Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Linuxerist

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Linuxerist

Final (13/14/4) ended 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxerist (talk · contribs) – I have seen Linuxerist around a lot lately, and I have found that he is a good RC patroller, and interwikier. He has done good work with templates. It is an honor to be able to nominate him for for adminship. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I co-nominate Linuxerist for adminship. He's an excellent user, always friendly and civil. He knows what to do with the tools. — Nathan (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and co-co nominate Linuxerist for admin duities. He has been waiting for this for a long time. Regular on IRC, and the rest is said up above. Whopper 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby, humbly accept ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)I need to wait a bit. Thanks to all that voted.Linuxerist 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Super duper nominater support ILovePlankton ( L) 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support — Nathan (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support ~ Whopper 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support My criteria for adminship are simple. 1) Has the user demonstrated that they are trustworthy, and 2) Has the user demonstrated that they can benefit from admin tools. These criteria are not strict, but adminship is no big deal, after all. Linuxerist has demonstrated a commitment of the project that demonstrates his trustworthiness for wikiWork. In addition, I know Linuxerist personally, and I can vouch that he is a kind and civil user that is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Regarding the second criteria, Linuxerist is on RCP, and he can thus benefit from admin tools. Thus, I wholeheartedly support Where Talk to me.
  5. Support From what I've seen from his actions I think he would make a good admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good user from what I've seen. G.He 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, good user, won't abuse admin tools. --Terence Ong 03:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - low risk of abuse -- Tawker 04:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Shultz IV 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Avoids cliché support Computerjoe's talk 06:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Experienced enough and trustworthy. DarthVader 07:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak support per concerns and responses. RadioKirk talk to me 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Fails my criteria, particularly in project-total edits ratio. NSLE (T+C) at 02:29 UTC (2006-05-25)
  2. Oppose. While this user is doing good things, I am concerned at the large number of minor edits, and the low use of edit summaries. Also, when warning vandals seems to jump right in with a final warning, as in this response to an anon editors first edit. I think some time spent at WP:AFD or similar to gain a better understanding of policies and user consensus would be useful. Kevin 03:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually not a final warning, it's {{blatantvandal}}. Also, as that was rather sneaky vandalism rather than complete blanking or whatever, it might not be caught for several days, which is bad. --Rory096 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. That edit to me merits a Test 1 if it's the first edit with no prior warnings. It could just be a kid or new user fascinated by the edit button. A lot of times new users are so overcome by Be bold-- It's a Wiki they fail to appreciate how seriously the RCPatrol takes unconstructive edits. Don't bite the "newbies" head off over a silly error in judgment. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 03:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the vandal should probably be given a test1, but it's a judgement call, and I don't think it's even worth a mention in an RfA. --Rory096 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I used that diff as one example among many more where I saw {{blatantvandal}} or {{test3}} warnings used for a users first edit. I think it shows a tendency to bite newcomers. Observations like this are exactly what RFA is for. Kevin 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about the low edit-summary usage? According to Mathbot's tool, he has pretty good stats. --TantalumTelluride 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Constructive criticism/rationale-- You are doing all the right things. You just need more time and experience. I generally prefer four to six months and 3,000 - 4,000 edits. I also would like to see more reports to AIV. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Switch to neutral based on answer to question 4. :) Dlohcierekim 12:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose Low number of major edits, according to Flcelloguy's tool you have around 600 major edits. Very few substantial edits to articles per your answer to Question #2. You're still a little new here with less than 3 months since your first edit. Despite my oppose I see a lot of positives. With a few more months of work, more RC patrolling and more edits to articles I could see supporting a second RfA. Good luck, Gwernol 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Not quite yet. Doing a great job with vandalism and especially in encouraging community on WP, but really not enough mainspace edits for me to be willing to give power tools. Yet. -- Samir धर्म 03:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose, geat editor, though I would like to see a few more months of experience. --☆TBC☆ 04:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, would like to see more experience from you. Royboycrashfan 04:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I would like to see you having more experience, but do not be discouraged.--Jusjih 12:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose well done on your contributions to date, but more experience needed and more understanding, patience and restraint, as pointed out by Kevin. Heavy-handed use of admin powers is not a pretty sight. Tyrenius 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not much in the way of substantial contributions, so the edit count overstates his experience. Also, the excessively coordinated nomination comes across to me as a group of editors trying to push their buddy through by manufacturing the appearance of popularity. It's more helpful to show us why someone is trustworthy than to overwhelm us with numbers. --Michael Snow 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel you are misinterpreting the situation & you're just seeing what you want to see, when in reality it's not that at all. I don't nominate based on "cronyism" and I consider that a personal attack on my character. Whether Linuxerist is my friend or not, I would have nominated him anyway. Regardless of what it seems like to you, I do actually consider people's character and qualifications (admittedly, I look at what kind of person they are, first. "What is their personality like? Are they well known in the community? Are they kind to other users? Are they quick to help those in need? Do they assume good faith? Good with conflict resolution?", then I look at ability "can they handle the tools? Do they know their way around Wikipedia? Do they have a good grasp of policy? Know when to apply it? etc", then I look at their edits and contributions - that's how I look at prospective admins, not this heavy-handed cronyism stuff you talk about). We have enough admins on Wikipedia who aren't quite people persons, we don't need another. — Nathan (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That you support a friend is not the problem. But you could have done that with a simple comment, the way most people do. --Michael Snow 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my point. Would you please read through what I've said again? I feel that you are again misinterpreting what I'm saying. (I said I do not nominate based on cronyism. I've supported people who I don't consider friends before) It's not about supporting a friend. I would support anyone who fit the criteria above. Thank you. — Nathan (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I misinterpreted what you're saying? I hardly interpreted it at all, because I didn't think it responded to my actual point. It's not about why you support someone - the considerations you say you apply seem fine generally - or the fact that Linuxerist is your friend. It's about how you do it, such as the rapid-fire triple-co-nomination that feels like packing the ship with supporters before it leaves the harbor, in the hopes that opponents won't try to get on board. --Michael Snow 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You now what? I think you need to read WP:AGF, and WP:BEANS they could teach you a lot and also Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and this shouldn't be one either. And I am sorry that I supported Linuxerist and told some other people about his nomination (Which made them all support at once), and I am sorry that Linuxerist has a lot of friends that are trying to support him by co-nominating him. ILovePlankton ( L) 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Linuxerist is a great editor, but he needs more experience before being granted sysop rights. As always, I am a little concerned about the use of images in signatures. If he addresses the concerns raised in this RfA and delves a little deeper into the project, he should be prepared for adminship after a couple more months. (I do sympathize with him for being asked eighteen questions in this RfA.) --TantalumTelluride 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per TantalumTelluride. Cynical 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose First edit in March-More experience. If he returns in June or July I'll support him. ForestH2
  14. Oppose I'm concerned about a lack of policy related experience. In particular, in his answer to standard question 1 he mentions closing TfDs and AfDs as part of what he would do admin work as, yet I see little prior work in those areas. Almost everything he mentions in question 1 involves Wikipedia space, thus I am puzzled by his response to a concern about a lack of Wikipedia space edits by saying that "We are all building an encyclopedia, so I can see why people would be concerned with main space edits. I do not think this should be held against a sysop, as that will not be the primary use of admin tools." While he is correct that the ultimate goal is always mainspace, many admin duties and almost all the admin duties he has mentioned occur in Wikipedia space, where he has little experience. JoshuaZ 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Switch to Neutral based on answering question 4 in a way that obviated my follow-up. Still concerned user needs more experience before giving the “block” button. Just needs more time/experience. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 12:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Nice work so far but I would really prefer two or three more months of experiences. Leaning towards support. --Tone 12:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, I just don't know which way to go on this. Leaning towards oppose because of apparent lack of knowledge of policy.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I always try to follow a "why not?" policy. My only concern is that he is overconcerned with unecessary vandal fighting (see user:ShootJar/Proposal) and may not have enough solid contributions. ShortJason 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • See Linuxerist's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Well. There are a lot of Good things to say about him. I can't think of anything bad. This contributor has two imposters. He has 554 mainspace contributions, and has a lot of heart to spread. There is also the WikiProjects that Linux takes part in. He places great images on the wiki, and his work is always quality. Even though his contributions are not big, he would never vandalize the project, and will always be tireless in his contributions. Just ask folks in Wikipedia:Esperanza, they will tell you about him too. Whopper 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I agree, and co-co nominate Linuxerist for admin duities. He has been waiting for this for a long time. Regular on IRC, and the rest is said up above. Whopper 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)" <---- IRC is not Wikipedia, mate. NSLE (T+C) at 02:29 UTC (2006-05-25)[reply]
Total edits 1370
Distinct pages edited 903
Average edits/page 1.517
First edit 03:00, 12 March 2006
 
(main) 554
Talk 82
User 217
User talk 279
Image 38
Image talk 11
Template 45
Category 3
Wikipedia 129
Wikipedia talk 11
Portal 1

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would deal with unblocking cases, cleaning the NowCommons, This backlog, and delete articles after tfd and afd. I would also love the vandal-whacking tools (rollback; blocking vandals after correct number of warnings..).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:I have recently been focusing on various PDA articles, notably List of Palm OS Devices. However, I am mostly a WikiGnome.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:Nothing major. I have interfered a tad with nathan's recent stress. I believe that anything should inlcude Wikilove, an important attribute to wikis. I had a minor conflict at one point, but approaching with WikiLove, I was able to solve the problem.
4. Additional question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) Hello, Linuxerist. Thank you for submitting your RfA, I have this question and then a follow-up. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note at te top of the page from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A:I would contact the anon, asking for the website it was from. If no reply, I would look though the different versions to see if there was anything that looked like a rewrite. Or, maybe it was the first version. I would use this, and Cluster to see if anything was found. If not, I would ignore the note as vandalism.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 You have about 1400 edits in total. Is there any reason this number might be misleading? In particular, could you respond to concerns that your edit count is low for someone seeking adminship and that you are by your own description a WikiGnome and would thus individual edits are generally even smaller on average than with most other users?

A For one thing I have edited for about 5 years off and on as an anon. Once I started to feel I wouldn't do anything wrong, I joined. Also, my edits and here and there, trying to make Wikipedia better bit by bit.

2 How would you respond to concern that you have few Wikipedia space edits?

A We are all building an encyclopedia, so I can see why people would be concerned with main space edits. I do not think this should be held against a sysop, as that will not be the primary use of admin tools.


Question from FloNight

1 You do not have a Wikipedia email activated. Why? Would you activate your Wikipedia email now? FloNight talk 07:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A I have never thought to do so, as it only on rare instances I use email (every couple monthes maybe?) I will go ahead and activate anyhow.

I'm not sure on you, could you reply to the following optional questions, they help me decide :) Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A

Questions from Whopper

  1. What would you do to help those in need. What conditions would apply for those users?
    A
  2. Have you always followed Wikipedia:WikiLove as a policy?
    A

Questions from user:ShortJason

  1. As a Wikignome, I take it that you rarely get seriously involved in articles. However, can you provide examples of articles that you have greatly improved?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Linuxerist