Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/GerardM

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.
Unfortunately, there is no consensus for promotion at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GerardM

[edit]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end after 28 December 2013 14:42 (UTC)

I have been involved with Wikidata for some time now. I blog about it, am a heavy thinker and blogger on the subject. In order to understand more about Wikidata, and be able to do some admin stuff when needed, I request the admin flag. Thanks, --GerardM (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To provide some additional information: I have plenty of experience administring the omegawiki wiki. It is the predecessor of Wikidata and, I have started this project. Another reason for having admin rights is that it allows me to observe more of the deliberations made in IRC. GerardM (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  1.  Oppose Strong oppose. Edit count and length of service are high, but I am not particularly convinced by the rationale. Furthermore, the candidate only has about 20 edits to admin areas. --Jakob (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What isn't "convincing" about it? Why does it need to be convincing? Legoktm (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Gerard hasn't provided any reason why he needs access to the tools other than "to understand more about Wikidata" which certainly doesn't require the access. And that adminship is no trophy for good content work and rather a tool for other kind of work is a widely accepted standard here, I guess. Thus, a halfway convincing rationale why this access is needed is something which can be expected of the candidates, in my opinion. Vogone talk 01:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to strong oppose. What kind of edit is this? (Admins-only, sorry) --Jakob (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this is bad intention as it seems to happen from time to time[1]. Anyway, it would be good if Gerard could fix this little problem :) Vogone talk 13:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk to me ... I have not been informed about what I am supposed to have done wrong.. GerardM (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Items are supposed to be deleted and not reused, as that makes the edit history hard to follow. --Rschen7754 23:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? This item was 2 minutes old before that edit happened … Vogone talk 01:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Neutral  Oppose Strong oppose I have interacted positively with you on IRC, and you seem to understand the project well, but because of Wikidata's unique adminship tasks (found nowhere else on Wikimedia), I'd like more experience before supporting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Like what? Legoktm (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like property creation, item merging, properties for deletion, ... --Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose upon realizing the "IRC" part, per Rschen7754.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When you read the running commentary about Wikidata on my blog, you will read that it is a positive story because that IS what Wikidata needs. Why do you think the IRC channel cannot bear scrutiny and why do you think this would negatively impact my behaviour or treatment of Wikidata. Is there something that needs hiding ? GerardM (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the above was true, then we have a RFA just to get access to the -admin channel, which is not what adminship is for. --Rschen7754 06:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because access to the IRC channel is not all I am asking for. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please explain the other reasons. What we can't see that we can't judge. Vogone talk 12:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said it; I want to better understand Wikidata. A better understandind is gained by being involved in the admin side of things. GerardM (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I assume that I would get a better understanding of the English Wikipedia if I was on the Arbitration Committee, but that doesn't give me a golden ticket into that place either. --Rschen7754 23:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what is "Another reason for having admin rights is that it allows me to observe more of the deliberations made in IRC."?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose, badgering of opposes, last comment below is quite incivil.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to let you know, there is no difference between an "oppose" and a "strong oppose". For the outcome it is quite indifferent what you choose and changing it like that looks a bit like putting the boot in to me (hopefully not to the candidate, though). Vogone talk 12:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support Thanks for volunteering. Legoktm (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support--GZWDer (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Neutral Oppose Thanks for volunteering, but "understand more about Wikidata" is not a good reason, I think. --by Revi레비 at 09:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to oppose per Rschen. --by Revi레비 at 12:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Neutral  Oppose because of the things which has been raised in this discussion. Also I'm not sure why have you done some pages without links/anything notable content (Q15401706, Q15274788, Q15253372, also don't understand why in every of those items you've changed en-label to "GM") and didn't request for deletion. Thanks for your blogposts, but I don't know how you could help out Wikidata with admin rights. --Stryn (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC) edited --Stryn (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These items are created by me and I found them to be not necessary for whatever reason. I then rename them to GM so that I can repurpose them. GerardM (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Very constructive editor and it never hurts to have more people deleting those millions of unwanted pages. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support. Of course. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Neutral  Oppose I want to see more admin-related (like RFD, AN) contributions before support you. Anyway, Thanks for helping--DangSunM (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Rzuwig► 16:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Weak oppose because of "Another reason for having admin rights is that it allows me to observe more of the deliberations made in IRC." - that is concerning. --Rschen7754 23:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Weak support -- Alright! Your contributions relating to the admin-ship tasks are still a bit, but I'm get you are a member of en.wp since December 2003, has an administrator status at en.wikt since June 2005 and a total of edits more than 149,000, so I'm sure you can use administrator tools as well here. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support I trust this user, and I think we don't want an army of cloned sysops we have enough sysops that are willing to help on cleaning issues (deleting pages, etc.). We need sysops with different perspectives now Amir (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that what the admin tools are for? Being an administrator gives you no special status or leadership in the project, and is not a reward for good contributions. --Rschen7754 23:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. but I'm talking about different perspective in using admin rights not using admin rights at all. let me give you an example: some admins like close RfDs but some others don't like to participate in this area and they want to use deletion right in deleting what they find in WD:DR (e.g. items with only link to user namespace). I don't say having access to the IRC is a valid reason (obviously It's not) but I'm sure this is not main reason that he wants to get the admin right Amir (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now you're trying to paint all our current admins with the same stereotype: "an army of cloned sysops". That's quite offensive to me, as I've closed less than 50 RFDs and focus my work on OS, countervandalism, and WD:RTF, unlike the stereotype that you are trying to portray. --Rschen7754 03:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "all our current admins with the same stereotype" is something you've concluded. I don't say it's our current situation, I'm saying if we want to emphasize on contribution in RFD, It'll be Wikidata's future situation Amir (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but emphasis on RfD isn't a bad thing. With the number of RfDs we get sometimes, emphasis on RfD is sometimes necessary (we got a giant flood of more than 1700 of 'em a month or two ago, and we still seem to get a steady flow of requests). TCN7JM 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose, as these are not the appropriate reasons for requesting adminship. And can we please get rid of the admin IRC channel? This is getting ridiculous. --Yair rand (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we are not going to get rid of it. Its privacy is required in situations where we are handling non-public information. The channel can only be dissolved if its members agree to it, in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What non-public information? Why would admins be dealing with any non-public information? The only things that need to be handled privately that I can think of are Oversight and Checkuser requests, neither of which are done by admins. --Yair rand (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-public information was probably the wrong word, but sensitive matters including material that was revision deleted. Many other projects (en.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, commons, etc.) have admin-only channels, so there is certainly precedent for this. --Rschen7754 23:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Oppose per Rschen7754. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support Overall, I'm OK with GerardM being a sysop here. Certainly not much need for the tools but is active and can use them well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Weak oppose Per Jasper Deng. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Oppose Eh, I can't support this. Doesn't seem like he actually needs or even wants to use the tools. TCN7JM 00:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support Adminship is no big deal --Alan ffm (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
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/GerardM&oldid=112113907"