Meta:Requests for adminship/Taxman
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
Taxman edit
Vote closed; not promoted. eligibility for request wasn't sufficient at the nomination moment.--Aphaia 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an admin on en.wiki for over a year, and a Wikipedian for about 2 and a half years. I thought I'd help out on Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta also, and admin tools would be useful. I also had the unfortunate experience today of seeing a vandal in progress, but without admin tools on a slow connection I couldn't revert as fast as they could vandalize. Yes I plan to be conservative with deletion and whatever is different until I fully get the hang of how things are done here. - Taxman 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And while I think my identity is reasonably confirmed by the cross links on each page, see here per procedure. :) - Taxman 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: If I got it right Taxman had 98 edits at the time of his nomination, thus I have a bad feeling. --Marbot 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If he had 100, you wouldn't? If that's not the case, could you please expand on the "bad feeling"? Thanks! - David Gerard 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the 100 edits is a mandatorily rule to ask for being an admin at least. The bad feeling, I have it as well. I see many english editors totally unknown from meta requesting sysop access or voting on others, on a project they absolutely do not know. For real meta editors, it is not really surprising they are a bit nervous about it. It is not because you know one project rules and community that you know them all. Anthere
- It's fine if you feel that, but I've always thought adminship was more about trust. I did also have over the 100 edits at the time of nomination, especially if you count the deleted edits, and I have more now, so I believe that is moot as a technicality at least. More importantly I believe I've demonstrated I'm trustworthy and I'm not remotely going to do anything damaging. I've stated I'm not going to do anything borderline. I'm talking rollback and obvious vandal blocking here among other strong consensus backed admin actions until I get more familiar with the norms here. Check my record at en.wiki if you like, but I don't think anyone would disagree that I'm a very uncontroversial admin. Have I done something to give you a bad feeling beyond not being much over the limit? - Taxman 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have never done something bad as I am aware of. I am talking of a technicallity and rule on meta. Please read more on history below. I try to explain why the rules has been set as they are now. In short, why being an admin in some place does not automatically grant admin position here. It is nothing personal. If you do not apply rather stupid rules for speedy deletion such as "not encyclopedic", I will be entirely fine with you as an admin. I just tried to explain the "bad feeling" mentionned above. I hope I was clear below in my little explanation. Anthere
- Well having a "bad feeling" about someone is very strong words, not something that seems warranted given the level of trust people generally place in me. In fact I'm trying hard not to take personal offense in it. And I haven't applied a speedy tag under that criteria, much less would I delete one under that, as I've mentioned. It seems there is a productive discussion about what to do with those old pages, so even though the speedy criteria does mention deleting pages that have nothing to do with projects, if the community comes to some agreement on what to do with historical pages that is fine. I'm still at a loss as to why you're so focused on the number of edits, when trust is more important, but it is up to you to make your own rationale. - Taxman 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- " In fact I'm trying hard not to take personal offense in it." I have no idea why - Anthere explained the problem quite clearly "The bad feeling, I have it as well. I see many english editors totally unknown from meta requesting sysop access or voting on others, on a project they absolutely do not know". Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said why. Because having a bad feeling about someone is a lot stronger words than is justified in the situation. My nominating here had nothing to do with the other editors from en.wiki coming here. - Taxman 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- " In fact I'm trying hard not to take personal offense in it." I have no idea why - Anthere explained the problem quite clearly "The bad feeling, I have it as well. I see many english editors totally unknown from meta requesting sysop access or voting on others, on a project they absolutely do not know". Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well having a "bad feeling" about someone is very strong words, not something that seems warranted given the level of trust people generally place in me. In fact I'm trying hard not to take personal offense in it. And I haven't applied a speedy tag under that criteria, much less would I delete one under that, as I've mentioned. It seems there is a productive discussion about what to do with those old pages, so even though the speedy criteria does mention deleting pages that have nothing to do with projects, if the community comes to some agreement on what to do with historical pages that is fine. I'm still at a loss as to why you're so focused on the number of edits, when trust is more important, but it is up to you to make your own rationale. - Taxman 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have never done something bad as I am aware of. I am talking of a technicallity and rule on meta. Please read more on history below. I try to explain why the rules has been set as they are now. In short, why being an admin in some place does not automatically grant admin position here. It is nothing personal. If you do not apply rather stupid rules for speedy deletion such as "not encyclopedic", I will be entirely fine with you as an admin. I just tried to explain the "bad feeling" mentionned above. I hope I was clear below in my little explanation. Anthere
- It's fine if you feel that, but I've always thought adminship was more about trust. I did also have over the 100 edits at the time of nomination, especially if you count the deleted edits, and I have more now, so I believe that is moot as a technicality at least. More importantly I believe I've demonstrated I'm trustworthy and I'm not remotely going to do anything damaging. I've stated I'm not going to do anything borderline. I'm talking rollback and obvious vandal blocking here among other strong consensus backed admin actions until I get more familiar with the norms here. Check my record at en.wiki if you like, but I don't think anyone would disagree that I'm a very uncontroversial admin. Have I done something to give you a bad feeling beyond not being much over the limit? - Taxman 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the 100 edits is a mandatorily rule to ask for being an admin at least. The bad feeling, I have it as well. I see many english editors totally unknown from meta requesting sysop access or voting on others, on a project they absolutely do not know. For real meta editors, it is not really surprising they are a bit nervous about it. It is not because you know one project rules and community that you know them all. Anthere
- If he had 100, you wouldn't? If that's not the case, could you please expand on the "bad feeling"? Thanks! - David Gerard 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Is trustworthy and isn't going to bring down Meta. Linuxbeak 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - David Gerard 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Cspurrier 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Zscout370 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good fellow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Esteffect 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You see... you are typically a good example. You may be a *great* person. You are voting here on the 28th of march. Your first edit on meta was on the 28th of march. Would you *ever* accept that anyone votes on your project the very same day they joined ? I do not think so. Anthere
- Oppose Anthere Sorry, but you have very few edits on meta for now. Which probably means you know very little the local community and the local rules. I would prefer that you get to know the place better before being an admin here. It seems more reasonable to me. Anthere 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What local community? There isn't a coherent local community - David Gerard 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting the current rules for making someone a sysop do not suit you ? If so, please discuss them to have them changed. Now, I will explain you a little bit about meta history (since you do not know why the rules are as is). Once upon a time, the rule to get a sysop on meta was "if you are a sysop on any project, just ask, and you will be made sysop by Brion. Then, there was an editor, who was a young very nice guy, but also a very strange person. He wanted *power*. He wanted recognition and he was ready to do anything to get it. So, he wanted to be sysop on meta (strange idea of getting power, but well...). He made some very strange things and the last thing we wanted was him sysop here. So, he asked to be sysop on en.wiki. I think he was rejected. The method he used was consequently to be made sysop on a small project. Pretty easy. He went to a mostly dead wiki and asked to be made sysop on that wiki. No community, so sure enough, he was made sysop. This is how we do things on small projects. Then, he simply came here and asked to be made sysop. At this point, Maveric just made him so (much to the despair of most of the meta sysops I must say...). In the following weeks, we just followed him in each of his steps. We (the meta community) discussed what we could do (privately, on irc) to avoid that this *ever* happen again (in short, having someone made a sysop whilst no one trust him, just because of some stupid rules). And we came up with the current rules (which state 1) you must be a sysop on one project, 2) you must be a participant of meta and 3) you must be confirmed once a year). A year later, we have been painlessly be able to unsysop the guy thanks to these rules. Taxman probably is a good person. But he is not a meta editor (right, he is bordering the number of edits which allow to consider he is). If you just put in the trash the current rules, upon the reason that "there is no meta community", you force us to go back to the old model, where the opinion of the local editors just do not matter at all. Also, calling english wp editors to come here to vote in mass for your group of followers is not really nice to people here. It just look as if a whole mass of unknown person is trying to take over the place. But well, this, I can understand. What I *really* mean is that claiming that there is no community, so that local opinions are not to be taken into account is actually quite an insult to those who have been working for several months or years here. But in the end, I think those who will be made sysops here by dubious mean will either stick to the place and become good admins here... or they will get removed in a year from now. Anthere 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and that's why people's history of contributions should be reviewed. Also I hope you're talking in general about calling up masses of wp editors as I certainly have done nothing of the sort. - Taxman 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very long answer to a question I didn't ask at all, in any way, shape or form. I asked quite specifically, "What local community?" There isn't one. We discussed this on IRC, and you said there is one but they actually do their work on IRC and mailing lists rather than on the wiki. That isn't a wiki community. I suppose this comes down to "people who want Meta to be a good work wiki" versus "people who want to guard the museum of historic texts". The trouble is that the second function is visibly hampering the first - David Gerard 11:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I answered on the Foundation list. If you wish so, I can copy my answer here. But it might really mess up the page :-) ~
- Are you suggesting the current rules for making someone a sysop do not suit you ? If so, please discuss them to have them changed. Now, I will explain you a little bit about meta history (since you do not know why the rules are as is). Once upon a time, the rule to get a sysop on meta was "if you are a sysop on any project, just ask, and you will be made sysop by Brion. Then, there was an editor, who was a young very nice guy, but also a very strange person. He wanted *power*. He wanted recognition and he was ready to do anything to get it. So, he wanted to be sysop on meta (strange idea of getting power, but well...). He made some very strange things and the last thing we wanted was him sysop here. So, he asked to be sysop on en.wiki. I think he was rejected. The method he used was consequently to be made sysop on a small project. Pretty easy. He went to a mostly dead wiki and asked to be made sysop on that wiki. No community, so sure enough, he was made sysop. This is how we do things on small projects. Then, he simply came here and asked to be made sysop. At this point, Maveric just made him so (much to the despair of most of the meta sysops I must say...). In the following weeks, we just followed him in each of his steps. We (the meta community) discussed what we could do (privately, on irc) to avoid that this *ever* happen again (in short, having someone made a sysop whilst no one trust him, just because of some stupid rules). And we came up with the current rules (which state 1) you must be a sysop on one project, 2) you must be a participant of meta and 3) you must be confirmed once a year). A year later, we have been painlessly be able to unsysop the guy thanks to these rules. Taxman probably is a good person. But he is not a meta editor (right, he is bordering the number of edits which allow to consider he is). If you just put in the trash the current rules, upon the reason that "there is no meta community", you force us to go back to the old model, where the opinion of the local editors just do not matter at all. Also, calling english wp editors to come here to vote in mass for your group of followers is not really nice to people here. It just look as if a whole mass of unknown person is trying to take over the place. But well, this, I can understand. What I *really* mean is that claiming that there is no community, so that local opinions are not to be taken into account is actually quite an insult to those who have been working for several months or years here. But in the end, I think those who will be made sysops here by dubious mean will either stick to the place and become good admins here... or they will get removed in a year from now. Anthere 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What local community? There isn't a coherent local community - David Gerard 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Frankly, I agree with David Gerard - Meta has no local community. The requirement that someone have 100 edits is a relic from a time when people theorized that meta might someday have an active community (it doesn't). Taxman is one of the most trustworthy, dependable users on en, and I think it is ludicrious not to give him adminship based on the fact that his 98 edits is less than the minimum 100 required edits. Raul654 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The very fact people react in group to the brutal deletion is "proof" there is a local community Raul ~~
- My heart does go out to this I'm just really spoofed after this group of people from en that may or may not understand meta policy. I mean, I agree that Taxman is one of the best en admins, but after the Linuxbeak situation I'm left pretty scared. I really want someone, for example, who will ask questions instead of me having to dig through their deletions. Also, sort of like the burearocrat (sp) situation on en I think we have more then enough great admins here to handle deletions and such (M7, etc.), and it becomes an actual burden rather then a help when we have good-hearted admins who may not know policy. Now, I hardly had that many edits myself at the time, so that really isn't why I am opposing and I realize I am walking a thin line here. Hopefully that makes sense. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it comes down to whether Meta is a historical documents repository or an active work wiki to do things on. The problem, and the reason for WM:OM and all these people wanting useful powers to actually do stuff to effect it, is that the 'historical document repository' function is notably hampering the 'active work wiki' function - David Gerard 11:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it can do both. The Meta:Historical/Foo is a good idea to save all the old pages people have interest in but get them out of the way. They could easily be revived if needed. That or something similar should work. - Taxman 13:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it comes down to whether Meta is a historical documents repository or an active work wiki to do things on. The problem, and the reason for WM:OM and all these people wanting useful powers to actually do stuff to effect it, is that the 'historical document repository' function is notably hampering the 'active work wiki' function - David Gerard 11:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Not much experience on Meta. Korg + + 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Brian Wikinews / Talk 09:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimum criteria not met. The minimums are quite light; good candidates often exceed them many times over. On the other hand, Taxman has been around for a long time, and I would welcome another rfa next month. Sj 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And that criteria would be? I have over 100 edits. I had over 100 when I nominated myself, which I checked by paging through my edits in 20's. There were 6 on the last page before I nominated myself; yes I do check these things. But even moreso, this level of extreme editcountitis is simply astounding to me. Even if I only had 98 or whatever, focusing on that to the exclusion of my overall contributions amounts to little to no consideration of what would be best for the project, or Wikimedia in general. And yes saying anything in response will apparently reflect poorly on me and doom any chances of this succeeding even if there were any. That's fine because my commitment to our project does not hinge on the success of this in the least. I would have hoped people would evaluate a candiate based on their proven ability to contribute good to what we are trying to accomplish. I know how to rollback and block for vandalism without the least bit of controversy folks. But clearly people would rather promote editors with a greater score on numerical metric than editors that have proven their commitment to the project over a significant timeframe. Under the criteria taking prominence here, I would likely have been more successful making several hundred throw away edits after just recently becoming an admin on a smaller project. Exaggerating a little, but not much. I think we should all take a minute to consider what is best for the project, and edit counts isn't it. - Taxman 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, your statement on the above has you appear as if you were a power-monger. I can't understand why you can think only 100 edits (precisely less than 100) are enough prove your involvement to meta, and recent affairs make us more carefully to examine editors' involvement than before. Like some folks on your overhaul team, an admin lacking understanding to the policy is something over nuisance. Aph.
- If that's how it appears, it's rather unfortunate. I was being sincere when I said my commitment to our project does not hinge on the success of this in the least. Apparently my mistake was assuming my record on other projects would be weighed more than edit count. Anyway, don't anyone feel any stress on my account there's lots more important work to be done. - Taxman 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose critera not met yet. Some months later, situaion will be changed. --Aphaia 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose - too soon. oscar 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportGeni 12:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OpposePhe 08:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support --Walter 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Andrevan 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]