| Revision as of 18:56, 29 March 2012 editItsZippy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers13,923 edits →Request for adminship← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:56, 29 March 2012 edit undoMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 edits →Request for adminship: what do I know?Next edit → | ||
| Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
| :Thanks for the support and advice, WereSpielChequers. In terms of timing, I'm hoping to be able to start the RfA at some point next week (Monday - Wednesday would be ideal, in terms of personal timing). Thanks again to everyone for their advice and support. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | :Thanks for the support and advice, WereSpielChequers. In terms of timing, I'm hoping to be able to start the RfA at some point next week (Monday - Wednesday would be ideal, in terms of personal timing). Thanks again to everyone for their advice and support. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Be aware that there are some like myself, who believe that far from there being a "dwindling cadre" of administrators there are in fact far too many. Right now I'd oppose your RfA on the basis of recent activity, but heh, I'm only one editor, what do I know. ] ] 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:56, 29 March 2012
RfA, maybe
Pedro, you kindly gave a decent consideration to my RfA a couple of years ago, and I see you're open to considering a nomination. Could you give me an assessment please? No rush. I've waited two and a half years since the last RfA, there's certainly no call to disrupt the holiday season. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be delighted to, and the fact that you've asked someone who opposed RFA 1 is an immediate "tick in the box" to use a horrid cliche. Obviously, with the season, I'm rather focused on family (although I am debating whether to put the kids on e-bay at the moment. Ha! :) ) but will respond as soon as I have a smidge of time. Pedro : Chat 18:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Rollback Request
I have added something that may be of help to you in evaluating a user requesting rollback already granted in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. The links will work as well allowing you to easily check this user's contributions.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 512,599,657) 23:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Swarm did the request, but thank you for that link - I appreciate your dilligence. Pedro : Chat 07:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- happy to help.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 512,685,630) 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- FFS. May as well make it "you are being notified because they edit the same online encyclopedia as you". Which cretin authorised this bot to spam everyone over this? Pedro : Chat 21:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
RFA
Many thanks for your kind words! I don't see it as a promotion either - just a chance to do more good. Regards, GiantSnowman 22:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
RfA nomination
Hi there, Pedro. I have recently considered submitting an RfA and was hoping for some advice from you. I am wondering if you think I would be ready for adminship and, if so, whether you would nominate me. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer, and my previous failed RfA can be found here. Thanks. ItsZippy 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hm...Pedro is definitely a good choice. ;-) My personal advice would be to wait another three months at least. The community generally wants at least six months between RFAs, and may look at two RFAs in a period of six months or so as "power hunger". It's of course up to you, just my 5c (we don't have 2 cent pieces in Australia). Steven Zhang 20:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Steven. The recent proximity of my last RfA is something that I have considered, which is why I'm asking for advice - if waiting a little while longer would be worthwhile, I'm happy to do so. ItsZippy 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Steven is (as usual) dead right. A NOTNOW Rfa in October is, in the current climate, an indication to go a good few months before requesting again. Of course in my day it was three months between RFA's and five thousand edits was plenty.... </end sentimental bitching>. However looking at the positive responses in both support and oppose at RFA 1 could I suggest maybe April (not the 1st!!!). Keep doing what you're doing and approach me then. I really, and I mean really, regret that we have to play politics over this in terms of timing but it is what it is. Please don't take this as a brush off (it's not) and please do tap me up at the end of March (Steve's opinion as a nom would also be greatly valued). Pedro : Chat 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pedro, is, as always, very kind to me. :-) I'd be very happy to co-nominate you, ItsZippy. It'd actually be the first RFA nomination I've ever written. Steven Zhang 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much to you both for your feedback and positive comments, I really appreciate it. As you suggest, I'll get back to you at the end of March. ItsZippy 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, you're welcome; don't nuke the place in the next 6-8 weeks! Pedro : Chat 22:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Make sure you have a GA under your belt by then. Pedro, perhaps we should check to ensure all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed? :-) Lol @ your reference. Steven Zhang 22:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problems there - I've already written/contributed to 4 GAs (one of which should imminently make FA). I plan to continue my work improving philosophy & theology articles, probably indefinitely. I'll try not to break anything in the meantime. ;-) ItsZippy 22:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, good. Comment in lots of AFD discussions, etc etc. Steven Zhang 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that should be fine. ItsZippy 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do some anti-vandalism and new page patrol too :-) Steven Zhang 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that should be fine. ItsZippy 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, good. Comment in lots of AFD discussions, etc etc. Steven Zhang 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problems there - I've already written/contributed to 4 GAs (one of which should imminently make FA). I plan to continue my work improving philosophy & theology articles, probably indefinitely. I'll try not to break anything in the meantime. ;-) ItsZippy 22:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Steven is (as usual) dead right. A NOTNOW Rfa in October is, in the current climate, an indication to go a good few months before requesting again. Of course in my day it was three months between RFA's and five thousand edits was plenty.... </end sentimental bitching>. However looking at the positive responses in both support and oppose at RFA 1 could I suggest maybe April (not the 1st!!!). Keep doing what you're doing and approach me then. I really, and I mean really, regret that we have to play politics over this in terms of timing but it is what it is. Please don't take this as a brush off (it's not) and please do tap me up at the end of March (Steve's opinion as a nom would also be greatly valued). Pedro : Chat 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Steven. The recent proximity of my last RfA is something that I have considered, which is why I'm asking for advice - if waiting a little while longer would be worthwhile, I'm happy to do so. ItsZippy 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Most importantly, however, just enjoy editing. Adminship ain't fun, power or status. Pedro : Chat 22:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, and RFA is definitely not fun -.- Steven Zhang 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I'd planned. I'll continue doing what I normally do (I don't want to change my editing for the sake of an RfA); that's what people can judge when it comes to it. ItsZippy 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Notes
- 1 Because I say so. And WP:OR be damned.
MSU Interview
Dear Pedro,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Rollback rights
Thank you for the Rollback rights: I hope to validate your confidence in providing me with this privilege. Cheers. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Re: WP:AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kiko4564 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to have been resolved, and you've got rollback so all good. Pedro : Chat 09:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- FYI. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. I've had enough of this. Pedro : Chat 22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- FYI. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Your decline of a speedy delete on Avonko
Please could you explain why you consider three references to a blog and one to a page which does not verify the statement sufficient to overturn speedy deletion on ground G11. You stated "speedy declined - no prejudice to WP:AFD or WP:PROD - asserts notability and has ref". -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you realize that decline was nearly four years ago? Frank | talk 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- As Frank points out it was nearly four years ago. Mostly I don't get why you think this was a G11 - the editor proposing speedy gave a reason but did not mention G11 and neither did I. The fact that the page survived editor scrutiny for the four years since then seems testament to me making the right call. Please remember speedy deletions are for obvious deletions and four odd years ago a weak reference was largely enough to escape deletion unless their where other issues (copy vio, attack etc.) Pedro : Chat 09:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure it's four years ago but the policies on verification haven't changed regarding blogs and references which don't support the statement, or have they ? Yes G11 wasn't mentioned, but that doesn't make any difference to the speedy deletion process, or does it ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Look John, I'm not actually sure what you're moaning about;
- 1) You either lied or were mistaken about quoting G11 so that implies that you have a lack of due diligence or, well, you are a liar.
- 2) This is a non-admin action - anyone can decline a speedy deletion.
- 3) It was four bloody years ago.
- 4) Yes - policies do change - but more importantly the norms and accepted practices do.
- Tell you what - take it to WP:AN and get it overturned so you don't have to go through PROD. Better yet get WP:ARBCOM on board to remove my sysop bit for not taking an admin action. Pedro : Chat 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Look John, I'm not actually sure what you're moaning about;
- Sure it's four years ago but the policies on verification haven't changed regarding blogs and references which don't support the statement, or have they ? Yes G11 wasn't mentioned, but that doesn't make any difference to the speedy deletion process, or does it ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- As Frank points out it was nearly four years ago. Mostly I don't get why you think this was a G11 - the editor proposing speedy gave a reason but did not mention G11 and neither did I. The fact that the page survived editor scrutiny for the four years since then seems testament to me making the right call. Please remember speedy deletions are for obvious deletions and four odd years ago a weak reference was largely enough to escape deletion unless their where other issues (copy vio, attack etc.) Pedro : Chat 09:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Request for adminship
Hi there, Pedro. I spoke to you a little while ago about potentially nominating me for adminship; you suggested April would be good and for me to come back towards the end of March. It's now nearly April - would you still consider nominating me? Thanks. ItsZippy 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't actually made that many edits really, just over 8000, almost all of which are in the last 6 months. Added to which less than half of your edits (44%) have been to articles, and your activity appears to have been in decline since it peaked in September 2011. I wouldn't rush things if I were you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, Malleus. I do realise that I have a lower edit count than many candidates do when it comes to RfA; I understand that some people might object on that ground. As for the statistics, they can be misleading - it looks like I've become less active simply because my editing focus has changed from the beginning (when I spent a lot of time Huggling, amassing many edits) to now (when I spend more time improving articles, which gets fewer edits). I personally feel that my edits in the past 4 months have been much better than my early edits. Anyway, I do appreciate your comments. I'll wait to see what Pedro says - if he is still happy to nominate me, I'll go ahead; if it fails, I'm happy to forget about adminship for a while and continue editing. ItsZippy 18:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd think very carefully about it. As you may know, I have some experience of failing at RfA, and I can assure you that however you think you'll react to rejection it'll hit you harder than you think it will. So I'd hang fire for a bit, if for no other reason than to eliminate the "less that 10,000 edits" potential objectors, and to put a bit more distance between you and those automated edits. But of course it's your choice; I'll say no more. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, you might be interested in a study reported in today's issue of The Signpost, which looks at RfA. I quote: "In a direct application of these results, dubbed ballot-blind prediction, the authors show how the outcome of an RfA can be accurately predicted by a model that simply considers the first few participants in a discussion and their attributes, without looking at their actual evaluations of the target." So at the end of the day it's a bit of a lottery really, but I wish you the best of luck whatever you decide. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Malleus makes some useful observations. I'm quite vocal in my opposition to the editcountitis that has afflicted RFA over the last three years; more specifically that it was always present but now we seem to demand ever higher numbers of edits. The quality of edits and to some degree tenure are far more important IMHO. Based on your AFD closes and your steady incremental edits to articles I'd be happy to offer a nomination - but with the caveat that there may be some opposition for the reasons identified by Malleus. I'm also slightly nervous that it really doe sonly look like six "real" months of editing. I'd perhaps say the end of April and another 300 of those slow and measured edits to the mainspace would be more ideal, but up to you. Pedro : Chat 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not commenting at all on ItsZippy in particular, but a more general comment... I don't pay much attention to RFA anymore. Are they really up to around a minimum 10,000 edits now?! I guess I got lucky that I went through it when I did. In fact, I only reached the 10k mark this month, after I'd been an admin for two years. I have no reason to doubt Malleus' estimate of what's needed these days, just disappointed it's true. Is it that a lot were Huggle edits, or is that really the new de facto minimum for everyone? Seems like it would be better to emphasize quality over quantity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just replying to Floq (again, not about ItsZippy at all!) - to the best of my knowledge, the expected level is still around 6000, according to my research and the RfAs I've seen. Since I'm only just hitting 10k now, and was around 6k when I passed, that still makes sense to me! Worm · (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- As of the moment I'm typing this, I have 10 more edits than you. Noob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just replying to Floq (again, not about ItsZippy at all!) - to the best of my knowledge, the expected level is still around 6000, according to my research and the RfAs I've seen. Since I'm only just hitting 10k now, and was around 6k when I passed, that still makes sense to me! Worm · (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments everyone. I'm in two minds about this. The reason I've approached you now is that I have two weeks coming up where I will have more free time (which would seem to be a good time to run an RfA). The end of April would be possible, but I would have less free time then. Timing-wise, now is ideal, but I don't want to do it at the right time for me if it turns out not to be the right time for an RfA. ItsZippy 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, free time to answer Q's etc. is a good idea. I think the +10k edits thing is just honest feedback from MF - and I doubt for a second he agrees it's a pre-requisite; just that it may attract opposes. Actually tenure may as well. However, Worm makes a good point and the quality of your edits should (yes - it really should) overcome opposition. I'll find some time tomorrow to work on a "oh nom nom." Pedro : Chat 20:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your help Pedro (and to everyone else too). Is there anything you'll need from me? ItsZippy 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Start an WP:RFA/N in you user space and give me a link. Pedro : Chat 20:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here you go. You suggested that Steven Zhang might also co-nominate me when we discussed this before; I'll drop him a note too. ItsZippy 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also on board here, so I've added ^that page to my watchlist. Will prepare a co-nom over the next few days (I take it there's no urgent rush). Steven Zhang 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here you go. You suggested that Steven Zhang might also co-nominate me when we discussed this before; I'll drop him a note too. ItsZippy 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Start an WP:RFA/N in you user space and give me a link. Pedro : Chat 20:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your help Pedro (and to everyone else too). Is there anything you'll need from me? ItsZippy 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, free time to answer Q's etc. is a good idea. I think the +10k edits thing is just honest feedback from MF - and I doubt for a second he agrees it's a pre-requisite; just that it may attract opposes. Actually tenure may as well. However, Worm makes a good point and the quality of your edits should (yes - it really should) overcome opposition. I'll find some time tomorrow to work on a "oh nom nom." Pedro : Chat 20:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi itsZippy, Thanks for being willing to join our dwindling cadre of admins. I wouldn't worry about your total edit count - my experience is that RFAs can still succeed with as few as 4,000 edits if those edits are almost all manual. Huggle edits as you've pointed out can be done at a much greater rate per hour and many voters will give them less weight, but if your editcount includes 4,000 manual edits you should have little to fear from that part of the Opposse that pays attention to edit count (especially if you also have any audited content). Tenure is a slightly more complex thing, some look for tenure to give assurance that a candidate has been active for long enough to have usefully diverse experience as an admin, so you may find that some ask probing questions or even oppose based on your 6 months of being very active. Others look for tenure to screen out the latest incarnations of the usual suspects; As you first edited in 2009 I think we can relax on that score. It has been a long time since anyone became an admin within 12 months of their first edit, and with a first edit in 2009 you won't trouble that pattern. On my experience I would be very surprised if any of our more tenure focussed colleagues was to oppose as "not yet been here long enough" anyone with as long as 15 months tenure, so you should be OK on that front. Just remember it is an open book exam, so reread the policy before saving any of your answers, especially if you haven't spotted the trick part of the question. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- ^ What he said :) Pedro : Chat 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support and advice, WereSpielChequers. In terms of timing, I'm hoping to be able to start the RfA at some point next week (Monday - Wednesday would be ideal, in terms of personal timing). Thanks again to everyone for their advice and support. ItsZippy 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Be aware that there are some like myself, who believe that far from there being a "dwindling cadre" of administrators there are in fact far too many. Right now I'd oppose your RfA on the basis of recent activity, but heh, I'm only one editor, what do I know. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)