Meta talk:Requests for adminship/WJBscribe
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cometstyles
Discussion moved from Meta:Requests for adminship/WJBscribe by guillom
In response to Alison's opinion:
- Each wiki should be judged independently, and just because someone has high power on one wiki, doesn't really make them equally powerful here, trust is not the issue here, its all about experience on this wiki and activity, both requirements which he fails and I doubt he can juggle being an enwiki crat and a meta admin easily because if I remember correctly, enwiki has the worst group of crats, they always have so many backlogs to deal with and are also slow regarding RfX promotions as well, I remember one ending over 24 hours before it was promoted, as he is the most active crat on enwiki, I'd like to ask him if he can manage both wikis equally and not neglect this one, we already have enough inactive admins and though we have a sysop-inactivity policy, its not really that good ..I'll be really sad if other RfA candidates use this RfA as an excuse to run for adminship here, but as I said earlier, Will is a really good candidate in terms of experience (elsewhere), this comment isn't directed at alison's support but more towards those supporting a candidate because of their actions on another wiki rather than Meta :) ...--Cometstyles 11:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think trust is very important although would accept that a certain level of experience is usually appropriate. I trust him not to hastily use his admin rights before understanding the relevant policies here and his work elsewhere helps in this respect. I'd therefore very much disagree that a candidates work elsewhere on WMF projects shouldn't be an important factor in deciding whether they should have admin right here. Adambro 15:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Particularly as Meta exists for other projects, and not for itself. Majorly talk 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed so coming here with a proven track record on another WMF project probably means you're not going to be in for too many surprises about how things work here. Adambro 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I'll expand on my rather basic "happily" support. I do not agree with Adambro's implication that WJBscribe knows enough about working here - hopefully even he would admit he does not.
- Equally I often find myself agreeing with Cometstyles these days, probably not that surprising as we both actually work here. However in the case of WJBscribe I am fairly sure he will treat Meta with some care & respect & will take a look at current practices & policies before taking action on too much. That is not something that can be said about all admins here including a number who have been around long enough to know better.
- I would hope that he would contribute in the constructive & thoughtful way that he does elsewhere but I do not agree that because he knows another wiki that alone is enough --Herby talk thyme 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed so coming here with a proven track record on another WMF project probably means you're not going to be in for too many surprises about how things work here. Adambro 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Particularly as Meta exists for other projects, and not for itself. Majorly talk 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Adambro kinda summed it up for me, Comets. It's not relating to 'power' on another wiki, but more as a means to indicate a candidate's temperament, maturity and decision-making ability. My experience of this editor on enwiki lends me to think he'll be equally adept in applying these qualities he exhibits, both here as he does there. Thus, I'm taking that into account. Yes, he'll be a raw n00b admin with less experience than he likely should have, but I'm confident that he'll learn the ropes here and that he'll exercise discretion and due care as he learns - Alison ❤ 06:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well if you believe that a person with 150 edits in 18 months is experienced and active enough, then I have nothing else to say..--Cometstyles 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, what is it about Meta that is so dramatically different that someone what a proven track record of knowing what's what will get confused? I've been an admin here for a while, and I'm perplexed as to the chasm between Meta and en.wp adminships. If anything, being an admin on en.wp is harder, so I'd like some clarification. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't answer for Comets but from my perspective any en wp admin is welcome to do what they do there. However there seems to be a tendency to think because they are an admin there they can become one here without really bothering. Few of those with the rights actually do much work here which is an issue to me (& I guess Comets given their activity here).
- Some of the areas that do require work like the interwiki map & the blacklist get very little assistance (with some notable exceptions) so generally I am at a loss to know why adminship is required here if it is not going to be used.
- In this case & on balance I'm happy but I am not happy with the assumption that is is easy here. I certainly do not like seeing people who are admins elsewhere getting the rights without knowing about Meta & working on it (Commons has some similarities with people saying they will help & scarcely being seen again) --Herby talk thyme 13:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, what is it about Meta that is so dramatically different that someone what a proven track record of knowing what's what will get confused? I've been an admin here for a while, and I'm perplexed as to the chasm between Meta and en.wp adminships. If anything, being an admin on en.wp is harder, so I'd like some clarification. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well if you believe that a person with 150 edits in 18 months is experienced and active enough, then I have nothing else to say..--Cometstyles 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think trust is very important although would accept that a certain level of experience is usually appropriate. I trust him not to hastily use his admin rights before understanding the relevant policies here and his work elsewhere helps in this respect. I'd therefore very much disagree that a candidates work elsewhere on WMF projects shouldn't be an important factor in deciding whether they should have admin right here. Adambro 15:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- @EVula, saying that its easy to get adminship on Meta is probably the biggest problem. I see Meta as a hub for all wikis, something similar to a headquarters (not including the wikimedia foundation site), As herby noted above, this wiki deals with more important areas of wikimedia such as the blacklist, interwiki maps, system messages, general steward actions and logs, not your average wiki, and most just acquire adminship here just for the sake of having it, not really useful, we have alot of inactive admins here and luckily we have a de-sysopping policy but its not really that good and looking at the list of admins, I'll say only 10% can actually be classed as being active or useful on this wiki, not including the new stewards..and if you read closely at my oppose, Its only because of his "Inactivity", well if you compare this to enwiki, will you support someone with 150 edits in 18 months?..I don't think so..and while I was reading his statement just now "So I am partially making this request for admin rights with a view to ultimately obtaining the bureaucrat access that would enable me to do my bit in that area.", I will now seriously change my mind and strongly oppose him and also push to change adminship/cratship requirements on this wiki because it seems like we are getting those group of "power-hungry" people which I'm strongly against, whose only motives are to collect sysops or other rights across wiki and not actually be helpful, I remember opposing a candidate a while ago because I said that "Meta will become a very powerful wiki in a couple of months" and it seems like thats exactly what is starting to happen,I can not allow this to happen to Meta also since this is practically what destroyed enwiki..sorry indeed..--Cometstyles 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are misinterpreting my reference to bureaucrat rights. I brought it up simply to point out that this is probably the area in which I have most to offer this community - I will do my bit in terms of routine admin work on this project, but ultimately the fact that meta bureaucrats have access to CentralAuth means that I think the efficient implementation of SUL would be improved by my eventually benefiting from that access. As you know, a significant proportion of requests for deletion of global accounts result from my forwarding people here from enwiki. So I mentioned this out of a wish to help with a workload that was partly of my creation, and frankly resent the suggestion that I am "power-hungry". I'd also like clarification of your comment, "this is practically what destroyed enwiki" - perhaps I've missed something but when was enwiki "destroyed"? Between that remark and the one above that "enwiki has the worst group of crats", I'd be interested to know where these rather strong feelings about enwiki are coming from... WjBscribe 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Probably, but it does show your motive is to get Bureaucrat rights to help with SUL on enwiki, not to help in Meta, maybe the reason why we asked CentralAuth to be enabled on Meta was because we really didn't trust admins to use it wisely on any other wikis, I remember asking on enwikis, Bureaucrats noticeboard if Meta Crats can help there with deleting global accounts so that enwiki Crats can rename users easily with no reply. most people don't really know what "power-hungry" is because Kurt has made it into a mockery but its real definition probably is those that want the rights just for the sake of it and to show it off as trophies with hardly any intention of helping out and regarding the "destroyed enwiki" comment it was reference to attracting the wrong crowd, ppl who make silly minor edits just so they can accumulate the desired 100 edits and then have an RfA and with no real intention of helping but using this as a method of getting ahead and with Millosh's new proposal, I believe we will get more "unwanted groups of people" , and in reference to enwiki, how many of the sysops whose RfA passed, go on a long wikibreak (and not return)?..a lot...which means that they have achieved their motive and they no longer need to be useful to the project anymore and if enwiki had a de-sysop/decrat policy, this would not happen again, I remember Majorly tried to introduce this idea this to enwiki but failed..and regarding "enwiki has the worst group of crats" , this is probably true, and I doubt anyone will challenge me on that since the crats there make haste decisions of RfB's that should have passed but again the same group of inactive crats decide that it shouldn't, thus making sure no one replaces them or does a better job then them (cabalish eh?), and probably WJBscribe and The Rambling Man are the most active crats on enwiki, both of which were appointed quite recently..and regarding RfA closures, heh, we have problem in Meta on ppl closing RfA's hours early and in one case a day and half earlier (enwiki crats should learn from this ;))..so as I mentioned earlier above, I don't think you can be juggle between being a enwiki crat and meta admin at the same time an you will be forced to give less attention to one which will most definitely be Meta..--Cometstyles 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I hope you feel better for getting all that off your chest. May I suggest a cup of tea and a sit down? And no, I didn't really make this request to help enwiki. My processing SUL requests efficiently doesn't actually help enwiki much at all - most people looking to unify their logins aren't looking to be active there. If my interests were that narrow, I would let the SUL backlogs mount instead of spending time performing those renames and I certainly wouldn't worry about the workload stewards and meta crats were getting processing the global account deletion requests I forward here rather than coming here and offering to help. WjBscribe 00:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, not feeling better, feeling worse, I only opposed because of your inactivty but I never expected a drama to ensue like this, it only happened because though people agreed with me, they still supported, and as I have said in my oppose, its not about Trust, You are probably one of the most trustworthy person I know (except Gandhi and Mother Theresa), and regarding SUL backlogs, I though Dan and Redux were dealing with it quite efficiently..though I tried to help with no avail, but as a steward told me, its better if SUL Usurpation requests were brought here, for formality reasons rather than having it done for them, and thanks to the bug , there is not much to do :( ...--Cometstyles 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Probably, but it does show your motive is to get Bureaucrat rights to help with SUL on enwiki, not to help in Meta, maybe the reason why we asked CentralAuth to be enabled on Meta was because we really didn't trust admins to use it wisely on any other wikis, I remember asking on enwikis, Bureaucrats noticeboard if Meta Crats can help there with deleting global accounts so that enwiki Crats can rename users easily with no reply. most people don't really know what "power-hungry" is because Kurt has made it into a mockery but its real definition probably is those that want the rights just for the sake of it and to show it off as trophies with hardly any intention of helping out and regarding the "destroyed enwiki" comment it was reference to attracting the wrong crowd, ppl who make silly minor edits just so they can accumulate the desired 100 edits and then have an RfA and with no real intention of helping but using this as a method of getting ahead and with Millosh's new proposal, I believe we will get more "unwanted groups of people" , and in reference to enwiki, how many of the sysops whose RfA passed, go on a long wikibreak (and not return)?..a lot...which means that they have achieved their motive and they no longer need to be useful to the project anymore and if enwiki had a de-sysop/decrat policy, this would not happen again, I remember Majorly tried to introduce this idea this to enwiki but failed..and regarding "enwiki has the worst group of crats" , this is probably true, and I doubt anyone will challenge me on that since the crats there make haste decisions of RfB's that should have passed but again the same group of inactive crats decide that it shouldn't, thus making sure no one replaces them or does a better job then them (cabalish eh?), and probably WJBscribe and The Rambling Man are the most active crats on enwiki, both of which were appointed quite recently..and regarding RfA closures, heh, we have problem in Meta on ppl closing RfA's hours early and in one case a day and half earlier (enwiki crats should learn from this ;))..so as I mentioned earlier above, I don't think you can be juggle between being a enwiki crat and meta admin at the same time an you will be forced to give less attention to one which will most definitely be Meta..--Cometstyles 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are misinterpreting my reference to bureaucrat rights. I brought it up simply to point out that this is probably the area in which I have most to offer this community - I will do my bit in terms of routine admin work on this project, but ultimately the fact that meta bureaucrats have access to CentralAuth means that I think the efficient implementation of SUL would be improved by my eventually benefiting from that access. As you know, a significant proportion of requests for deletion of global accounts result from my forwarding people here from enwiki. So I mentioned this out of a wish to help with a workload that was partly of my creation, and frankly resent the suggestion that I am "power-hungry". I'd also like clarification of your comment, "this is practically what destroyed enwiki" - perhaps I've missed something but when was enwiki "destroyed"? Between that remark and the one above that "enwiki has the worst group of crats", I'd be interested to know where these rather strong feelings about enwiki are coming from... WjBscribe 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Each wiki should be judged independently, and just because someone has high power on one wiki, doesn't really make them equally powerful here, trust is not the issue here, its all about experience on this wiki and activity, both requirements which he fails and I doubt he can juggle being an enwiki crat and a meta admin easily because if I remember correctly, enwiki has the worst group of crats, they always have so many backlogs to deal with and are also slow regarding RfX promotions as well, I remember one ending over 24 hours before it was promoted, as he is the most active crat on enwiki, I'd like to ask him if he can manage both wikis equally and not neglect this one, we already have enough inactive admins and though we have a sysop-inactivity policy, its not really that good ..I'll be really sad if other RfA candidates use this RfA as an excuse to run for adminship here, but as I said earlier, Will is a really good candidate in terms of experience (elsewhere), this comment isn't directed at alison's support but more towards those supporting a candidate because of their actions on another wiki rather than Meta :) ...--Cometstyles 11:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)