Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Infovarius

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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. Things went wrong from the very beginning - RfA not properly transcluded, a neutral announcement taken by some users as canvassing, replies to opposers etc. Those would be easy to avoid next time. The opposers also have a number of valid points. The candidate is advised to take these points into account, act upon them accordingly, and try again in a few months. Chances are good that the next attempt will be successful.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Infovarius[edit]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end after 20 September 2013 17:19 (UTC)

I am active in doing merges of equivalent items in many task-forces and see that StreamDelete is often overloaded. I want to help to unload it and to keep it empty. I have an experience in solving interwiki-conflicts, it helps me to recognize (and to revert) wrong merges. Also I can help as a property creator (there's quite heavy queue now), gadget editor (though not useful now because there are many good technicians here). In addition I am a sysop in Russian Wikipedia and Wiktionary for a while so I have a sysop experience too. I am planning to run a bot (mainly to add/change statements, improve labels and descriptions). --Infovarius (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  1. Support ~ Though I do not always agree with Infovarius, I still think that he is suitable for administrator. --Izno (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose - Too many uncommented reverts without real discussions. --Succu (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The same about you :) I admit that we have some disagreements about taxon properties. I am glad that at least one question (about showing full hierarchy) has been solved by introducing taxobox-gadget. Infovarius (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose, reluctant to discuss, which is important especially for admins. --Stryn (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to discuss but difference in timezones (I am UTC+6) leads to 1-2 reply in a day. Infovarius (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Weak oppose I looked over this user's reverts in the past 1000 edits. Only one had a very precise edit summary. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidata is not favour edit summaries unfortunately. I was so discouraged when I realized that I can't comment some of my actions (adding/deleting/movind sitelinks, changing properties). Infovarius (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Preliminary  Oppose. I have not been able to examine the edits in detail because for some reason the contributions page is timing out when I request large numbers of edits, but I do not think the user's talk page inspires good communication skills. There was also edit warring almost four months ago, but it worries me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this might be construed as canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't blame me for this. I didn't want do this at first because I thought that there's a tracking system of requests. But several days passed and nobody has touched this page. When I saw another advertisement (about oversight request) I just did the same. Notice: without positive appeal. Infovarius (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've got the wrong of it there Jasper. Check the definition on EN of canvassing. --Izno (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Infovarius: That was your fault because you forgot to transclude the page like explained in the description for new RFA pages. ;-) I did that for you yesterday. In fact, nobody had the chance to see your request. @The PC section: I also wouldn't recommend you to advertise any of your permission requests anywhere except on the corresponding RFP page itself. We already had at least 2 candidates who failed with their RFP solely for that reason. If you transclude your page correctly, it also appears automatically in the watchlist notice, by the way. :-) For CU and OS request such advertising is required by global policy, though. Kind regards, Vogone talk 17:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, just to know: I can't find anywhere a word about such transclusion (Wikidata:Administrators, Wikidata:Requests for permissions in en, ru...) Please give a link to the instruction. Infovarius (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Click. It appears on the RFP page preload. Vogone talk 15:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have decided to make my final decision here an oppose because 1 - the candidate is badgering opposes, which I don't like, and 2 - transclusions is something that goes without saying if you are observant enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose per above, Sorry.now  Neutral. I think both opinion is true.--DangSunM (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Enough opposes have been filed to let me know that this might not pass. I think that the message has been sent, so this is my moral support to Infovarius to improve on those areas mentioned above, and keep doing the good work s/he does. — ΛΧΣ21 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/Infovarius&oldid=1102559095"