Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Armbrust

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as unsuccessful (6/6/5 | 50%) -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust[edit]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end after 4 November 2013 11:24 (UTC)

Armbrust (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

I'm an active editor on Wikidata with 6,569 edits and many Rfds. I would like to help out with items nominated for deletion. -- Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 11:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Support why not? Oppose per Rschen7754 --DangSunM (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Oppose per Rschen7754. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have reservations about this because of the user's block log on en.wikipedia. If the blocks were years ago, I would be willing to overlook it; heck, I was blocked years ago there. But a 2 week block in April, and additional blocks in 2012, is too soon for me. --Rs chen 7754 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rschen7754.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Armbrust is present here and can be trusted with RFD work. I don't get how a block on a different wiki for a policy which we don't even have here has any relevance, considering this user doesn't even seem to have caused any similar problems on this project. Vogone talk 13:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The principle is the same, edit warring. --Rs chen 7754 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, where did he edit war? Vogone talk 18:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the block log, a 3RR block means edit warring took place. --Rs chen 7754 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The block log appears to be empty …; and as I've said in my initial statement, I'm not looking for block logs on other wikis unless similar behaviour happened here on this project. Vogone talk 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't being blocked numerous times in enwiki show the inability to follow policy, regardless of whether the rule exists here or not? In my opinion blocks on other wikis are very relevant. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is that there is no known case in which Armbrust didn't follow Wikidata policy. Of course I would consider this enwiki block log as relevant if he'd behave here in a similar way like in the situations for which he got blocked on the English Wikipedia, but this just does not seem to be the case. Furthermore, nothing would prevent us from sanction edit wars even if they happened after Armbrust's promotion to sysop. The number of flags one has doesn't make one independent from policies. Vogone talk 20:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to have done good work here at Wikidata, I don't see any indication that he'd misuse the bits here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit warring on another wiki does not concern me. Vandalism or sock puppetry (or similar behavior) on other wikis might matter, but edit warring? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 14:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring blocks are usually 24-48 hours. The last one was 2 weeks, which indicates a significant problem. I see no reason why he wouldn't continue edit warring here, as our data becomes more controversial. --Rs chen 7754 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jakob. --by Revi_DCMG at 14:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rschen7754. Rzuwig^► 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Rschen7754. --Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Armbrust has shown a willingness to perform repetitive, tedious, thankless tasks (such as the Files for Upload process, which the candidate singlehandedly keeps afloat), and I am certainly appreciative of that. However the candidate's propensity for edit warring worries me. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Please be a rollbacker and property creator first. --GZWDer (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think GZWDer just above has a good suggestion. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Changed. StevenJ81 (see below). (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just support another RFA where the candidate only had autopatroled rights? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. But here there are some questions about whether the candidate's record supports the candidacy. So I thought that perhaps this made sense as an interim step. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, however have no interest in anti-vandalism work or property-creation. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changed to neutral. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intermediate Weak support BTW Shouldn't force someone to work in a particular area. After all we are all volunteers.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit warring on Wikipedia does not concern me when it comes to Wikidata, since such a thing is rarely seen in here. Apart from that, I am comfortable with Armbrust being a sysop, since he has been here long enough to know how it all works and, if he has not made any of those mistakes since he started editing, I don't see why he would be making them as an administrator. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Both sides have equally valid points, so I am forced to stick myself right here in the middle. I personally don't think track records elsewhere should have that much of a factor here (unless it's something serious like sockpuppetry or recent vandalism). However, he does seem to have a certain proclivity for edit warring, which does turn me away from supporting him, even if ever-so-slightly. T C N7JM 05:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]