Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Alphachimp (talk | contribs)
29,194 edits
m answer question
Line 28: Line 28:


:Hi GN, I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites, but I may be misremembering. Can you outline your position on that issue, please? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:Hi GN, I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites, but I may be misremembering. Can you outline your position on that issue, please? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::'''A:''' Certainly. I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia.


::I came to view the proposed [[WP:BADSITES]] as an extension of our policy on [[WP:NPA|No Personal Attacks]], as several others did. Personal attacks are restricted on Wikipedia, but not on other websites, where nonconstructive criticism has no consequences. (This can be compared to Wikipedia, where action can be taken upon personal attacks.) If posting a link to an attack site is intended, in any way, to be a personal attack in itself, then Wikipedians may wish to rephrase or remove their comments. If the issue brought up by the attack site is valid, surely Wikipedians can [[meatball:ForestFires|discuss it on-wiki]].

::In the discussion at [[WT:BADSITES]], I thought it unhelpful for editors to either add or remove links merely [[WP:POINT|to make a point]]; I was also frustrated by the enforcing of a proposed policy for cases without a clear personal attack.

::To delineate, and to address some of the concerns in your question, I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Wikipedia (if rules make you [[WP:IAR|nervous or depressed]]...) Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith. Both adding and removing links should be justified by logic, and not by enforcement merely for the sake of enforcement (something I see way too much in real life). Temperance, rather than prohibition, is the best route. (There has not been an amendment enforcing morality since [[Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|the 18th]], and for good reason.)

::To conclude, it is an interesting fact that (to my knowledge) [[MeatballWiki]] has no articles on dealing with external sites of criticism. Wikis are meant to be their own self-sufficient world, taking care of their own problems, not meant to be [[WP:WRW|in the real world]]. However, Wikipedia no [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not MeatballWiki|longer has that option]]: the recognition of this is helpful in dealing with such sites. Now, ''if'' these comments seem without focus, it is because the issue has many, many facets. Hopefully I've explained my views on the facets you're interested in.
====General comments====
====General comments====
{{#ifeq:Gracenotes|Gracenotes||<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">RfAs for this user:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes}}</ul></div>}}
{{#ifeq:Gracenotes|Gracenotes||<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">RfAs for this user:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes}}</ul></div>}}

Revision as of 02:14, 23 May 2007

Gracenotes

Voice your opinion (46/1/2); Scheduled to end 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes (talk · contribs) - I am honoured at being able to nominate Gracenotes for adminship. Since he joined in September 2005, he has gained over 11,000 edits, although he only really became active in October 2006. His edits are firmly spread across a wide range of namspaces, with nearly 1,500 of those being in wikipedia space. Some may argue Gracenotes is the parser king with his excellent template work, the mop would help perfect all those protected templates. His MediaWiki talk space edits show he has a firm understanding of how wikipedia works (how many people can say they actually have any MediaWiki space edits?!). He is active at the help desk showing that he assumes good faith and steps in to help all those users that have problems. He's got very good contributions to XfD's and I think Grace's home will be closing those neglected TfD's. His mainspace contributions show that he has a firm understands of our inclusion criteria/guidlines and would be quite capable of enforcing policy when required. On top of all that - he's a nice guy! I really hope you can help me give Gracenotes the mop - he will be more than an asset to the administration. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nom by Snowolf: Nothing unusual, just I wanted to nominate Gracenotes but Ryan did it before me ;-). As always, I think that we can trust this user with a couple of extra buttons ;-)Good luck! «Snowolf How can I help?» 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs): It was just in fact a few days ago that I asked why Gracenotes did not want to nominated for adminship. I mean, from what I saw, he was better qualified than most of our admins were when they went up for adminship. As Ryan stated, Gracenotes has a thorough knowledge of the inner workings of the Wikipedia interface, and he definitely can be an asset in editing MediaWiki pages. As for admin chores, one can easily see that Gracenotes will be very helpful at closing TfDs, granting/denying RFPP requests and handling AIV requests. Gracenotes has the experience that we look for in our candidates, and he surely demonstrates a need for the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I prefigure that most of my admin work will be maintenance: for example, deleting broken redirects and temporary user pages, looking for high-risk templates that need protection or semi-protection, reviewing Special:Protectedpages for pages for which unprotection is overdue, several other janitorial tasks, and essentially whatever comes my way. I plan on going through CAT:CSD, and helping fellow Prometheuses with the task of clearing it out. :) Fulfilling or declining protected edit requests, seeing if administrator intervention against vandalism is needed, and responding to requests for page protection are things I'd be excited to do. I also plan on continuing my non-admin wikignoming, template work, et cetera.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My general attitude regarding contributing to Wikipedia is helping where assistance or improvement is needed, and then looking for more places to help when I'm done or when I feel that other editors can handle the problem without me. My contributions to mainspace are mostly wikignomish in nature, but I am nonetheless proud of them. I am particularly fond of the early development of 2007 Fort Dix attack plot (diff, diff), wikifying, and expanding several articles. I'm also a copyeditor: for example, see Zaireeka, Maine Summer Youth Music, Red rain in Kerala, Einstein-de Haas effect, just to mention a few. I also work to ensure compliance, trying to keep Wikipedia connected with other WMF projects, and formatting refs. All of this is pretty minor, but there's a lot of it, and I feel as though I've overall made Wikipedia more useful and complete as an encyclopedia.
Another area of my contribution is the template namespace. I thoroughly enjoy trying to get templates to work with ParserFunctions: for example, {{Template shortcut}} {{User warning set}}, {{Infobox World Series}} (most recently), and {{Infobox School}}, among others. More importantly, I am a member of the user warning project, where I've had the opportunity to create, modify, and otherwise improve the templates that Wikipedia's vandal-fighters use every day.
And last but not least, I help clean up vandalism. Certainly not least: I believe that, by volume, I have more vandal reversions and user warnings than any other sort of edit. Maintaining the integrity of our articles is, I believe, very important (although less important than writing them), both for quality-related and legal reasons. I've written a couple of scripts that I've used to (well, I hope I've used them to) improve Wikipedia, including this one for reverting vandalism.
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: Most of my work is improvement, and I tend to dislike wikipolitics, so, as the Scottish RFA puts it, I don't often "feel that ither uisers hae caused ye pain". I do remember my first conflict, over my 6th edit (thankfully not indicative of future interactions with editors); a record of the discussion can be found at Talk:Newton#More Newton Definition Things. I do attend TFD debates often, and can get into disputes about whether templates should be kept or not. However, both at TFD and in general, I try to keep discussion logical and based upon improving content and reaching consensus (preferably, though, the consensus I want :]), not on other users' faults or strengths. I usually only become wikistressed by observing wonkery, a subjective phenomenon. However, I do not see that often, and have neither reason nor desire to recall such actions or hold grudges against those that did them.
4 (additional question from SlimVirgin):
Hi GN, I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites, but I may be misremembering. Can you outline your position on that issue, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Certainly. I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia.
I came to view the proposed WP:BADSITES as an extension of our policy on No Personal Attacks, as several others did. Personal attacks are restricted on Wikipedia, but not on other websites, where nonconstructive criticism has no consequences. (This can be compared to Wikipedia, where action can be taken upon personal attacks.) If posting a link to an attack site is intended, in any way, to be a personal attack in itself, then Wikipedians may wish to rephrase or remove their comments. If the issue brought up by the attack site is valid, surely Wikipedians can discuss it on-wiki.
In the discussion at WT:BADSITES, I thought it unhelpful for editors to either add or remove links merely to make a point; I was also frustrated by the enforcing of a proposed policy for cases without a clear personal attack.
To delineate, and to address some of the concerns in your question, I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Wikipedia (if rules make you nervous or depressed...) Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith. Both adding and removing links should be justified by logic, and not by enforcement merely for the sake of enforcement (something I see way too much in real life). Temperance, rather than prohibition, is the best route. (There has not been an amendment enforcing morality since the 18th, and for good reason.)
To conclude, it is an interesting fact that (to my knowledge) MeatballWiki has no articles on dealing with external sites of criticism. Wikis are meant to be their own self-sufficient world, taking care of their own problems, not meant to be in the real world. However, Wikipedia no longer has that option: the recognition of this is helpful in dealing with such sites. Now, if these comments seem without focus, it is because the issue has many, many facets. Hopefully I've explained my views on the facets you're interested in.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gracenotes before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong opinions and should be useful SqueakBox 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Already, wasn't, you know the rest. --Slowking Man 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Excellent contributor who will make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely a nice guy, should be good. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gracenotes is an excellent contributor, a funny and genial collaborator and a great guy who will make a great admin. :-) --Iamunknown 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support as nom - best of luck squire! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support—at the risk of sounding cliché, I was under the genuine impression this user was an sysop already; nevertheless, Gracenote's contributions speak for themselves, and I have every confidence in him and I hope the community thinks likewise ... oh, and I suppose the icing on the cake is such a trustworthy nominator ;-) good luck ~ Anthøny 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Gracenotes is an excellent contributor and would make a really good Admin..----Cometstyles 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sean William 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support had interactions with him before and he seemed like admin quality for sure. Let's give him a mop. —Anas talk? 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I reviewed his contributions over the past month and am impressed with the range and civility of the edits. Would be an asset. —Ocatecir Talk 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This user is in my Top 3 non-admins who should be... hopefully not for much longer. GDonato (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support-Certainly. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom and what I witnessed from this user. Seems pretty much alright. —AldeBaer 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't wait to see who's eventually going to show up and oppose for what reason. I'm so excited, I just can't imagine who that might be... —AldeBaer 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, won't abuse tools. Has TONS of experience on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia could benefit from him editing protected templates (like Ryan said). *Cremepuff222* 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I seem to recall I had a bad interaction at one point in time, but I can't find anything wrong with him as an admin. Actually thought he already was one. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I don't foresee any significant problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, confused the hell out of me while trying to get me to edit a protected template for him Support, of course. Picaroon (Talk) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Absolute Support for him! Great editor. Definitely deserves it. ~EdBoy[c] 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yow! (aka support). Done deal for me, good job, good luck. The Rambling Man 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support as co-nominator. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Gracenotes isn't already an administrator?! :O Funpika 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support-Great user, great edits (and now he can make all those protected templates better without having to ask someone to do it for him). --R ParlateContribs@ (Red Sux!) 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. «Snowolf How can I help?» supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  25. Support - good candidate with an excellent track record. Go for it! - Alison ☺ 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support-Seems like a great user. Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: I've seen this user on #vandalism-en-wp. He could use the tools. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Excellent candidate. With respect to gaillimh, I'll point out that April Fool's Day has confused more than its share of fine admins over the years. Unfortunately, this place just enters the Twilight Zone for those 24 hours. :) Xoloz 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Impressive record. the_undertow talk 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Now that I see you're the "good one" (see comments below)...just kidding. — MichaelLinnear 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support I should have watchlisted the page. Gracenotes has been reasonable in discussions and accurate in AIV reports. —dgiestc 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. SupportThis user's broad experience and work with templates is impressive. His willingness to assist others seems well documented. JodyB talk 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. My experience with Gracenotes has been the exact opposite from Gaillimh's. I've seen Gracenotes display good skills, good reasoning and a good sense of humor.--Kubigula (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Amazing grace! The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, the sun forbear to shine, but God who call'd me here below, will be forever mine. --Deskana (AFK 47) 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ROTFLMAO! List this at WP:MOTD ASAP! :-PReal96 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. RfA clique #1 G1ggy! 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support This user is patient with others and would be fair towards others. Real96 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, This user meets my criteria. --Random Say it here! 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support for my favourite janitor, hoping that he will be one of the additions that the admin team desperatly seems to need. Be as little an admin as you can :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support, A great editor who will use the new tools wisely. --Mschel 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I like what I see. Jmlk17 00:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - very active editor who consistently finds useful areas in which to involve themselves. Warofdreams talk 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I know this user, he has strong technical expertise and good experience. WooyiTalk to me? 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support An excellent candidate for the mop. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 01:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Excellent editor and will be great admin. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support An excellent user from what I've seen of Gracenotes. He is always civil and respectful. This user will make a great administrator. Acalamari 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support My experience has been positive, although ST47 and Gurch may have a point. alphachimp 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. From my experience with Gracenotes, I've found the fellow to be the very thing he apparently eschews; a "process wonk", in his own language. In addition, he is not at all easily approachable and I forsee some community difficulty in working and communicating with him, which is a problem, as potential candidates need strong communication skills and a certain degree of social graces (pardon the pun). gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, could you elaborate (with diffs, perhaps) upon why you think Gracenotes is unapproachable. I guess in my experience he has been the complete opposite! ^^;; --Iamunknown 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, this user is not User:Grace Note who you are most probably confusing them with. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I believe Gaillimh is talking about my objection to the deletion of several "joke" processes that were started on April Fool's. I commented that the deletions were out of process and a bit pointless, and Gaillimh indicated that he saw the pages as, essentially, a blemish to Wikipedia. After a while, I saw that it really wasn't worth fighting over, so that was that. He's entitled to his opinion. GracenotesT § 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing, Iamunknown. As Gracenotes mentioned, he acted rather silly when he saw that I was deleting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales, because "it didn't meet a criterion for speedy deletion". In addition, the fellow proceeded to troll my talk page before deciding that "it really wasn't worth fighting over." I harbour no ill will towards Gracenotes personally, of course; these diffs and my experiences with the fellow simply lead me to believe that he is a bit too immature and does not possess the necessary candor/grace/affability, etc. to become an admin, where he'll certainly need to employ strong communication skills and a level head gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Gracenotes is more than capable of being an administrator; however, I've known him for a while now and I like him too much to wish such a thing upon him. (No, I am not trolling, and I'd appreciate not being blocked for expressing my opinion, thanks) – Gurch 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed, he deserves better than this. --ST47Talk 23:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes&oldid=132838257"