Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/AutomaticStrikeout

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Not done Withdrawn by candidate. Anyway, I suggest the candidate to think about his last comment as it was no proper reaction to criticism, in my opinion. Thanks. Vogone talk 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AutomaticStrikeout[edit]

Vote


RfP scheduled to end after 26 August 2013 18:50 (UTC)

I would like to nominate AutomaticStrikeout for adminship on Wikidata. He's been around since May and has just less than 4,000 edits. He has also been recently active in areas where administrative tools would be needed, such as RfD. This is why I think AutomaticStrikeout would make a good administrator. TCN7JM 18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to co-nominate AutomaticStrikeout. He has been active at WD:RfD (we can always use help there!), and he is definitely part of the community. The Anonymouse (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: I gladly and thankfully accept the nomination. In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that my editing history at Wikidata has been somewhat erratic, but I don't think this would prevent me from being able to help. AutomaticStrikeout 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. I no longer desire to be a member of this community, let alone an administrator. AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  1.  Neutral - Sorry that the first !voter here is not a supporter. AutomaticStrikeout appears to have 57 RFDs, which would normally lead me to support. However, it seems that 50 of these RFDs have been in the past four days and the other 7 were from months ago, showing that he has not had consistent or long-term experience with RFD. In a month or so more of what you have been doing, I will surely support. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --DangSunM (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose per Jakob - I would prefer more experience with the project first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support As co-nom. I'm not trying to compare other candidates, but others have had much less experience at RfD. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support WorldTraveller101  ?  04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support not really convinced by the opposing rationales, and seems like he knows what he's doing. --Rschen7754 04:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose. I have serious concerns about AS's understanding of the purpose of a block. These concerns have all come up on en.wp (though there may be some stuff here as well for all I know; I've been less active here lately), but the examples I've seen are very troubling. See, for instance, w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Proposed site ban of BarkingFish (for a user who would later admit his actions were "suicide by admin") and w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#Proposed block of Giano (who, in fairness, trolled in response—but come on, "little nonentities" is not a PA, especially when it's not applied to anyone in particular). Like I said, I acknowledge that all of this was on another project, but when someone's in the habit of proposing blocks that are too punitive even for the cesspool of drama that is en.wp, that's a major red flag to me. We're pretty good at keeping the peace here, and a lot of that involves knowing when not to block someone, knowing when it's better to simply give a polite reminder, knowing when someone really just needs a helping hand. Being a Wikidata admin (especially considering the project's multilingual nature) requires understanding and measuredness, not the kind of rigid wiki-policing that AS has exhibited on en.wp. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's certainly a valid rationale, but I don't think that AS would immediately transfer an enwiki mentality here to the point where it would be an issue (coming from a generally block-happy philosophy myself). --Rschen7754 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support as the sleepy co-nom. TCN7JM 08:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support ·addshore· talk to me! 13:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support But do please use the tools with a light hand. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support with comments:
    I've been thinking about this nomination for almost three days now without leaning to any direction. Mostly because there are several things I want to make clear from the start: the English Wikipedia and Wikidata are not the same, and any user that could be ready for adminship there is not necessarily ready for adminship here. Why? Because Wikidata is a multilingual project with a lot of different procedures and standards. Therefore, we need more well-prepared users that could stand for this challenge, and half of enwiki sysops are very far from that capability. Also, although reaching sysopship here can be considered to be easier than enwiki, it's because we don't waste our time with grievances and enmity; we evaluate the candidate's suitability given their track history and cast a vote.
    Therefore, when I saw this nomination, I felt puzzled. I was ready to support AS when he ran for the mop at enwiki, but supporting here is a different matter. I have a very high standard for supporting any candidate, and these standards are even higher is such candidate comes from enwiki. Hence, Pink's comments above are very concerning to me, and I had to think of it several days before coming here with my vote. However, I decided to be more lenient with AS and support because I am sure that he knows that, if sysopped, he will have to behave to the most higher standards, and he will not recreate these same situations over here. To finish this up: As Rschen said above, I trust AS to leave enwiki where it is; far from here. — ΛΧΣ21 19:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose Right: First per PinkAmpersand. Now, I was going to give a middle ground saying 'I would support if you agree to this...' unfortunately, he said he would not do so, therefore leading me to the point where I can not support this because of his oppose to not using the block right. I am also going to add onto PinkAmpersand's oppose as three admins were recently unblocked at Wikipedia, more or less immediately after this, AutomaticStrikeout proposed or started to say maybe we should reblock them immediately after an unblock due to a simple 'I disagree to the unblock' by the blocking administrator. He then opposed his own idea based in the first oppose. This to me shows that he is does not make decisions which he eventually sticks by, this in my opinion is not a good quality in an administrator at all. All the links by PinkAmpersand and rationales I fully agree with and will not repost them since they are already provided. Lastly, I do slightly agree with Jasper's oppose due to experience. In short conclusion: I do not trust the user to make correct assessment for blocks. I gave them to chance to say 'I will not block' though they disagreed, therefore I can not trust the user to be an administrator because of this. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not proposing that they be reblocked. I was merely opening a discussion on it so that the consensus could be determined. At no time did I suggest or did I think that they should be reblocked. AutomaticStrikeout 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) AutomaticStrikeout 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Eitherway, I am still opposing over the three other points John F. Lewis (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Links provided by PinkAmpersand are somewhat considering especially for an admin candidate therefore before I consider stating my views I would like to ask AS if he would be willing to voluntarily avoid blocking users at Wikidata unless doing so is extremely necessary in order to protect the project. John F. Lewis (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, after giving it further consideration, I am not willing to agree to adminship with restrictions, especially as I do not believe a restriction on blocking to be necessary. AutomaticStrikeout 16:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that restrictions for adminship are not good. However, my recommendation is to be extremely careful with the tools. For example, I consider that I have a good grasp of the blocking policy and yet I don't usually issue blocks. In almost five months as an admin, I've only blocked around 4 IPs and only after warnings are ignored. Of course, I don't expect you to hold yourself to such a high personal restriction like I do, but at least explore different solutions when possible. — ΛΧΣ21 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect that I'll be issuing many blocks, if any, and I intend to be very cautious in my use of the tools. AutomaticStrikeout 19:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/AutomaticStrikeout&oldid=74262435"