Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eurodyne

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Withdrawn by user. -Barras talk 16

29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Eurodyne (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 06:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been a fairly active member of the simplewiki community for over a year now, and feel like I could really use the admin tools well. I've racked up 3900+ edits and have been reverting vandalism since day one on the project. Before coming here, I've had a couple of troubles along the way, but I hope we can put these issues behind us after many months of productive editing. I've created 50+ pages and have participated in DYK. I usually idle in #wikipedia-simple ^connect and #cvn-simplewikis ^connect and ask for admin actions there. Having the tools, I could delete bad pages and block abusive users myself.

Candidate's acceptance:

1. Support - an active editor who could make good use of the extra tools.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I have been very inactive on simple, but have checked user's edits and agree with Peterdownunder that he would make a good admin. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support an active user who I believe has a good knowledge of wiki policy's and standards and a lot of experience fighting vandalism.--Druddigon (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. extremely weak support I guess eurodyne was not experienced enough. I can understand that.--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 12:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - An obvious net positive to give Eurodyne the tools. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't see any reason to oppose. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 04:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support en:WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Definitely solid patrolling work, but unfortunately I don't think you have had enough experience with community processes and participation in the community in general, all the more so when the editor community here is small enough to be in the low double digits. Chenzw  Talk  14:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Extremely weak oppose - I think Eurodyne would do great with the tools, but "massive deception" alarms me.--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 18:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)moved to support--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. I think the relative lack of experience, and the "massive deception" incident (only just over a year ago) tip the balance, so I now vote against. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per the w:User:Akifumii incident, for me, compromising this user's credibility. I also think Eurodyne needs to have contributed more before becoming an administrator. --Rubbish computer (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. While I agree with Chenzw that Eurodyne has been doing good work, the incident on the English Wikipedia and the sanctions (which are, to my knowledge, still in place) are concerning and I would have serious reservations about the candidate holding any advanced permissions at this time, especially since I still have concerns about his maturity and hat collecting. Administrator permissions have a high potential for abuse and so, in my opinion, require a candidate to demonstrate a strong track record of community participation, maturity and trustworthiness; I am not convinced Eurodyne fulfills these criteria. I would be open to supporting in the future, but not at this point. -Mh7kJ (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong oppose per above. Eurodyne has not demonstrated and continues to fail to demonstrate the requisite maturity, and still has issues with hat collection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Macdonald-ross and Chenzw and Jasper all sum up what I was going to say. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What administrative actions have you seen that you would have handled differently, and what would you have done? (It's OK if it was something I did!) --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What areas of admin work do you feel most ready to handle? What areas do you feel least ready to handle? Are there any areas you prefer not to handle at all? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When do you think pages should be protected? When should they not be protected? Answer for both semi-protection and full protection. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the admin team here does a great job with handling the wiki and keeping it clean. I do feel however that the administrators should pay more attention to places like WP:RFP and Category:Requests for unblock. I often find requests sitting in those pages for a couple of weeks before being attended to. I've been reverting vandalism for a long time now and feel very comfortable blocking abusive editors/IPs and deleting bad pages. I have had past experience on the Simple English Wiktionary, as an administrator. I resigned a few months ago due to inactivity. Overall, I feel pretty comfortable with the admin toolset but I do prefer not to get involved with MediaWiki and the JavaScript part of the wiki. I know I don't have experience in that area, so I won't touch it. Pages should be semi-protected to solve repeated vandalism on a certain page. Full protection on pages should be used on high-traffic pages that are likely to get vandalized, for example the main page. Full protection can also be used for a short period of time to stop an edit war (which I have not witnessed here) and to prevent abuse of the talk page by blocked users. eurodyne (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You used the phrase "editors/IPs". When, if ever, do you think it's appropriate to treat unregistered editors (IPs) differently from registered ones? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe in Wikipedia:IPs are human too from enwiki. I always assume good faith before making a decision or action. I believe that IPs are just as good as editors and shouldn't be treated differently because they are represented as a "number". Adding to that, IPs still do need to follow policy and make constructive edits to the project. eurodyne (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good viewpoint. There is, however, one time when we do treat IP editors differently. Since we can't be sure all edits under a given IP address are from the same person, we have be more cautious giving final warnings and blocking. Warnings are directed at the person, not the IP address, so if enough time has gone by after issuing a final warning, we don't block the next time the IP vandalizes. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the input. eurodyne (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Time for some classic vandal-fighting questions:

You see vandalism/other edit and obviously revert/delete it. What warningactions do you take if:

• it is a deliberate error like "the Shanghai Tower is in the US" an IP has no other edits?
• Newly created account User:I promote thiscompany, Inc. creates page thiscompany Inc.saying: "this company is the best company. The sales are very high" and stuff like that. What do you do?
• You just blocked a user as WP:VOA. An account named User:eurodyne sucks says: "eurodyne is the worst admin".
• I start vandalizing randomly. What do you do?(don't actually do it!:-))--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 21:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• an IP editor with many other edits?
• an autoconfirmed user with fewer than 100 edits?

Please also state any other accounts you have.--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 21:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by question one. Can you rephrase/elaborate on it? For question two, I'd delete the page and block the editor for a violation of the username policy. For the third situation, block per the username policy obviously. If you started vandalizing randomly, I'd be very suspicious if the person in control of your account was actually you. I'd drop a note (or two) on your talk page, and then assume the account was compromised. Your account would receive an indefinite block until everything is sorted out. An IP editor with many other edits? I'd still take the same procedure as any other IP, give warnings, etc. then block for x amount of time. Autoconfirmed user? Pretty much the same steps I would take if you were to vandalize. eurodyne (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I did miss a question! Other accounts? As I did mention in my statement, I did have a few bumps in the road before getting here. My first account was User:Akifumii and I made a few edits under that account on simple. It was blocked on enwiki about a year ago. I know of one other account User:Xermano (also blocked on enwiki one year ago) which never made any contributions to simplewiki. There may have been a couple others, but I know that they were never created here. eurodyne (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: What would you do if this ip adress was vandalizing past 4th warning (hint: read w:WP:SIP)?--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on the w:User:Akifumii incident?--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 18:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3 of Diamonds: Consider the following:

• I came to Wikimedia a year ago and found myself very clueless at first.
• None of these issues have ever been brought over to simplewiki.
• I've been unblocked on enwiki for a good while now and have been doing good work since.

• I'll wait for the response, then cast my vote.--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 21:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• My thoughts have not yet quite crystallised. I see Eurodyne as a competent editor who does good work, and I trust him. I think he is still a bit thin on experience. Many who join us here underestimate how very different this wiki is from the English wiki. That goes for the admins also. The way they work here is very different from En wiki. So for me, I want to see editors with a big wedge of contributions before they get admin rights. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Much as I think Eurodyne is a brilliant editor, and one who I already thought was an admin, I agree with Macdonald-ross and will also be staying neutral until all of the questions have been answered. --Rubbish computer (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now made my decision. --Rubbish computer (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Eurodyne is a good editor and has had a positive influence on this wiki since being here. I was not aware of the "massive deception" incident, but it is all the more to his credit to have turned this around. Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates says one year since any such behavior and it has been longer. Still, I think an admin candidate should have a stronger edit history and more varied experience. I would also like to see more evidence of familiarity with referencing. A sysop has to deal with a wide variety of situations and editors. For these reasons I'm still undecided about this nomination. Updated User:Rus793 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Looks like this is going nowhere. I withdraw. eurodyne (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.