Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Huon

“factual inaccuracy”

User:Theopolisme did not convince me about factual inaccuracies in my postings. I expect a sysop to be a technically advanced user (unless s/he possesses some obvious advantages beyond MediaWiki abilities, which is not the case), and an advanced script user is expected to be able to deal with his/her script’s shortcomings. If some important script is so poor that can’t generate useful edit summaries in an important usage scenario, then a community of its users should rush to fix their script, not to promote their members to the administration. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a script Huon uses does not give an insightful edit summary, doesn't mean that you should oppose him.buff bills 7701 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just clarify this, since there seems to be some confusion from all parties:

Incnis Mrsi objects to Huon's manually written edit summary for redirects as part of AfC.
Huon responds, explaining that he based his manually written summary on the one created by a commonly used script at AfC, which he does not usually use. He suggests that Mrsi should ask that the script edit summary be changed as well if he objects to the form Huon has been using.

There are not factual inaccuracies in Mrsi's statement. Prodego ^talk 16:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was simply how Incnis implied that buffbills7701's use of the AFCH helper script would somehow be different from, say, a sysop's use of the script (You compare yourself with a heavy scripts user, not a sysop, not a candidate, and even without a single privilege in en.WP). However, I've retracted the "factual inaccuracy" comment. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I implied that a person who seeks for a position of trust should use his blah-blah-blah-script in a more reasonable manner than a novice user without any positions or ambitions. It is good that you managed to catch my thought, ultimately. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely agree with you in that regard. Theopolisme (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I raised the issue of the script edit summaries here. Changing the script wouldn't have an impact on my manual edit summaries except by making my style less common, of course. Huon (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, I updated the script to include the redirect target in the summary. :) Theopolisme (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of redirects converted to articles, just curious

I'm not spookily "concerned", but I am curious about the massive number of articles showing from the articles created tool, that are actually redirects that other people wrote over. Usually the tool filters out redirects (sometimes not, but lately it is doing so.) Wasn't sure if that is because ANY redirect that is "written over" is credited to the redirect starter (OK), or something from his script (still not some gotcha crime, just unfortunate). It's probably the former...OK. Also, I wonder at having so many redirects that were "written into" articles. I guess he might have a massive amount of redirects and it is just some small percentage of a vast number. But it could also indicate that he is using bad judgment (making something a redirect when it deserves an article). Just curious...

TCO (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think this has more to do with the weaknesses of the tool, as it counts disambiguation pages as pages (which they are, but aren't), and never counts any pages created over redirects as that users, instead giving credit to the person who created the redirect in the first place. My question is, is this actually something we can feasibly fix, because it would up a lot of user's counts and make the page a lot more accurate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tool's standard setting filters out some 2,200 redirects I've created, mostly upon request via WP:Articles for creation/Redirects (and again, no, I almost never use the helper script for redirects; while it's invaluable for reviewing articles in the main part of WP:AFC, the redirect creation part of the script was broken until recently and I prefer doing that task manually). Most of the "articles" I'm credited with are either cases where disambiguation pages were more appropriate than redirects or cases where others expanded upon a requested redirect. Huon (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment censorship

For some reason, comments are being censored from the main page,[1] so I repost mine here:
Oppose The basic problem here is a disconnect between made-up Wikipedia ethics and values and the ethics and values of academic scholarship. The recommendations given for the candidate focus on Wikirules and procedures that have proven not to produce quality content, while ignoring substantive qualifications."24.19.234.62 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just guess that these comments apply equally to the "editors" who reverted them. Who knows what else has been blanked.24.19.234.62 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only registered editors can !vote in an RfA. Per Wikipedia:RFA#About_RfA_and_its_process: "only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) 'vote'."--v/r - T P 13:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC feedback section

Huon:

1. The two links you gave me were really not helpful for finding your contributions to the help desk. I did eventually trip onto looking at history and found this: [2], with a lot of remarks by you.

A. You seem temperate and knowledgeable and helpful when dealing with the general public. Kudos.

B. I'd love to do a random review of your AFC interactions (in the article submissions themselves, not the help desk). I am interested to see how you interact with people who have good articles. (I'm pretty sure based on the help desk work that you will be kind to the people who are getting rejected.) Not sure how to set that up.

2. I did scan through 500 contribs of yours from end April 2013 (I got tired at the end, so it was like 450 of the 500). I did skim, so apologies if I missed one, but what I saw:

A. Did not find a SINGLE place where you had contributed a sentence of referenced content.

B. Hard to find a lot of places where you were actually ruling on AFCs themselves (but see above, if there is a way to search it). I did see you accept one and reject another. For the latter, you did technically post on the fellows page and inform him it was denied, but did not tell him why. Really both are pretty questionable topics/articles. My concern is not so much if you passed on you shouldn't or visa versa (although some sampling would make it easier to tell), but just the impact of working with all this stuff.

Net/net: you have a brain based on the 2005 postings on infinite series. You have been pleasant and kind with the public. I think it's great to be wanting to helping new people coming in...but by necessity your interactions are almost all in the nature of filter, not pump. Also, you have not walked the talk yourself (1.5 stubs doesn't do it). Get a few DYKs and diversify a bit and I would reconsider. But right now, just not seeing it. Giving gnomes/patrollers the delete/block button has negative implications for this reference work.

TCO (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]