Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Infovarius
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]
Vote
RfP scheduled to end after 20 September 2013 17:19 (UTC)
- Infovarius (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
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]- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
PreliminaryOppose. 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]
- 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]
- @Infovarius: That was your fault because you forgot to transclude the page like explained in the description for new RFA pages.
- 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]
- Also, this might be construed as canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, Sorry.now Neutral. I think both opinion is true.--DangSunM (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]- 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 RfA was created on Sep 13 and is due to be closed today. On the other hand, it was only transcluded on Sep 17. Shuld we allow it to run till Sep 24?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to close it today as the RFP start doesn't depend on the transclusion (rather the signature) and this RFP is unlikely to pass anyway, even with an extension for 4 days. Regards, Vogone talk 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let us close it today (unless the two fellow crats have strong opinions on the matter).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to close it today as the RFP start doesn't depend on the transclusion (rather the signature) and this RFP is unlikely to pass anyway, even with an extension for 4 days. Regards, Vogone talk 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]