declines to see how common this is might be useful in general - it wouldn't be reasonable to oppose RfA candidates whose AfC error rates are unremarkable just on the basis of single examples.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Andrew, I personally don't believe that those are problems. I apologize in advance for going on for so long, but there was a lot of points in there that I felt needed a response. The first problem you raise is that the test is a digression from productive work on the encyclopedia. My view is that "digressions" like the ones that fill Category:Wikipedia humor are natural and a consequence of the editorship of Wikipedia being a human community. The second problem you raise is that the test equates enthusiasm for Wikipedia with disorders such as alcoholism and compulsive behavior. The test, at least in my opinion, isn't meant to measure enthusiasm for Wikipedia at all; instead, it's supposed to measure a devotion to Wikipedia so intense that it spills over into other areas of the lives of those "affected". As it says at the top, the test is a work of humor, and the fact that I contributed an automated test to make it less tedious doesn't necessarily mean that I support every view expressed in it. On an unrelated point, I would certainly not use the admin tools in the service of any attitudes I may hold about users; in fact, as WP:INVOLVED notes, I wouldn't participate in cases where I have strong opinions about one of the involved users. APerson (talk!) 23:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for the whole Thizzlehatter incident. There are a number of aspects regarding that which concern me. The account was created deceptively, which is why it was not linked to the main account. I am unconformable supporting for admin someone who behaves deceptively. I am also uncomfortable that both then and now, APerson wasn't aware that creating an undeclared account and voting in project space is inappropriate. I wouldn't expect a prospective admin to be aware of all our rules, but when challenged on one, I would expect them to check the policy wording, just to make sure. And, while understandable, I'm uncomfortable that APerson was being less than clear on the creation of the alternative account, even when challenged. I prefer admins to be more open, honest, and upfront. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the explanation given reflects in no way negatively on APerson's conduct. Obviously the intention was to deceive whoever had forbidden them from accessing Wikipedia, and after the incident fear of discovery would legitimately lead them to keeping it quiet. If you can point to a single disruptive edit from Thizzlehatter I will reconsider, but this gives me no serious concerns. Also note APerson eventually came out with the whole story, and was willing to do so after understandable initial hesitation. BethNaught (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question Beth. The majority of admin candidates have never made a single disruptive edit. Other people may have different criteria (such as "never made a disruptive edit"); generally what I assess candidates on is their judgement, understanding, honesty, civility, etc. What I am looking for is how likely it is that they will not be deceptive at some point in the future, when they have the tools and they might have made a mistake. Someone who comes to RfA with evidence of being deceptive in the past, with evidence of being vague in their RfA on that past deception, and evidence of making a policy mistake, is someone I would have concerns about going forward. We all have different criteria, and I understand that if you wish to give this candidate a chance with the tools because you feel they meet your criteria, then that's fine by me. But I am voting on my criteria here, and I don't feel this candidate meets it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, I just wanted to give my perspective. I do think yours is a legitimate reason. BethNaught (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings SilkTork. I respectfully disagree with your framing of the oppose rationale you've given above. Choosing to label the discrepancies you perceive as the "Thizzlehatter incident" injects a negative bias that is not warranted by any diffs I've seen. And your assertion of inappropriate conduct too strongly implies that APerson had the ulterior motive of voting in a project space discussion when the undeclared account was created; the two unrelated events should not be joined by a conjunction, especially when a causal relationship between the two is necessary to support your assertions, yet not present within factual timelines. I think your reasons for choosing to oppose this RFA are entirely fine "opinion based objections"; they, however, are not policy based infractions as you present them to be. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably expressed myself quite poorly. I hope I can clear things up. The "Thizzlehatter incident" refers to the entirety of the matter, not just the creation of the alternative account; it refers to the vague reference to the reasons for creating the account, which concealed the real reason (an authority in his life, we don't know who - employer or parent or school, asked him to refrain from editing Wikipedia for a period), and it also refers to his vague shuffling on the point when asked to elaborate. However, yes, for me, the incident is a negative. It may not be for others - everyone will draw their own conclusions from the incident - but to me it is, and it is on the negatives I take from the whole incident (not just the alternative account) that I based my oppose decision. The voting in a RfA while using an undisclosed account is not appropriate. That's the way it is. It's not a major infraction of policy, but is is an infraction. Now, most of us will at some point have broken some rule or other - it happens. He didn't know it was an infraction. But when I pointed out in my question that it would be if he was running two accounts simultaneously, his response was to assert that he had not behaved inappropriately - which is fine, but he had not checked the sock policy page carefully enough, as it is listed in WP:ILLEGIT. Let's put it this way - if you're caught smoking in a no-smoking area, and someone points to the no-smoking sign, the correct response is to put out the cigarette, and say you'll know in future not to smoke there. It's not to say that you have a right to smoke there because there's nobody else in the room, and you intend no harm. So it's not the voting itself that I am concerned about, it is the continued misunderstanding of policy. So it's not the infraction, it is the dealing with the infraction when challenged. So, combining all aspects of the incident together, I felt I could not support because here was evidence of deceptive behaviour, vague answers when asked to clarify, and fumbling over policy. My concern is that if the candidate makes an error when an admin, they will not be easy to deal with. They may be vague, deceptive, and unclear, because that's what I have seen so far. We can only assess a person on what we see, and I'm not comfortable with what I've seen. I don't want to keep saying he was deceptive over and over again, because I don't think the candidate is a bad person, and I have said that I understand the reason for why they did what they did. I just think they are not quite ready now. I'm not saying the candidate should be banned or punished or anything. I just don't feel they quite match what are today fairly exacting standards for an admin. If anyone else wants further clarity on this point, please let's discuss it on my talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Even though he satisfies all the core components of my personal expectations, my gut feeling is that I should oppose. I'm quite uncomfortable with this whole undisclosed alternate account business, and APerson has been quite brief and evasive about it, and doesn't fully seem to understand his violation of our socking policies. I feel that it may a reflection of how the candidate would act as an admin (e.g., failure to properly account for his actions). In complete honesty, this behavior may be a natural consequence of the candidate's apparent youth, so I would advise that he wait for a few more months (or even years) so that he can consider his actions and perhaps gain more maturity. Otherwise, he is a very good candidate and I almost certainly would have supported had it not been for this incident. --Biblioworm 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - SilkTork raises some interesting concerns, but my gut feeling is that the candidate is just not ready for the responsibility and accountability that comes with the bit. I'm also concerned with the mix of experiences and feel they come up short for what is needed. Most of the work, you learn on the job, but you still need a solid foundation to learn from. In a year, it would likely be easier to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I think APerson is very well intentioned and may make a good admin in time. But I think he badly misread the mood of this community when he grasped that the use of an alternate account would be a problem, but did not review his edits as such or if he did, he did not see that the RfA vote would be a problem. Moreover, that he did not understand that the community would keep pushing the point until it had the information it wanted, and thus prepare what he would say (and if necessary consult with ArbCom or whoever he felt he needed to in advance; that he did not shows bad planning) Alternate accounts is something that the community is very sensitive about, because of past bad experiences, and it's something every admin candidate is asked about. This was a needless self-inflicted wound, a bad muff, and on a sensitive point. I just don't see the clue I'm looking for in an admin at this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Q14, which is a real case that APerson reviewed on 11 September. The article in question was User:Rokibbd/sandbox (now deleted as G11 + G12), which was an unedited cut-and-paste of Rubi Enterprise's about-us page. The very first test listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Reviewing workflow is a check for "Irreparable copyright violation". It's elementary that when you get an article written in blatantly non-encyclopedic tone, then you pick a phrase and Google it to see if it's a copy-paste from somewhere. In this case, Googling "we are pioneers in becoming the first online bookstore" reveals the source as the very first hit. My question (Q14) was "How do you proceed in dealing with this AFC submission?" That how-do-you-proceed question was not answered; merely a conclusion was stated. I expect APerson will be ready for the mop one day, but I think that more attention is needed to due diligence first. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this was a bit of a trick question and I would AGF that APerson simply misread what you wanted. Given that APerson has run bots with the DYK process, I find it extremely unlikely that he has not witnessed a case where somebody comes down like a ton of bricks on WT:DYK when a nomination has a copyvio in it. A different question that gets the information you want might be something like "What are the most important speedy deletion criteria to consider when reviewing AfC submissions?" Don't forget you can always copyedit a copyvio away as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Please also AGF that it wasn't intended as a trick question :) I don't come to these RFAs merely to entertain myself by tripping candidates up. Your version is nice and generic, but this was a genuine concern about due diligence (or possibly insufficient clue) in an AFC review that the candidate himself did just 3 days ago. I've seen cases before where blatant copy-paste of copyright sources was overlooked at AFC, and it's a real problem. Copyvio is a serious and well-known problem in Wikipedia. Imho sysops need to be wide awake to it, and AFC reviewers need to do due diligence with it. If it had been a case of close paraphrase, which is much harder to detect and prove, then I wouldn't have taken issue with it. But this was a blatant copy-paste and nothing else, and very easy to spot. I do know that one can copy edit copy-pasted text, but the candidate didn't do that, and apparently didn't investigate whether this was a case that would have needed it. So I must stay here, I'm afraid. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "misread what you wanted" you mean APerson gave the result and not the process, well, the result was still wrong. You can't edit out a copyvio if you don't check for it in the first place. Moreover if you are suggesting that APerson did notice the copyvio but didn't mention it in order to avoid WP:BRICKS, that would be a very serious problem. Blatant and irreparable copyright infringements need to be ruthlessly got rid of. BethNaught (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a parallel to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyphoidbomb 2, notice how I opposed for copyvios there and the RfA passed anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Ritchie, that's otherstuff, and not relevant to my vote at all. Each RFA candidate is a separate case. --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly relevant to my view. Indeed, I'm wondering now if this is just a simple oversight on APerson's part (which I have assumed) or whether it's something substantial; without further feedback, I can't tell. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: moved from Support. Taken together, the questions over the alternate account and, per Stfg, the lack of vigilance for copyvios lead me to have insufficient confidence in the candidate. When I was working at AfC, and this also happens at NPP, I regularly found editors who had declined copyvios for other reasons and not noticed at all. This is quite frankly dangerous and in the case of AfC could have been prevented by following the detailed instructions provided. BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Based on the answer to Silk Torx's question and, at this point, the non-answer to my question. Also the "gut feelings" of editors I respect. BMK (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC) As for the nominees answer to my question: one doesn't need to be an admin is one's focus is on "coding and bots". BMK (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - I am unsatisfied with the explanation to Q7, moved to the talk page. It lacks transparency. I don't like use of multiple accounts in the first place; a cockamamie story about creation of an alternate account is presented and the evidence indicates that the alternate account was used to vote at an RFA. Personal privacy does not trump transparency at RFA. If privacy concerns stops a person from running the gauntlet, I appreciate that but I will not look the other way. One person — One account. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I respect your privacy, and won't ask for more information about the alternate account. But I dont think it's right to give admin access to a candidate who can't explain the need for such an alternate account. It's a bit worrying also that your nominator waited so long to put his own vote in. —Soap— 17:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soap: See this brief discussion for a potential explanation as to the last part of your oppose.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thank you. I was wrong about that. That was only an afterthought to my vote however. —Soap— 18:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I wanted to support, and could have overlooked individual wrinkles, but several things taken together give me serious concern for how APerson would perform as an admin. I have no doubt he means well and would not use the tools maliciously, but more is required. Several things combine to give me the impression if youthful naivety. By way of example, the business with the alternate account and APerson's explanation—I have no doubt that you didn't intend to deceive, but by not disclosing who you are that was the effect of your participation; I suspect it didn't enter your mind that it might be necessary to disclose your original account and that you didn't think it would be an issue, which suggests that you are not perceptive to hot-button issues within the community as an administrator needs to be. The comment "my Wikipedia access was taken away" suggests a lack of maturity and the lack of the independence necessary to make one's own decisions. The comment about working in the Mediawiki namespace, despite having no experience of making edit requests (in fact 0 edits to the Mediawiki talk namespace) and having no clear idea of what changes they would make is again indicative of zeal without the requisite experience, as is the answer to Q14 where APerson fails to do the most important and most basic due diligence.

    None of these problems are insurmountable. I think APerson is a nice person and a good, well-intentioned editor who might one day make a great admin. But I would respectfully suggest that that day is probably a year or so in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  13. Oppose I think the candidate means well and has the best for the project in mind but I'm afraid that being an admin requires a far more sophisticated ability to analyse and respond to concerns then they have demonstrated here. If I may carefully put it, I suspect that this is a case of TOOSOON and that with some miles on the clock this user will acquire the necessary life skills to be able to safely navigate such issues. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. I will move to support after reading APerson's reply to DexDor's question. --Action Hero (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral until reading APerson's reply to DexDor's question and Steel1943's more recent question. --Rubbish computer 17:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Support. Rubbish computer 11:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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) Moved to oppose.[reply]
    Neutral Joining on fence, waiting outcome of above. I don't do email on RfAs but my call may be based, in part, on the reaction of editors who do receive an explanation by same.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Striking, moving to oppose.[reply]
    Neutral. I'm just not sure about this whole undisclosed socking business. The phrases "period of school" and "had my Wikipedia access taken away" also make a very strong implication that he is a very young user who still lives with his parents (remember, this is now public information, so I'm not doing anything against policy here), which some !voters find concerning per thoroughly-documented history. --Biblioworm 15:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Leaning oppose. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC) —Moving to oppose.[reply]
  2. Neutral: I’d really like to vote support, but this whole socking business really concerns me. The actual violation of the sockpuppet policy doesn’t bother me, since APerson did not attempt to vote multiple times, or do anything disruptive. If APerson had simply said something along the lines of “I created a second account when I lost access to my primary account, and wasn’t careful enough in following sockpuppet policy. I apologize for this breech in policy, and promise that it won’t happen again” and filled in all the other necessary details, then I would have no problem voting support. However, APerson, was and continues to be incredibly evasive when other editors ask about this violation. This makes me seriously question what would happen if APerson were to make a more serious mistake as administrator with negative repercussion for Wikipedia. Would he be able to come clean and attempt to correct the situation, or would he try to cover it up? It is for this reason that I can’t in good faith vote support despite APerson’s overall positive contributions to Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning towards support, pending answers to questions and checking of the edit record. The percentage of user talk space edits doesn't bother my: my own edit count shows just over 23% of my edits are there. The RfA voting from a secondary account doesn't bother me, in fact as long as there was no attempt to vote or comment from both accounts, or to avoid a ban or block or on-wiki scrutiny, I don't think it was even a technical violation of policy, and if it was, the policy should be changed. The deception does bother me, as Spirit of Eagle says just above. DES (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I have to disagree with the heart of this comment [I'm unclear about how this information relates to proving the candidate's experience with understanding community consensus]. (Attempt to clarify statement given the confusion stated later in this thread.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC) These are examples of where a request is fulfilled by an administrator usually without consensus-based discussion. The only other major forums that are like that are WP:RFPP and the various boards where an editor can be blocked or granted additional user rights upon request. Yes, these venues need administrators to manage them, but admins' reactions to the requests are akin to a WP:BOLD response by the admin not formed by consensus. For the mop set, an administrator really should have some proven experience beforehand participating in discussions and/or nominations which can only be acted upon/closed via community consensus individually to better understand how consensus works. Granted, WP:AFD is one of those places, but it's not the only place (WP:TFD, WP:RFD, WP:CFD, WP:MFD, WP:AN, etc.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point you've brought up was in no way related to what I was trying to say. I was outlining the administrative tasks required in the AFC draft space. You've outlined your opinion that candidates need experience in determining community consensus in the project space. My comment does not address or relate to any position in terms of whether candidates should or should not have experience in consensus based administrative areas and therefore the two are completely different things. I Mkdwtalk 05:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly; the areas you are outlining have nothing to do with consensus-based discussion. Those are the areas I would actually be afraid to give an editor the mop set unless they have experience with consensus-based forums first. In my opinion, participating in consensus-driven discussions helps an editor get a better understanding of what is a community-acceptable WP:BOLD action and what is not. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how any of the processes you mentioned in your initial comment have any bearing on my "lack of consensus-based discussion participation" concern specifically pertaining to APerson. (I mean, this is their RFA after all.) To me, the statement just explains where admins are needed for the bold, reactive, no consensus-needed decisions that I referenced above. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)'[reply]
  • If you're not sure how anything I said in my initial comment has anything to do with your "lack of consensus-based discussion participation" concern, then why did you reply to my initial comment and state you disagreed with the heart of it and then outlined a reason which appears to be unrelated? Just trying to figure out why you replied to my initial comment with the statement you provided so I can respond appropriately. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: I don't think I participated in your RFA, though I know it happened rather recently. This was a point that I noticed in another RFA that I came up with. Activity in this namespace does not show proof of administrative competency, especially since most actions that happen in this namespace (deletion discussion notifications, etc) happen in response to another action (nominating the page for deletion, etc.) However, to validate the high number of user space edits in regards to becoming an administrator, there needs to be an equal amount of work someplace else which actually requires the admin tools in the actual forum where the work is taking place, and I'm not seeing it. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying it's about ratio? If a candidate had over a million edits (we had two this year), even if they had 40,000 wikipedia space edits, would you oppose them if they had significantly more edits to the article and user talk space? In my opinion, candidates interested in the sysop tools don't need to be editors who spend the majority of their time doing mop and bucket tasks. I would certainly grant the tools to someone who spends the vast majority of their time writing articles and welcoming newcomers if they were trustworthy, had a use for the tools in where they use Wikipedia, and had some experience in mop and bucket areas. Mkdwtalk 06:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, since I find proof of experience and focus in the edit ratios. Since I do not know of APerson's work (or some other editors' work) besides this RFA, I have to go with the statistics to explain areas of focus. I wouldn't oppose due to any sort of Article/Wikipedia namespace ratio since the primary reason for Wikipedia existing is for content creation; if a case like this were to happen and the user talk edits were a not a concern, I would probably "support" if "Article" were 1 or and "Wikipedia" were 2 or 3 (as long as "User talk" is nowhere in the top 4) Also, edits in the "Talk:" namespace are preferable as well since WP:RM requests occur there, and since renaming of pages in the Article space is a more necessary task (in regards to discussing guidelines) than renaming pages in any other namespace. When it comes to having the mop in hand, I feel the editor has to participate in venues where they get to see the tools used to close consensus-based discussions. As I stated above (in one way or another), writing articles and welcoming editors are not tasks that are enhanced with the mop set. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/APerson&oldid=681044741"