Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

APerson

Final (61/33/8); ended 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

APerson (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia since April 2012, has been a rollbacker for two years and a template editor for more than a year. APerson has a clean block log, and nicely diversified edits and as you'll see from their edits, communicates clearly and civilly. Aside from the specialisation in technical stuff, APerson is also a content contributor, albeit none of their articles have been through GA/FA so !voters will need to check those edits for themselves. One of the areas where APerson has been active is AFD, as well as many articles where he was unable to find sufficient sources to justify another call than delete, there are also examples such as this where he supported the decision to redirect, and crucially ones where APerson found sources. APerson has a nicely balanced set of diverse experience in Wikipedia, sufficient that I would hope everyone who reviews them will agree with me that they would make a valued addition to the admin corps, especially as a bot writer willing to write or adopt admin bots. I commend them to the community and hope everyone agrees that they would make an excellent admin. ϢereSpielChequers 13:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you very much, WereSpielChequers. Also, the only other Wikipedia accounts I have ever had are APersonBot (talk · contribs) (obviously) and Thizzlehatter (talk · contribs) (an alternate account I used for four months last year while I had very limited access to my main account). APerson (talk!) 17:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'll be mostly contributing to the MediaWiki namespace (drawing on my previous work on user scripts and gadgets), such as work on default-gadget tools like the DRN form. Given my experience at AfD, I'll be doing some (mostly) non-controversial work there. I don't have a possible admin bot planned yet, but if I were an admin and somebody designed a new admin bot or needed an admin bot writer to adopt an existing one, I could be interested.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Of the tools I've written, I really like the automated Wikipediholism test (even though it wasn't a major coding effort) because it scratched a huge itch and, evidently, made the test easier to take for a lot of users. I'm also partial to the very first bot I wrote (the one that notifies people whose articles have been submitted to DYK by others), because I've seen it help quite a few new users. {{Service award progress}}, while a bit HATSHOPpy, was a major coding effort and also scratched a large itch. Regarding content, my first few articles were written out of a sense of "I can't believe that doesn't have an article!" I particularly like MNIST database, as it explains the topic effectively, and Convolutional neural network, which was written as I was doing research for a related topic.
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: I had a hard time remembering conflicts I've been in, as (although it might be a cliché at this point) no conflict over editing is really that important. In general, when dealing with conflict, I try to go for compromises or, if it really isn't worth the conflict/waste of time, I'll drop the issue. When I get stressed as a result of something on-wiki (which happens rarely, if ever) I prefer to go after backlogs like the TfD holding cell.
Additional question from Brustopher
4. Could you explain in further detail what you mean by contributing to the MediaWiki namespace? From what I can see it's not an area most editors are active in, so a more in-depth explanation would be helpful.
A: Certainly. Although the MediaWiki namespace contains a lot of interface messages, I'd restrain myself to the pages written in JavaScript, and help fulfill edit requests made regarding them. I'd also help out with the default gadgets by adding requested features and fixing bugs.
Additional question from Brustopher
5. You note on the userpage that your alternate account's name is a reference to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Do you ever contribute to Wikipedia related pages on Dramatica, and in what sort of way? (Any edits made to non-Wikipedia related pages are irrelevant for the sake of this question)
A: It's been so long since I was active there that I forgot, but having reviewed my (brief!) history of contributions there, no, I have never contributed to Wikipedia-related pages there.
Additional question from Kraxler
6. Did you learn something from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Wingo? And, what was wrong with your evaluation of the sources in the discussion on your talk page linked by you at this AfD?
A: Yes, I definitely learned the value of quality, rather than quantity, in sources. My evaluation of the sources attributed undue importance to the press releases included in the list of sources I received from the article's author. Significantly, I neglected to check if the purportedly "independent" sources were actually independent, or if the sources had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as the WP:QUESTIONABLE guideline section says.
Additional question from SilkTork
7. Could you tell us a little bit more about the circumstances around the creation and use of your alternative account. You put your main account on a wikibreak - [1] on 22 August 2014, and created the alternative account on 4 September 2014 [2], with no link to your main account. You returned to your main account on 27 November 2014 - [3], at which point you abandoned your alternative account, apart from two edits on 15 December 2015. The edits look fine - though I did note that you !voted in a RfA - [4] with your alternative account. The community does allow the use of alternative accounts in various circumstances - but voting in an RfA without declaring that you are using an alternative account is not one of those circumstances. Was it your intention at that point to abandon your main account to make a clean start with the alternative one, and later you changed your mind?
A: No, I wasn't interested in making a clean start. My rationale in creating my alternative account was that I knew I was going to have very, very limited access to my main account (as I noted in my acceptance statement) and I wanted to keep up with Wikipedia in the meantime. Regarding the RfA vote, well, I'm certain that it didn't constitute socking, as it wasn't at all meant to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus.
Additional questions from Steel1943
8. I noticed that more than a quarter of your total edits are in the "User talk:" namespace, which is only second your amount of edits in the article namespace. Could you explain why your ratio of edits in the "User talk:" namespace is so high?
A: To quote from my response to your !vote, "the two automated tools I use most heavily, the AfC helper script and STiki, both make posts in the user talk namespace as part of their normal operation. The AfC script makes posts to notify draft authors about reviews of their draft (among other things), and STiki puts warnings and notices on user talk pages." I estimate that the vast majority of my edits to that namespace come from these two automated tools.
9. Per question #4, you wish to edit the "MediaWiki:" namespace. To get a better idea of what types of edits you want to do in the "MediaWiki:" namespace, do you have any examples of protected page edit requests you have made for "MediaWiki:" pages that were implemented?
A: While I don't have any examples of edit requests to interface pages ready, I can point to my experience developing user scripts (e.g. AFCH) as an indication of the sort of development work I'd do on the JavaScript in that namespace. Of course, I'd be much more careful when dealing with that namespace, including taking performance considerations into account.
Additional question from SSTflyer
10. A completely new editor creates an article as their first and only edit, with its entire content being "The ncase m1 is crowdfunded via indiegogo." What do you do? (For this question, assume that you are not an administrator.)
A: Well, I had absolutely no clue what "ncase m1" meant, so I consulted Google and discovered that it's the first high-profile crowdfunded Mini-ITX case. There's definitely a lot of interest in the case within the PC-building community, and even some good coverage (from PC Gamer, for instance). At this point, deletion is out of the question, as this term clearly deserves a search result, even if it's only a redirect. I could simply redirect the article at this point to a section of Lian Li (the manufacturer), but I need to check if it could ever be a viable article (in which case I'd add references, context, and a stub tag). How much could be written about this case? I went hunting for existing good computer case articles to see what sorts of things the finished article would cover... and didn't find any, with the possible exception of Hybricon SFF-4 Small Form Factor. Thus, I would redirect the article to a new section (that I'd create) in Lian Li. Finally, of course, I'd welcome the new editor and add a note about what I did to their article and why.
Additional question from CookieMonster755
11. Do you think the Articles for Creation project is an important project for the Wikipedia community and new editors?
A: Yes, I think it's an important project. The point has been raised that AfC functions as a valuable filter against all sorts of highly undesirable stuff that would otherwise make its way into mainspace, which I agree with. From my experience assisting editors at the IRC help desk, AfC is often the preferred method of submitting articles as articles submitted directly to mainspace might get deleted by quick CSD tags, whereas the worst thing that can happen to a (normal - i.e. not copyvio or attack) draft at AfC is a decline.
Additional question from Lankiveil
12. If you could change any one rule or policy at Wikipedia, what would it be?
A: I don't have a ready answer to this question; having read all the policies I deal with regularly and many of the rules, I feel like Wikipedia's policies have evolved to a point where they're all effective.
Additional question from Carrite
13. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name other than APerson and Thizzlehatter? If so, what are these names?
A: I haven't used any other individual accounts, though as this question asked about all of the user names I have used, I'll note that I renamed my account two years ago from APerson241 (talk · contribs).
Additional question from Stfg
14. An editor's first edit is to create an article in their sandbox beginning as follows: "<companyname>, established in 1995, we are pioneers in becoming the first online bookstore from <countryname>" and ending as follows: "We also expect your valuable feedback for improving our service." The editor's second edit is to place an AFC submission template on it. How do you proceed in dealing with this AFC submission?
A: The tone is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, judging from the first and last sentences you provided, so I would decline with the reason "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
15. What is your view of Process is important?
A: Process is important because without it, Wikipedia wouldn't really be able to operate. That essay points out "due process of law" as an example of why this is true, and I agree that process is one of the main reasons why the community-driven aspect of Wikipedia is possible.
16. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: Very strictly. CSD wasn't meant to be something to be expanded to borderline cases; we have the other deletion processes for that. CSD was meant for uncontroversial cases in which administrators don't need specific community consensus, so there has to be no possibility that the community could object to a deletion before applying one of the CSD criteria.
17. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you give some examples of things that are and are not valid claims of significance?
A: A claim of significance is a claim that, if reliably sourced, would persuade at least some of the !voters in your average AfD discussion that the topic is notable. For instance, if an article on a person claimed that they recieved a notable award, then A7 wouldn't be applicable there. However, claims of significance that aren't credible can't be used to deflect an A7 deletion, such as an article on a university claiming to have Albert Einstein as a department chair. Claims of significance, by nature, must be significant: if a biography's main claim of significance is that the subject is 80 (assuming the subject's background doesn't make this claim significant), A7 might apply.
18. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: WP:IAR is supposed to support users who use common sense in reasonably improving the encyclopedia. WP:IAR supports users in following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. In the vast majority of cases, therefore, WP:IAR is inapplicable. So, where common sense and existing policies and guidelines don't agree, WP:IAR can be applied.
19. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: Through my work at AfC, I've been in contact with a lot of new users, so helping other users as an admin wouldn't be anything new to me. Regarding conflict resolution, I'll favor lasting compromises over temporary solutions, and I would never hesitate to point users to other admins who are more experienced in conflict resolution.
Additional question from BMK
20. In looking at your edit counts, I note that your participation in Wikipedia has steadily declined since your real start in June 2013 (not counting the prior 10 months of very minimal edits) until now, and that your percentage of article edits has declined at the same time: in other words, you edit less, and less of the edits you make are content-based. What would you say is the reason for this? Is it an indication of declining interest in the project, and is your desire to be an admin based on being somewhat bored with being a rank-and-file editor and looking for something new to do? BMK (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: The reason for my declining monthly edit count is due to more of a focus on coding and bots, I'd say. So it's definitely not an indication of declining interest in the project; rather, it's an indication of moving towards ways of contributing to the project that don't raise my edit count that much.
Additional question from Fylbecatulous
21. Following on from question #7 above and the ensuing discussion moved to this talk page where you state your access to Wikipedia was taken away involuntarily. I do not wish for details, but can you guarantee this will not be an issue in the present or the future? Whatever entity had control at that time to prevent you from contributing here; this cannot feasibly happen while you are an administrator. I am in no way negative to your candidacy at this time. Thank you.
A: Yes, I can guarantee that this won't be an issue in the future.
Additional question from Ritchie333
22. As a follow on from Q14 (and related discussion), can you please tell me what are the problems with copyright violations on Wikipedia, some of the forms they can take and what tools and noticeboards can be used to spot and fix them?
A: On Wikipedia, copyright violations are a problem because they're infringing the rights of copyright holders; not only is this a violation of the WMF Terms of Use, but per WP:CV, it harm[s] Wikipedia's redistributability [and] create[s] legal issues. Copyvios don't have to be direct copy-pastes from the source, although they often are; close paraphrasing may also violate WP:CV. Of course, WP:F provides instances where copyrighted content can be used. Some tools that can be used to spot copyvios are listed here; such as Earwig's copyvio detector and, linked from WP:CV, Dcoetzee's detector. WP:CP lists possible copyright problems with Wikipedia articles, although there are two other copyright-related noticeboards, WP:NFR and WP:CQ.
Additional question from SSTflyer
23. Since you noted on the RfA talk page that you had limited access to Wikipedia last year due to school work, I am asking an extra question: if Cunnilingus gets improved to GA status, which section should it be placed on the GA list?
A: Although I'm not sure what the relationship is between the first part of your question and the second part, and although this isn't related so far as I know to any tasks admins perform (i.e. I could do this as a regular user), I'd put it under "Biology and medicine", as the article is classified under the "Human sexuality" topic.
Comment: While sincerely assuming good faith, I don't believe that this question is productive in this form. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I intended this question as a judgment of the age/maturity of the candidate. Is my question inappropriate? sstflyer 08:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that answering this question in any possible way yields any hint as to the age/maturity of the candidate. Kraxler (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that the question could have been construed very differently from how you meant it. Fortunately, it seems not to have been, so we can probably drop the subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support Good mix of mainspace to project edits, good track record at AfC and AfD, technically minded and civil - clean bill of health and will make a good admin. The opposers don't convince me; unless you've got actual diffs of APerson disrupting Wikipedia, this just sounds like a witch hunt :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 11 September 2015/15:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC) ... and if APerson is aware of Earwig's tool (my "go to" device for quick and simple copyvio checks), I'm happy the single and one off incident reported by the opposers is just that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support We desperately need experienced editors to assist with AFC. I generally admire any editor who is willing to work there; it's a thankless job and it takes particular patience and understanding to explain the rules and policies to new editors. A precursory look through their talk page revealed a cordial editor who often took the time to explain their rationales in their review of AFCs. The editor more than meets my RfA standards to which I mostly use as a guideline these days. Obviously a WP:NETPOSITIVE. Mkdwtalk 18:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per strength of nomination, cursory review of contributions, and answers to Q1, Q2, and Q3.--John Cline (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Edits show a clear-headed, reasonable person with a good grasp of policy. Stays calm under pressure. Refrains from adding fuel to fires. Yes please. --Ashenai (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support A helpful, knowledgeable editor who I feel will make a good administrator. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. APerson's breadth of experience and expertise in a few niche areas will make him beneficial to Wikipedia as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, clearly will be a benefit to the project. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I dont see any issues. Net positive. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Kraxler (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    → Discussion of Kraxler's support has been moved to talk page WormTT(talk) 11:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seems fine, no issues --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support They are clearly very experienced, and I don't see any reason not to support. KSFTC 03:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Experienced, stable and trustworthy candidate. I don't see why not. Jianhui67 T★C 03:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. While perhaps not a traditional admin candidate, APerson has a solid record and reason for needing the tools. He has my trust. — Earwig talk 05:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In our quest to only promote perfect candidates, we will soon find ourselves with far too few admins to do what we need. This RfA will likely fail, but I'd like to take a moment to reaffirm my support of APerson. The alternate account situation is a little odd, but as for the underlying question – whether this is any indication APerson will deceive the community in the future – I see no indication of that being true. Young people mature a lot in a year; if he can guarantee (in question 21) that this won't be an issue in the future, I believe him. HJ Mitchell, in my opinion, best expresses reasons for opposing, but these are not enough to make me change my mind. — Earwig talk 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support has worked productively in several areas such as DYK, AFC, experience with tools like uploading, moving, patrolling. Seems to interact with others well enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Green tickY Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could explain why? CassiantoTalk 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DavidLeighEllis, I am also interested in why you support this editor. GregJackP Boomer! 08:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, understands Wikipedia processes. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support KrakatoaKatie 23:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could explain why? CassiantoTalk 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    KrakatoaKatie, I am also interested in why you support this editor. GregJackP Boomer! 08:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Should be a net positive in the areas the candidate intends to work in. 91.3% AfD hit rate. sstflyer 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating support. Age should not be a concern as long as the user can act maturely and competently. This candidate will be a great asset to the project. sstflyer 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support This candidate is too good enough to use the administrative tools, I, as reviewer at AfC are lacking administrator’s actions for such as reviewing deletion tags takes way too long because of lack of administration in that field, I would definitely support this candidate since he has the ability to work in that role. I believe he will be good enough to use the administration tools to make a positive manoeuvre in review process with other reviewers such as myself. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 05:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - net positive, and the opposition is weak, as ever. GiantSnowman 09:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What, exactly, do you mean by "the opposition is weak, as ever"? Do you mean that you have never seen opposition arguments that convinced you, that you have never voted to oppose a candidate, that every person who applies for adminship should be rubber stamped? It's a very strange comment, especially coming from an admin. Would you please explain it? BMK (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously you must have found some opposition arguments convincing, even if they were your own, since your record in RfA votes is 90 supports, 54 opposed, 7 neutral and 8 unknown. Since you cast 37.5% of your functional votes in opposition, why the disdain inherent in the comment "the opposition is weak, as ever"? BMK (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: seems level-headed and will make helpful technical contributions. A good answer to question 10. BethNaught (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to say that, even with all the new opposes since my support, I still see no good reason not to give APerson the tools. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Why not? Uğurkent (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point, why? CassiantoTalk 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uğurkent, I am also interested in why you support this editor. GregJackP Boomer! 08:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support to counter the ridiculous opposes. Graham87 10:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have won my prize for the most ludicrous justification of this entire RfA. Congratulations. Maybe you could now give a real reason as to why you support this nomination? CassiantoTalk 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defence, there were only two oppose !votes when I posted my support, both of which I thought were pretty crazy. Substantial concerns have been posted since then; they don't move me to oppose this RFA, but they do compel me to re-evaluate my support. Graham87 01:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support The best option--SaməkTalk 10:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only option, it appears. Could you explain why you support? CassiantoTalk 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Knows rules of Wikipedia, so is enough.-SaməkTalk 09:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. CassiantoTalk 00:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Qualified enough for the tools, the clean block log is quite good too. RMS52 Talk to me 11:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented support of sockpuppet. WormTT(talk) 11:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, I do not see any problems for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Answers satisfactory, good contributions will make a good administrator.Aparslet (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support – definitely. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? CassiantoTalk 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    L235, I am also interested in why you support this editor. GregJackP Boomer! 08:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bureaucrats, is this kind of mass questioning of support votes allowed generally? Under my impression, supporters without reason are assumed to be "per nom" and "per the people above". Anyways, here are my reasons:
    APerson is an experienced editor who I am familiar with personally on IRC. They has responded with satisfactory answers and meets my standard of WP:NETPOS, and the so-called "Thizzlehatter incident", while I believe too serious to be blown off, seem to have happened in good faith and disclosed (not enough time to do too much research right now). In my personal judgement (admittedly around three months old), APerson has sound judgement and an acceptable level of policy-understanding. I'd say more but my time is quite limited right now.
    Respectfully, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response as to your reasons for support. As to your other comment, if people can ask (to the point of harassment) questions of those who oppose a nomination, surely a polite question as to the reasons for supporting a nomination are not out of line. It's a double standard and IMO, hypocritical to tacitly back up the questioning of one side, and not the other. GregJackP Boomer! 00:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks L235. CassiantoTalk 00:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Net positive. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 15:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    → Discussion of My name is not dave's support has been moved to talk page WormTT(talk) 11:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I don't see any issues with this candidate After looking at his edits, i think he would make a good admin Class455fan1 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: Why do we give extreme leniency to some when they maliciously sock but call others villains for a very minor socking incident? Anyway, the candidate would be a great asset to the technical part of Wikipedia. Esquivalience t 18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Answers to questions have satisfied any concerns I had; will be a useful asset to the project. SpencerT♦C 22:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. We need more vandal-fighting admins like @APerson here. Epic Genius (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Thizzlehattersupport - Don't care that you had an alternate account or that you used it to edit while on a wikibreak (wikibreak people, he did not create an account to edit whilst blocked)..Editors should take wikibreaks in between 2 or 3 years or they may burn up fast....APerson is a GoodPerson so I don't care if he created an 'alternate sock' without tagging it as such, its not like he used it to vandalize wikipedia, GROW UP...silly that such comments are coming from an admin..--Stemoc 00:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Stemoc - I've been on the fence for a few days but I'm shoving myself here - I'm not entirely happy with the account business but as far as I can see they've not used it to WP:GAME any system nor vandalize .... Despite not naming the account on there userpage they've used the account legitimately (bar the RFA !vote) - It seems for personal reasons they've decided to keep quiet which is understandable, Anyway at the end of the day any admin here could create an account and we'd never know so I can't really see the point in opposing - They've fucked up to a point but IMHO it's not as bad as what the Opposes make out, All in all the candidate seems experienced on this place and we should trust them. –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Antrocent (♫♬) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you but you already voted as #16, so Im indenting this. —Soap— 05:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true. How embarrassing. This was supposed to be on Oshwah's RFA. I completed my review of contribs, then went to vote but I misclicked and was not observant enough when scrolling down, haha.Antrocent (♫♬) 07:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I could understand people being uncomfortable about a candidate who accepted AFCs despite them containing copyvio, but tagging one for deletion per G11 declining one as advertising and then moving on rather than looking for other deletion reasons doesn't seem unreasonable to me. ϢereSpielChequers 09:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    → Discussion of WereSpielChequers' support has been moved to talk page WormTT(talk) 11:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support as a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project, enquiries appear to have been fully and honestly answered in detail so far. Rubbish computer 11:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. —Kusma (t·c) 15:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good enough I'm afraid. Why do you support this nomination? CassiantoTalk 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a pseudo-reason like those usually found in the oppose section, how about "has ten edits to the Help: namespace, likely to be a helpful user"? —Kusma (t·c) 05:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, just your reasons as to why you want to support the dishing out of a set of powerful tools to a virtual stranger. Thanks for clarifying. CassiantoTalk 12:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We should have a lot more administrators (almost every experienced editor who has clue and isn't too hotheaded should be one). After all, admin actions are mostly easily reversible (the exception are some with high profile social consequences), and so I tend to support quite a lot of reasonably-looking good faith candidates. I do also think that RFA should be a vote, so I often treat it like one. —Kusma (t·c) 15:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No we shouldn't, but thanks for your explanation. CassiantoTalk 00:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weakish support. Deceptive illicit sockpuppetry! Oh my stars! Next thing you know we'll be finding out that he jaywalked and has been sloppy about sorting his recycling and once called in sick with "food poisoning" when it was really a hangover. I really cannot endorse the speculation that he might be deceptive or deliberately vague in explaining admin actions on the basis of hesitancy about discussing real-life personal circumstances. On the contrary, by all available evidence he's quite responsive, helpful, and receptive to feedback, which is an important trait in people who contribute in technical areas. Missing copyvios at AfC seems to be a pretty common thing, and as copyvios go a copy-paste of some company's website in an AfC draft is not an emergency; if this had been a clunky answer to a hypothetical it'd be a trivial issue, but the fact that it comes from a real and recent situation weakens my support a bit. (Surveying a sample of AfC declines to see how common this is might be useful in general - it wouldn't be reasonable to oppose RfA candidates whose AfC error rates are unremarkable just on the basis of single examples.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Per Ritchie333, the candidate has a good mix of skills with no obvious issues. RO(talk) 21:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: Not perfect, but I don't feel the need to invade APerson's privacy to find the nitty gritty details and work out exactly how. He has been a valuable editor and has not abused things so far, all signs indicate that he will be a valuable administrator.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good contributions in several areas, including AfD and AfC. I have absolutely no reason to doubt this candidate's ability to use the tools positively. As for the Thizzlehatter "incident", the answers to Question 7 and the discussion show a sincere good-faith effort to continue contributing to Wikipedia when access was revoked off-wiki. Whomever the candidate was trying to decieve off-wiki is irrelevant. If APerson had !voted in the RfA with both his main account and Thizzlehatter, I'd obviously be very strongly opposing this RfA. He did not, and that shows it to be nothing more than a good faith technical violation of policy. Regarding the AfC copyvio issue, accepting a draft which turned out to be a copyvio might be a concern (although if it only happened once, I still woudn't see much of a problem), but that isn't what happened. Declining a draft which happened to be a copyvio for a legitimate decline reason other than copyvio is not a big deal. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 18:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the Copyvio issue, what is your response to the discussions above with WereSpielChequers, especially Stfg's comment? BethNaught (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied above, to Stfg's comment directly, in order to keep things together. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – I have seen the candidate's edits in main space and elsewhere and I'm impressed to say the least. They seem like a nice person and come across as very competent to have the tools. I agree with Ritchie333's rationale as to why this user should have the tools. CassiantoTalk 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC) switching to Neutral per GregJackP's excellent criteria. CassiantoTalk 12:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support This seems like a fine candidate who I don't think will abuse the tools. Those concerned about the alternate account are blowing it out of proportion I think. It was only used to improve the encyclopedia and their 3rd edit[5] linked the accounts so it is not like they were being sneaky. Chillum 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support The percentage of user talk space edits doesn't bother my: my own edit count shows just over 23% of my edits are there. This is in part because I pretty much always give talk page notifications for blocks and other things where notification is not automated. I hope APerson would do the same. The RfA voting from a secondary account doesn't bother me, in fact as long as there was no attempt to vote or comment from both accounts, or to avoid a ban or block or on-wiki scrutiny, I don't think it was even a technical violation of policy, and if it was, the policy should be changed. The deception does bother me, but I've decided that is primarily between APerson and whatever off-wiki authority was involved. Given that he need not have even mentioned it here, I don't think deception in his future on-wiki dealings is likely. The answers to questions look good to me. SO do those edits that I reviewed (a random selection from his contribs and from his CSD log). Missing a single copyvio when declining an AfC submission doesn't worry me much, had it been on approving, or had there been any hint that APerson had known and still ignored it, that would be very different. Not having even one GA or FA in my own record, and having all of my DYKs long after I became an admin, the content cfreation thing doesn't much worry me either. So, I support. DES (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I've waited a while before making my mind up, and I'm going to say something that goes against the common pattern of RfA supports: I think that many of the opposes make some very good points. So I take the opposes seriously. But I think that Opabinia regalis' support rationale is a good one. For the incident that is discussed on the RfA talk page, what I'm seeing is a young editor who needed some adult guidance to keep schoolwork up to par, not someone who was trying to deceive the community, or who would be deceptive in the future. It doesn't raise concerns, for me, about honesty, but it might raise concerns about maturity. If this were someone who wanted to be an admin in order to engage in serious dispute resolution, then I'd probably be opposing. But I do not see it as a problem for someone using the tools as the candidate says that he will, and I find the candidate's rationale for what he will and will not do believable, and also responsive to a need. As for having once missed a low-level copyvio in someone else's AfC, well, copyvios are a big deal and it's a mistake. I bet a lot of the editors who oppose have made a mistake editing, some time. I did, more than once. People make mistakes, and demanding zero mistakes at RfA is simply a bad kind of gotcha. So if the candidate does pass, my advice is to be careful and to not overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, Rainbow unicorn, you tease, c'mon, let us in to your secret reasons as to why you support this candidate? CassiantoTalk 12:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cassianto, Candidate seems good to me and to many other users so far. I believe that my support can help this RfA pass. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It sure can, but it's why you support which is the important part for me, not simply saying "support" in the hope that it secures them the bit. CassiantoTalk 00:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. After reviewing the users edits, I am satisfied that he has good sense and is unlikely to abuse the tools. I don't see anything in the opposes that convinces me to the contrary.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Having run into this editor before in relation to bot work, I have found them level headed. There appears to be no doubt they are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and competent. I've read the opposes and don't agree that any of the reasons laid out in the them warrant opposing. In response to specific points: The admin tools are used far more often outside of the Wikipedia namespace than inside it, actually, and communicating with editors about how to become more productive on site in the "User talk:" namespace is hardly a bad set of skills for an administrator to have. The alternate account thing is definitely odd, but it appears the intent was to deceive someone they know in their personal life that was monitoring their activity, not to deceive the community. No evidence has been brought to light that anything they did with their alternate account was disruptive, and they've fully disclosed it here. I'm sure more than a few of the opposers can relate to having a concerned relative intervene against the wishes of their younger self, and I'm sure they can also relate to trying to sidestep that intervention. That appears to be close to what happened here. ~ RobTalk 04:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per Nick. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per supporters 38-45. Swarm ♠ 07:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support after some investigation. Nothing outstandingly problematic (say, complaints about incorrect vandalism reverts) that I can see bare that sockpuppet thing which should have been declared - but not abusive and a year or so ago. That copyvio thing is bad but one off it seems to me. Some article writing experience (with a DYK) and AfC work do sate my requirements there. I don't think that the "access taken away" thing is germane; also, it's about a year ago and things change over such timespans - sort of confirmed by Q21.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support moved from neutral. Edits are fine, attitude is fine, and if they have sovereignty of their own online access now, availability will hopefully be fine too ;) -- Elmidae (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Why not? per Chillum --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I don't see a magical unicorn candidate who's good at everything (and never have), but I do see someone asking to use tools who knows why he wants the ability to use them, who would use them to improve Wikipedia, and who has experience in many areas of the site (with a displayed flexibility and willingness to learn). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support because the editor's answers to above questions and the use of a sock to avoid parental (or similar) scrutiny do not convince me that this editor would misuse the bit. In reviewing all of the support, oppose, and neutral votes, at least those posted so far, I see a lot of concern about the sock. A wikilawyer could argue that the use of the sock was appropriate under the privacy clause of WP:VALIDALT, but kudos to the candidate for not trying to use that clause as an excuse. I would like to point out that, in this case, the candidate instinctively made masterful use of ignore all rules in an off-wiki situation, for the benefit of the encyclopedia. We can argue all day or all week about about the propriety of using socks, but we make exceptions to rules when doing so improves the encyclopedia, and if nothing else is clear, it is obvious that the editor has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart and didn't use the sock in an effort to mislead other editors or to avoid scrutiny within this community. (Even voting with the sock, while problematic for some, doesn't concern me because the main account was not used to vote or discuss the same issue). As for the ratio of talk-space edits to main-space edits, this is adequately explained by the work the user has been doing here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Many people have issues related to alternate account of APerson, I think this is not so serious issue and we can't stick to one thing. He accepted himself about alternate account. His explanation regarding his alternative account is not satisfying many people, but I will say some mistakes can happen by anyone, we can't curse someone for that mistake forever. He was relatively new at that time. 2nd thing is that it seems APerson will not abuse admin tools, he seems sensible enough. We need admins, there is shortage of admins. There are 1300-1400 admins but as per my observation only 40-50 are active or busy in maintaining Wikipedia. So no reason why we should not support APerson. Take it easy. Thanks. --Human3015TALK  00:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support The alt account doesn't seem to have been created in bad faith, and all my interactions with APerson in AfC, template editing, and gadget work have shown him to be competent, dedicated, and responsible. I have no doubt that he would be a net positive as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 04:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --Drmargi (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmargi, can you please explain the basis of your support for this candidate? GregJackP Boomer! 01:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I can. --Drmargi (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, OK, I asked for that. Would you please explain the basis of your support for this candidate? (And thanks for keeping me on my grammar toes). GregJackP Boomer! 06:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - notably for one of the better explanations of WP:A7 "claim of significance" I've seen on here in a while. APerson is clearly familiar with relevant policies and has a good understanding of their application; better than most, it seems. I'm not at all concerned by the alternate account: there is clearly no overlap and neither account edited disruptively. I also don't give a fuck that they voted in an RfA with their alternate account. They didn't also vote with their main account, so who the hell cares? Wikilawyers, that's who. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - with some reservations. First, the AfC issue. APerson has been very active there, and has been a true asset. One missed copyright violation? How many has he caught? If he's only missed one, he should get a unanimous, thunderous standing ovation, not grief. They are easy to miss at AfC, and I'll give an example: All to often the Wikipedia AfC page is created at the same time a company creates its own web-page. The new webpage hasn't been indexed yet. Copyvio gets missed. In no way am I trying to imply that is what happened here, but I wanted to give an example. Show me a pattern of ignoring copyvio, and I'll become concerned on this front. The alternate account issue gives me a bit more pause. I don't really think it is "socking", but neither do I think it is an oustanding example of IAR that should be emulated. I do think it shows some poor juddgement and may indicate some immaturity. APerson has struck me as a younger editor, and I believe this RfA seasoning will provide the life experience required to rectify the deficiency. A number, in fact the majority, of the opposes are well thought-out and compelling, but I become less concerned with them because the common refrain is "give it a year". I think the canditate has the breadth of experience and temperament to be a NETPOS to wikipedia NOW. We shouldn't ask perfection, and if they return for a second RfA, history says that the candidate will run into the same opposition. If the candidate becomes an admin, I hope, and more importantly trust, that they will seek regular counsel and review from many of the opposers. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I am confident that APerson will provide a net benefit to Wikipedia by being granted the Administrator permission. Everyone makes mistakes in the past, but I do not think the incidents dug up here overshadow the vast amount of good work that this editor has accomplished. Mamyles (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I believe APerson will be a fantastic admin, judging by their contribs and answers to questions Nz101UserpageTalkpage 09:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support now has the maturity and will not abuse the tools. Will be a good admin. Gizza (t)(c) 12:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I originally wanted to post this in the "neutral" section since the nominee seems like a good faith editor, but there is one aspect of the nominee's edit ratio that concerns me: the rather high ratio of edits in the "User talk:" namespace. The amount of edits this editor has in this namespace is the 2nd highest (next to the article namespace). This is a concern of mine since to me, this equates to the namespace this editor might still be editing a lot even with the admin tools; editing the "User talk:" namespace is not enhanced in any way with the admin tools. The only way that I can rationalize a high amount of "User talk:" edits is if the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is higher, which it is not for this editor by far: if this was the case, this would just prove possible WP:TWINKLE usage, and would no longer be a concern of mine. My recommendation to resolve this concern would be to gather more edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace; most of the discussion venues are in this namespace. As it stands right now, I don't see the nominee's need for the tools, nor do I see enough experience in key areas to warrant them being granted. Steel1943 (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Steel1943, the two automated tools I use most heavily, the AfC helper script and STiki, both make posts in the user talk namespace as part of their normal operation. The AfC script makes posts to notify draft authors about reviews of their draft (among other things), and STiki puts warnings and notices on user talk pages. Would this help provide a rationale for my large quantity of user talk edits? APerson (talk!) 02:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @APerson: I appreciate your responsiveness to this concern of mine. However, I personally still have a concern with lack of edits in the Wikipedia namespace, so at best, it will move me down to "neutral". I'll post an official question for you above here in a moment so that all editors reading this discussion can see it for everyone's benefit. Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @APerson: Sorry for kind of flip-flopping here, but I guess I read the previous statement incorrectly. But no, it doesn't really resolve my concerns since it sort of enforces my belief of your lack of participation in the discussion forums where administrator assistance is of the greatest need. In my opinion, it doesn't take an administrator's mindset to work in venues where administration tools are seldom used (such as WP:AFC since the pages edited as part of that venue are not in the "Wikipedia:" namespace; in theory, since anyone can help with the AFC backlogs, the only time when admin tools would be needed for AFC is if the draft's title in the article namespace is taken up by a redirect or if the title is WP:SALT-ed). Either way, I'll leave my "user talk" question above for the benefit for other editors who may share that concern. Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The Wikipediholic thing seems quite insulting and contemptuous. And the explanation for the alternate account doesn't make any sense so there's something missing there. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    APerson did not create the Wikipediholism test, he only created an automated version of it so that people attempting the test would not have to calculate their scores by themselves. sstflyer 18:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that but the point is that, when asked about his contributions, he picks this work as the task he liked best. There's at least two problems with this, in my view. One is that this is an elaborate joke; an excessive digression from the business of working on the encyclopedia. The other is that test equates enthusiasm for Wikipedia with disorders such as alcoholism and compulsive behaviour. This does not seem to be a healthy attitude for an admin. Admins have power over other editors and it's not appropriate for them to regard keen editors as foolish or sick — it seems a contemptuous, disrespectful attitude which would encourage abuse of powers such as blocking. Andrew D. (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, I personally don't believe that those are problems. I apologize in advance for going on for so long, but there was a lot of points in there that I felt needed a response. The first problem you raise is that the test is a digression from productive work on the encyclopedia. My view is that "digressions" like the ones that fill Category:Wikipedia humor are natural and a consequence of the editorship of Wikipedia being a human community. The second problem you raise is that the test equates enthusiasm for Wikipedia with disorders such as alcoholism and compulsive behavior. The test, at least in my opinion, isn't meant to measure enthusiasm for Wikipedia at all; instead, it's supposed to measure a devotion to Wikipedia so intense that it spills over into other areas of the lives of those "affected". As it says at the top, the test is a work of humor, and the fact that I contributed an automated test to make it less tedious doesn't necessarily mean that I support every view expressed in it. On an unrelated point, I would certainly not use the admin tools in the service of any attitudes I may hold about users; in fact, as WP:INVOLVED notes, I wouldn't participate in cases where I have strong opinions about one of the involved users. APerson (talk!) 23:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for the whole Thizzlehatter incident. There are a number of aspects regarding that which concern me. The account was created deceptively, which is why it was not linked to the main account. I am unconformable supporting for admin someone who behaves deceptively. I am also uncomfortable that both then and now, APerson wasn't aware that creating an undeclared account and voting in project space is inappropriate. I wouldn't expect a prospective admin to be aware of all our rules, but when challenged on one, I would expect them to check the policy wording, just to make sure. And, while understandable, I'm uncomfortable that APerson was being less than clear on the creation of the alternative account, even when challenged. I prefer admins to be more open, honest, and upfront. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    → Discussion of SilkTork's oppose has been moved to talk page WormTT(talk) 11:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Even though he satisfies all the core components of my personal expectations, my gut feeling is that I should oppose. I'm quite uncomfortable with this whole undisclosed alternate account business, and APerson has been quite brief and evasive about it, and doesn't fully seem to understand his violation of our socking policies. I feel that it may a reflection of how the candidate would act as an admin (e.g., failure to properly account for his actions). In complete honesty, this behavior may be a natural consequence of the candidate's apparent youth, so I would advise that he wait for a few more months (or even years) so that he can consider his actions and perhaps gain more maturity. Otherwise, he is a very good candidate and I almost certainly would have supported had it not been for this incident. --Biblioworm 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - SilkTork raises some interesting concerns, but my gut feeling is that the candidate is just not ready for the responsibility and accountability that comes with the bit. I'm also concerned with the mix of experiences and feel they come up short for what is needed. Most of the work, you learn on the job, but you still need a solid foundation to learn from. In a year, it would likely be easier to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I think APerson is very well intentioned and may make a good admin in time. But I think he badly misread the mood of this community when he grasped that the use of an alternate account would be a problem, but did not review his edits as such or if he did, he did not see that the RfA vote would be a problem. Moreover, that he did not understand that the community would keep pushing the point until it had the information it wanted, and thus prepare what he would say (and if necessary consult with ArbCom or whoever he felt he needed to in advance; that he did not shows bad planning) Alternate accounts is something that the community is very sensitive about, because of past bad experiences, and it's something every admin candidate is asked about. This was a needless self-inflicted wound, a bad muff, and on a sensitive point. I just don't see that he has yet evolved the clue I'm looking for in an admin at this point, though he likely will in time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Q14, which is a real case that APerson reviewed on 11 September. The article in question was User:Rokibbd/sandbox (now deleted as G11 + G12), which was an unedited cut-and-paste of Rubi Enterprise's about-us page. The very first test listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Reviewing workflow is a check for "Irreparable copyright violation". It's elementary that when you get an article written in blatantly non-encyclopedic tone, then you pick a phrase and Google it to see if it's a copy-paste from somewhere. In this case, Googling "we are pioneers in becoming the first online bookstore" reveals the source as the very first hit. My question (Q14) was "How do you proceed in dealing with this AFC submission?" That how-do-you-proceed question was not answered; merely a conclusion was stated. I expect APerson will be ready for the mop one day, but I think that more attention is needed to due diligence first. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    → Discussion of Stfg's oppose has been moved to talk page WormTT(talk) 11:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: moved from Support. Taken together, the questions over the alternate account and, per Stfg, the lack of vigilance for copyvios lead me to have insufficient confidence in the candidate. When I was working at AfC, and this also happens at NPP, I regularly found editors who had declined copyvios for other reasons and not noticed at all. This is quite frankly dangerous and in the case of AfC could have been prevented by following the detailed instructions provided. BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Based on the answer to Silk Torx's question and, at this point, the non-answer to my question. Also the "gut feelings" of editors I respect. BMK (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC) As for the nominees answer to my question: one doesn't need to be an admin is one's focus is on "coding and bots". BMK (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, one of the reasons I'd like to be an admin is specifically "coding and bots"; as I said in Q1, I'd work on the JavaScript in the MediaWiki namespace and consider writing adminbots. APerson (talk!) 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but as has been pointed out in other RfAs, the bit doesn't come with a limiter that forces the admin powers to be used only in one place - once you get it, you can use it anywhere to do anything, which means that I have to be convinced that giving you that ability is a good thing overall, for every admin function everywhere on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced. BMK (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Every admin function, everywhere? APerson wants to work on javascript. If you gave me a choice between writing javascript and trying to juggle lava, I'd tell you I'd have to give it a think and get back to you on that. I'm sure there are a few admins out there who are good at everything everywhere, but surely it's more important to know your limitations and know how to find out what you don't know. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - I am unsatisfied with the explanation to Q7, moved to the talk page. It lacks transparency. I don't like use of multiple accounts in the first place; a cockamamie story about creation of an alternate account is presented and the evidence indicates that the alternate account was used to vote at an RFA. Personal privacy does not trump transparency at RFA. If privacy concerns stops a person from running the gauntlet, I appreciate that but I will not look the other way. One person — One account. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I respect your privacy, and won't ask for more information about the alternate account. But I dont think it's right to give admin access to a candidate who can't explain the need for such an alternate account. It's a bit worrying also that your nominator waited so long to put his own vote in. —Soap— 17:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soap: See this brief discussion for a potential explanation as to the last part of your oppose.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thank you. I was wrong about that. That was only an afterthought to my vote however. —Soap— 18:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I wanted to support, and could have overlooked individual wrinkles, but several things taken together give me serious concern for how APerson would perform as an admin. I have no doubt he means well and would not use the tools maliciously, but more is required. Several things combine to give me the impression if youthful naivety. By way of example, the business with the alternate account and APerson's explanation—I have no doubt that you didn't intend to deceive, but by not disclosing who you are that was the effect of your participation; I suspect it didn't enter your mind that it might be necessary to disclose your original account and that you didn't think it would be an issue, which suggests that you are not perceptive to hot-button issues within the community as an administrator needs to be. The comment "my Wikipedia access was taken away" suggests a lack of maturity and the lack of the independence necessary to make one's own decisions. The comment about working in the Mediawiki namespace, despite having no experience of making edit requests (in fact 0 edits to the Mediawiki talk namespace) and having no clear idea of what changes they would make is again indicative of zeal without the requisite experience, as is the answer to Q14 where APerson fails to do the most important and most basic due diligence.

    None of these problems are insurmountable. I think APerson is a nice person and a good, well-intentioned editor who might one day make a great admin. But I would respectfully suggest that that day is probably a year or so in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  13. Oppose I think the candidate means well and has the best for the project in mind but I'm afraid that being an admin requires a far more sophisticated ability to analyse and respond to concerns then they have demonstrated here. If I may carefully put it, I suspect that this is a case of TOOSOON and that with some miles on the clock this user will acquire the necessary life skills to be able to safely navigate such issues. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Agreed with Spartaz - I truly feel the sophistication in responses and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies are lacking. Don't misunderstand me, however, this user appears to be a WP:NOTNOW case. The user also mentions that they have spent limited time on MediaWiki in the first place, which raises a concern as to what the need for the mop exactly is. --JustBerry (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JustBerry: How is it a WP:NOTNOW case when the candidate has 17,000 edits and 3.5 years of experience? See WP:NOTNOTNOW. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jakec: Crossed out, originally implied something along the lines of TOOSOON. --JustBerry (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - the issues raised by other opposers (failure to notice copyvios, the unrevealed use of an alternate account, etc.) leave me uneasy. Although I believe that there was no intentional harm meant -- I do believe that APerson has not yet met the necessary level of experience or policy knowledge to perform the tasks of an administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Less than a year ago someone felt the need to take APerson's Wikipedia account away from him because it was having a detrimental impact on his grades. Can not support giving him a new bunch of tools that will encourage increased Wikipedia participation, if it could have a negative effect on his real life future prospects. Brustopher (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain how you know this information and why you should be the one to decide how he spends his free time?—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See the talk page where he states that his account access was taken away because "I was entering a period of school during which my grades were particularly important." He also notes in response to Bbb23's question, that this was done against his wishes. Apologies if I've somehow misinterpreted these statements. Brustopher (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Thank you.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Just too much weirdness here. It seems unlikely that conferring the bit would be good for the project or for the candidate. Townlake (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose with reluctance, for I certainly feel like this candidate is operating entirely in good faith. I concur with the concerns that HJ Mitchell expresses above. I am concerned that this user's proudest accomplishment (per Q2) is something so peripheral to the purpose of this project, to build a high-quality encyclopedia. I also am especially concerned about any admin candidate who account access can be taken away by outside forces. The entire act of then creating an alternate account, presumably to evade the scrutiny of said outside force, and then inadvertently violating policy with that alternate account, does not strike me as exhibiting the best judgement either. –Grondemar 22:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just that. I'm somewhat regretful that WormThatTurned cut off the discussion of the mechanics by which APerson's access was taken away. It does not sound like he was trusted to refrain from editing, but something was done to prevent him from editing under the APerson account. The obvious, at least to me, is that the person in charge of APerson (let's for convenience call them "parents") required APerson to divulge or enter the password and then changed it, to remain unknown to APerson until they felt APerson could be trusted again. If that is the case, and APerson faces more periods in their life of intense study under parental scrutiny, than we could have a situation in which an admin's account was controlled by someone without responsibility to the community. APerson's parents are plainly very well intentioned, and the risk of harm is I am sure remote. But it's a concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And a reasonable concern, which could be dealt with by a well written question which would not violate the candidate's privacy. Perhaps "APerson, has anyone else ever had access to or control of your account?" WormTT(talk) 11:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Or possibly, "Has there been a period when another person had knowledge of the password for the APerson account?" That gets right to the nub of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to ask the question. I admire the candidate's honesty in telling us about it. I don't think they should pass yet, but I look forward to voting for them in a year or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I was going to sit this one out, but it's near the bubble. Overall, this request seems a bit off. Q1's scripts and gadgets put me in technical request territory, and I've been OK with those to a point. I'm leery of Q2's claim about "a major coding effort" for a template; the template does not seem that involved. The hat shop comment raises an eyebrow. User already has the templateeditor bit, so I'm not sure if he needs the admin bit to do the Q1 work on scripts and gadgets. I'd like to see an endorsement of his template skills from a knowledgable template editor. There are almost a thousand template edits. Q3 says the right meta comment, but I want details of actual conflict. People who have worked AfC can hone their WP:N skills and get top heavy in user talk edits, but I'm not seeing a lot of AfC edits (500 draft edits survive), so I'm not sure that happened and queasy about the distribution. Things just don't feel right. HJMitchell's comments hit maturity; Dennis Brown's the lack of experience. Glrx (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of AfC submissions tend to be declined, forgotten about and deleted per WP:CSD#G13, which is probably why you can only see 500 still live; plus earlier drafts used the (now archaic) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation prefix. Looking through deleted contributions I would estimate the total number of worked on drafts by APerson to be closer to 2,000. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Thanks for the estimate, but I considered there would be many AfC deletions; it does not look like the distribution for a backdoor candidate. The contradictions make me uneasy: level of sophistication; HJMitchell brought up mediawiki; there's a minor one about changing concentration. I'm pleased with some answers, but the whole request does not feel right. The "sockpuppet" and copyright issues are explainable, but with other concerns they become additive. I do not get a good sense about the candidate's perspective or reserve. I'm sorry. Glrx (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per my standard criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Dennis Brown and HJ Mitchell, among others. Nothing in the supports convinces me otherwise, but I thank the candidate for their service and hope they will try again, perhaps next year. Jusdafax 03:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose as not quite ready yet. It seems that even in the real world, others in authority do not trust this editor with an unfettered account. Justly so, based upon the creation of an alternate account to avoid their scrutiny. I know it wasn't intended to deceive Wikipedia, but it was intended to deceive. When in full control of their own life, then I believe adminship is an option. Scr★pIronIV 13:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScrapIronIV: If you haven't already, you may be interested to read the answer to Q21. ~ RobTalk 14:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @BU Rob13: I did read it, but it does not address my concerns. Barely a year ago, influences outside of Wikipedia had control. In order to evade that control by real world authority, this editor chose to sock. This is not about whether the account could be blocked by external sources again; it is about being mature enough to take control of one's own life, and making the right decisions. Someone who socks because they can't bear to be separated from Wikipedia is not in control. Either that, or there is a serious problem with following rules - which is an absolute requirement for adminship. Question 21 is a red herring to me. Scr★pIronIV 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose based on review and per Dennis Brown, HJ Mitchell and BMK. Hopefully, the situation for this editor will be different in the future, after digesting all the comments above and heeding the advice given. Kierzek (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Sorry, but the apparent gaps in policy knowledge and in particular the alternate account issue land me here.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - per HJ Mitchell and ScrapIronIV. shoy (reactions) 17:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose This reads like way too much good faith would have to be assumed for me to support. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose HJ Mitchell put it well. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. This RfA ought not to pass, for reasons raised earlier. Eric Corbett 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose, per above and my criteria. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - I am not satisfied to the answer to Q7. First, there is the issue of deception, and whether intentional or unintentional, APerson was deceiveing somone (the community or this mysterious person who pushed him to not be active on Wikipedia), which raises character issues for me. Second, there is a lot of ambiguity and vagueness around the mysterious person who pushed him not to be active, and I have concerns about such an unknown person having a high amount of influence over APerson. I respect APerson's right to privacy, but quite frankly, I am absolutely unwilling to excuse such a blatant violation of the socking rules for an excuse about which that the community has really been given no substantive details. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Seems like a nice, neutral, computer-geekish young person, but there are too many things that don't yet add up the way I'd like them to, not the least of which is the continued evasiveness over the alternate account (see discussion on this talk page), under the purported guise of "privacy" concerns. Privacy is never breached unless proper names are used, so this is a bogus excuse in my view -- it is a simple matter to fully explain the facts of something without using proper names. This seems to say to me the candidate has an issue with putting himself out there honestly (not a good quality in an admin). And that (when this is taken along with the concerns raised by others) he currently lacks the maturity, experience, perspective, and accountability I would want in an admin. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Reluctantly, I must oppose at this time. The issue about the alternate account is just a bit too much for me to ignore. I will not speculate about what "really happened" but will simply say that all plausible explanations raise concerns about the suitability of this candidate at this time. The focus on coding trivialities is also a concern. Please keep contributing ever more productively to the encyclopedia (not the social media) and consider another RfA at some point in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose ~ I am concerned with the alternate account incident, which raises the, to me, important question of communication: We expect our admins to be good at communicating with us over all sorts of issues; not only has the candidate been less than forthright in his communication over the incident ("i'm sorry, i'm not comfortable giving your that information" would have been clear and succinct and accurate), but clearly he has some form of difficulty communicating with the authority figure who tried to restrict his wiki-usage, and i cannot separate RL from WL, in that the former bleeds into the latter. I'm sorry not to support. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Neutral. I will move to support after reading APerson's reply to DexDor's question. --Action Hero (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC) (NOTE: This is an account of a recently blocked sock... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Action Hero, my answer, and subsequent discussion, can be found on this RfA's talk page. APerson (talk!) 17:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until reading APerson's reply to DexDor's question and Steel1943's more recent question. --Rubbish computer 17:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Support. Rubbish computer 11:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Temporary, waiting on a more detailed response to Silk Tork's and DexDor's questions (#7). BMK (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Neutral Joining on fence, waiting outcome of above. I don't do email on RfAs but my call may be based, in part, on the reaction of editors who do receive an explanation by same.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Striking, moving to oppose. Neutral. I'm just not sure about this whole undisclosed socking business. The phrases "period of school" and "had my Wikipedia access taken away" also make a very strong implication that he is a very young user who still lives with his parents (remember, this is now public information, so I'm not doing anything against policy here), which some !voters find concerning per thoroughly-documented history. --Biblioworm 15:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Neutral - Leaning oppose. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC) —Moving to oppose.[reply]

  1. Neutral: I’d really like to vote support, but this whole socking business really concerns me. The actual violation of the sockpuppet policy doesn’t bother me, since APerson did not attempt to vote multiple times, or do anything disruptive. If APerson had simply said something along the lines of “I created a second account when I lost access to my primary account, and wasn’t careful enough in following sockpuppet policy. I apologize for this breech in policy, and promise that it won’t happen again” and filled in all the other necessary details, then I would have no problem voting support. However, APerson, was and continues to be incredibly evasive when other editors ask about this violation. This makes me seriously question what would happen if APerson were to make a more serious mistake as administrator with negative repercussion for Wikipedia. Would he be able to come clean and attempt to correct the situation, or would he try to cover it up? It is for this reason that I can’t in good faith vote support despite APerson’s overall positive contributions to Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning towards support, pending answers to questions and checking of the edit record. The percentage of user talk space edits doesn't bother my: my own edit count shows just over 23% of my edits are there. The RfA voting from a secondary account doesn't bother me, in fact as long as there was no attempt to vote or comment from both accounts, or to avoid a ban or block or on-wiki scrutiny, I don't think it was even a technical violation of policy, and if it was, the policy should be changed. The deception does bother me, as Spirit of Eagle says just above. DES (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Moving to support[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning Oppose, due to weak answer to Q12. Nothing? You really think everything works great and you wouldn't change anything? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral – On the one hand, I really want to support the current maintainer of AfD Stats. On the other hand... ah, youth. I keep wanting to vote "Support", but I just can't get myself there. So, here, I sit... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral – I have seen the candidate's edits in main space and elsewhere and I'm impressed to say the least. They seem like a nice person and come across as very competent to have the tools. I agree with Ritchie333's rationale as to why this user should have the tools. I would like to see them write or at least be instrumental in creating a featured article or a few GA's though. CassiantoTalk 12:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I like those edits of candidate that I have strolled through, and the addition to the ranks of people active in technical areas would no doubt be welcome. But I feel that someone in a situation where their WP access can be barred by another because of (broadly speaking) school issues, should maybe not be responsible for part of the administration of a global project. Which is possibly unfair. Eh. Neutral for now.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elmidae, would it change your opinion any if I can guarantee that my Wikipedia access won't be impaired, as I said in my answer to question 21? APerson (talk!) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Should have seen that. Well, I'll take your word for it. Moved to support.-- Elmidae (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Good contributions to AfD page. Not quite as sure regarding whether this user has behaved deceptively in the past.--TMD Talk Page. 14:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I've been researching and deliberating over this RfA for some time now but at the moment I honestly can't decide which way I should go. If it's a close call, I may come back towards the end and make a 'casting' vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do cast a !vote if you are reasonably able. The closeness of this RFA's "meta discussion" is sure to remain; begging that all increments of clarification that can be set in place, in fact be set. To omit tenured insight like yours, for no good reason at all, will fail every common sense test set before it. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A vote from me in either section isn't going to affect the outcome. I'm happy to say however, and as Dirtlawyer1 explains well below, that APerson is a nice enough person, has a friendly disposition, and the right degree of enthusiam and the will to do things correctly and I don't detect any malicious subterfuge. The fact that he guarantees that he will not involuntarily lose access to his account again can probably be taken to infer that he has now reached the age of majority and can no longer be subject to parental (or other) control. However, maturity is still a slight issue and I'm confident that by the end of a further twelve months of editing without any significant issues, I, and I am sure the many other opposers here, will see their way clear to supporting a new run at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral support - APerson, I don't like to see anyone get the snot beat out of him or her at RfA. Been there, done that, very empathetic to those candidates in your shoes. You have done the good and proper thing by being honest in your answers; I admire that. Not all RfA candidates were, including some who are, no doubt, presently serving administrators. Taking the reasonable criticism on board, try not to take the pile-on !votes personally, and remember you're a damn good editor who has made some very good contributions to the encyclopedia. If you keep doing what you've been doing, I look forward to supporting you next time you stand for RfA. Cheers and good luck. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - Moral support for a future RfA. Although I normally prefer to support or oppose, at this stage it seems that it would not a difference in this RfA and I find myself here per Biblioworm; Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, comments 1 and 2, and Dirtlawyer1. Donner60 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General Comments
→ General comments (and discussions with over 3 comments) have been moved to the talk page. WormTT(talk) 11:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/APerson&oldid=1147970447"