After my previous RfOS closed as unsuccessful – 20/0/2 but failing to reach the 25 support threshold – I told myself that I would not run for and further advanced permissions on Wikidata unless other people started telling me to, or better yet, nominated me. In the past two weeks several other admins have reached out to me over IRC and either outright told me that I should run or commented about how, if I hypothetically were to run, they'd support me. And so here I am. I've been an administrator on this project since the first week, and as of this nomination I have exactly 11,111 live edits. --Sven ManguardWha? 18:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn: I had a feeling as soon as Ajraddatz's oppose came in that this RfOS was done for. I had hoped that it would just gracefully expire without getting any more votes cast either way, but that doesn't look like its going to happen. Thank you to the people that supported me, and to the people that saw Ajraddatz's oppose and continued to support me. Thank you also to Ajraddatz for pointing out that my revdelling isn't up to par. I will make sure that in the future I do a better job with that tool.
Ultimately, I have continued to run for advanced permissions because I want to help this project, which I believe in heavily and enjoy working on, as much as I can. As someone that can't code and doesn't have any significant background in database management, I've looked for maintenance and cleanup tasks as my 'niche' on the project. If helping out with Oversight is not an area that I will be able to assist in, there are plenty of others where I can spend my time, and I have every intention of making the most of those opportunities.
Strong support Though I don't like the fact that some questions are quickly becoming obligatory.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's obligatory as in 'if you don't answer this, we will oppose you on procedural grounds' as much as that it's something that the community wants to see before they cast a vote. For many Wikidata rights holders, Wikidata is the first place they're holding that right (be it rollback, admin, OS, etc.), so there's not going to be a track record that people can look to in other projects. Seeing whether or not someone has been trusted with access to OTRS is an imperfect but still useful proxy in helping determine whether or not someone can be trusted with OS. Both deal in sensitive information, and I personally have had to request things be oversighted based on tips sent in to OTRS, so there is some slight overlap. Obviously there are other factors that come into play, but it's a good question to ask OS candidates. Sven ManguardWha? 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that it is good information to know, though I do my own process of researching if I'm not familiar with the candidate. Also for comparison, the English Wikipedia ArbCom asks 27 questions in their application for oversighters... --Rschen7754 00:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Certainly. TCN7JM 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I came here expecting to support this, but looking through Sven's use of revision deletion brings up some pretty serious concerns for me.
22:34, 11 June 2013 Sven Manguard (A) (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision on page coordinate location (P625): edit summary hidden (no need to cause alarm) (diff | change visibility) - This revdel hides an edit summary, which simply states that the property is broken. I can find no reason, either in WD:REVDEL (which is a proposed policy still) or in the practices of other projects or in my own good sense why this content should be hidden from public view.
19:03, 10 September 2013 Sven Manguard (A) (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikidata:Project chat: content hidden and edit summary hidden (OOPS) (diff | change visibility) - This revdel hides a duplicate post that Sven made. Again, there is no good reason for this content to be hidden from public view.
These are two of the four revisions that have been deleted by the candidate over the last five months. The other two are hiding the IP of a logged-out user when they didn't request the removal (that I can see looking on-wiki briefly), another thing which adds hesitation in my mind I've clarified this with Sven over IRC and no longer have an issue with it. I don't feel comfortable giving OS tools to some who, in my opinion, hides content from public view that has no business being hidden. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to Ajraddatz in private and will respond here once I return from dinner. Sven ManguardWha? 23:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Ajraddatz is correct that the middle revision delete is, in fact, a bad revision delete. I had announced the roll-out of a feature before it was official, and should have just reverted myself and left it at that, rather than revision deleted my edit. As to the first revision deletion, while I clearly must have felt justified in making the revision deletion at the time, as the revelation that a datatype was bad and that P625 was generating bad data didn't go over particularly well, in hindsight I don't think that the action stands scrutiny. In the interest of transparency, I've undone both of those revision deletions.
Ultimately, I have to concede that Ajraddatz's oppose is valid. I did perform one clearly bad and one likely bad revision deletion. I have a substantial record of good revision deletions at Commons, but those are dealing mainly with copyright issues and loading glitches, so it's not a body of work that I can easily point to and say "look at this, I clearly know what I'm doing".
I am open to admitting mistakes, and am willing to spend the time to fix them when they happen. I have vandalism fighting experience, and I have an appreciation for how powerful OS is as a tool. I still believe that I have the right temperament and experience to make an effective oversighter, and indeed I hope that this RfOS is successful. Regardless of how it turns out, however, I admit that the previous revision deletions were poor, and will work to ensure that my track record only improves in the future. Sven ManguardWha? 00:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Ajraddatz. As an en.wp Sysop who uses Revdel, I can certainly say that hiding duplicate posts and the like would not be an acceptable use of the tool on that project. And since an Oversighter's work is almost impossible for others to scrutinize, I would expect a very high standard of someone before entrusting them with OS tools. The uses of Revdel highlighted above fall short of such a standard. It Is Me Heret / c 12:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Since I know the obligatory questions from having written some of them, I am in UTC -5, have access to the OTRS sister projects, info-en, permissions, and photosubmissions queues, and am an Admin on Commons. Sven ManguardWha? 18:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.