Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 30 September 2007

Samulili

Voice your opinion (talk page) (26/6/1); Scheduled to end 07:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Samulili (talk · contribs) - I've been a Wikipedian since 2004. I'm an admin on a couple of projects, mostly in the Finnish Misplaced Pages and Commons. I only have some 1000+ edits in en-wiki (including my now abandoned username EnSamulili).

I request adminship so that I could better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. I'd rather do checking and fixing than putting images for deletion because they lack a proper source. Samulili 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I admit that I don't have much experience of the English Misplaced Pages nor will I ever have, and I confess that I would not be a very productive admin. On the other hand, I definitely would not be in anyway a disturbance. But for the kind of janitorial work that I'd like to help with, admin tools are necessary. Samulili 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Fixing image transfers from en-wiki to Commons.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: Say's law for which I had good source material. Not being an economist, however, I could only do so much. Other than that, I have been asking some good questions.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can't remember any serious conflicts nor stress. Recently there was a nasty "pest" at bureaucracy and I had to revert him a couple of times. I wasn't the only one reverting him and eventually the page was semi-protected by admins. On en-wiki, I rely on the latin phrase "festina lente" when I'm in a dispute.

4. You say I request adminship so that I could better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. Please explain how en:WP's administrators' superpowers (or janitorial powers) help them do this. (Hoary 08:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

A: That is a good question and I'm glad to elaborate. En-wiki is the largest receiver of new images and later many of those images are moved to Commons. Moving to Commons is often done in a wrong way by those who are not familiar with copyright issues or with Commons. The link above shows one example where there is no proper source. I believe that the proper source is Image:Chrysalis5504.jpg but without being an admin I have no way to check that. It is possible that "someone else" will fix the sourcing before the image is deleted - but with 2,000,000 images on Commons and a handful of admins, that is not likely. In short, between saving and deleting a file, I'd rather save. As things are now, I'm sometimes only able to delete. Samulili 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps merely because I'm sleepy, I don't understand. this tells us that at 07:08, 16 April 2005 Fanghong uploaded it to Commons with the comment "from en wiki Taken by Pollinator". This tells us that at 07:08, 16 April 2005 Fanghong uploaded it with the comment "from en wiki Taken by Pollinator". It's certainly odd that a file at en:WP attributes the file to en:WP. That aside, let's imagine for a moment that this wasn't en:WP but instead was fi:WP: that a file at Commons was claimed to be from fi:WP and that the same file at fi:WP was claimed to be from fi:WP -- and at the same time, to the minute. As an administrator of fi:WP, what would you do (or what additional information would you examine)? -- Hoary 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The file is not on en:WP anymore, what you are seeing at en:WP is an image on Commons (on en:WP the "File" text at the top of the page is red). It may have been here with the same name and it may have been uploaded originally by Pollinator and be his original work, but I'd like to check that by checking the history of the deleted file. Samulili 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from nat

4. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A:

5. If you ran into an editor, who had an extreme POV, and yet this individual was not committing vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this editor?

A:

General comments

• See Samulili's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Samulili: Samulili (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Links for EnSamulili: EnSamulili (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Samulili before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - question comes down to; can they be trusted with the admin bit? They're already trusted with it, both on commons and on fiwiki (I verified both), and have been for some time. As far as I'm concerned, it's procedural and No Big Deal - Alison 07:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support As per Alison. This user can be trusted with the tools. Pursey 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. No big deal. Rettetast 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental, don't see any problems here. I don't envisage Samulili would even want to get involved in areas such as blocking or ANI disputes, so his lack of experience in such areas is irrelevant. Neil ム 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental. Thanks for Q4 answer. Good luck and Godspeed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Sounds sensible enough; a quick glance through the contributions didn't show anything really significant enough for me to oppose. - TwoOars (Rev) 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per Neil, editor is trusted on the commons and has a valid requirement. Addhoc 12:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I know this user from Commons, and I'm confident that he would use his tools to the benefit of this project. In my experience Samulili is a polite, careful and professional editor, who would not misuse sysop-tools. Finn Rindahl 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - a reasonable amount of experience on en, but this user has been trusted as an administrator on the Finnish Misplaced Pages and on Commons. The user's proposed work would be beneficial to both en and to Commons. Warofdreams talk 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - Demonstrates a request for very specific tools to carry out a worthy function few others will help with. Hiberniantears 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Suomi sisu. No reason not too. Ronnotel 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Already trusted with tools. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - It's about trust. He's gained the trust elsewhere. There's no reason to assume he'd go rogue here. He lacks experience, yes, but he's got one administrative task in mind, which he is experienced in. The work he'll do with images will decrease the work load on existing admins. Lack of experience won't play a role in his adminship as long as he's not working in areas he doesn't know. LaraLove 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    Well said! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Hmn. Candidate has been editing since February 2006 without any incidents, and that puts him/her in my good book. I'm an oftentimes enthusiastic supporter, and I'll stick to my default support in this case. But even if we're strictly going to apply the only relevant criterion of trustability, I can understand people opposing you on the grounds of too low editing experience. Strike that BS. You're doing valuable work and I absolutely trust you're not going to abuse the tools in any way. — aldebaer⁠ 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
15. No convincing reason to oppose. If he rarely uses the tools, that's fine. Acalamari 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support; he has already shown he knows the tools, and there is no reason to mistrust him. The fact that the tools will be used for exactly one purpose, or infrequently, does not mean he has no use for them. — Coren  18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - Yeah, sure, no problem! Editor is trusted and respected. Doesn't need 436498 edits to make him a good editor. Take care. Scarian 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support, editor seems trustworthy enough. May not be the most active here on enwiki but the question not if I think they would be a big asset but whether they've earned trust - and I'll say sure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Although not much experience on the en-wiki, has a good reason, and is trusted elsewhere. Lemonflash_{(O_o)} 22:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Doesn't have a great amount of experience in en:WP and doesn't need it: he's proved his stuff at fi:WP and at Commons. Being an administrator here may help him do some good work here and will certainly be of great help to him in his laudable work at Commons. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Being an administrator on other Wikipedias is good enough for me. Captain panda 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Kannatan. A trusted editor wants to check deleted images here so that they can be retained on Commons, benefiting en.wiki and all other WMF wikis? I don't see where this would be such a bad idea. No, Samulili may not have enough experience here to deal with all of the complex administrative issues, but I trust that xe will not be involved in any of those issues and will use the permission only to do the image work outlined above. WODUP 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support per User:Alison. We need more people willing to do unglamorous work. Ƶ§œš¹ 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. He's already a trusted administrator on two other Wikimedia projects, and is experienced in and willing to work on our perennially backlogged image categories -- his help is definitely welcome. --krimpet⟲ 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. His rationale makes sense. My limited research on other Wikipedias shows that 1. He's very productive over at Commons, about 500 edits per month, 2. He's an established contributor on the Finnish Misplaced Pages, though edits less often there. He hasn't been blocked in either place. He has what appear to be the Finnish equivalent of barnstars on his user page. If he were a holy terror at Commons I assume that would show up on his Commons user talk, which seems rather peaceful. Someone who knows Finnish and can read his Finnish User talk might enlighten us further. EdJohnston 21:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support per Alison and per Bobet (comment below in response to an oppose). Seems like he might make very good use of the tools. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry. Allthough you've been here a while sub 500 sub 1100 edits(between the two user names) doesn't cut it barely cuts it - I have little positive to judge you on. Also your answers to the questions are very weak, an I.P. translcuded this which I find....odd, you didn't even leave edit summaries when creating the RfA and assuming the I.P. is you no edit summary on transclusion, but mostly the moment I looked at your contributions I saw this Putting "bollocks" in an edit summary is a big no-way for an administrator. Pedro :  Chat  07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   I've heard far worse terms than that, to be honest. Given the British English usage of that word meaning 'nonsense', it's not all that bad - Alison 07:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (doesn't use it herself!)

   I also checked the IP transclude before I gave my support; it's in Turku, Finland - Alison 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   (ec'd) I know Alison, given I live there! I take note of your support above, and whilst that did make me think positive thoughts I still found the tone of the edit summary overly harsh. And I think we've had precedent that just because someone is an admin on another wiki(s) that doesn't really make it procedural to be an admin on en. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, which is why I said, "As far as I'm concerned ..."; there's no consensus on that and it's down to individuals to comment and judge accordingly. As both of us have :) - Alison 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   Considering we've got admins cussing like drunk sailors unprovoked in very uncivil edit summaries, I don't think "bullocks" is something to hold against anyone. LaraLove 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   With respect the actions of others has no bearing on this RfA. Edit summaries are a place to summarise edits. Not complex. Using them for swearing / blasphemy / incivilty / taking a swipe at other editors etc. are not what I want to see in an administrator of this project, and I'm disapointed in the editor concerned in the examples you have given. However the relevant thing here is that I was less than pleased to see that in this candidates contribution history. This RfA will pass anyway for sure, but I'm not prepared to offer support to someone who feels the need to take that tone. I might go Neutral after reflecting further, in view of his expanded reasoning in Q4 and the undoubted good work he intends to use the buttons for, but at the moment I'm afraid it still riles me. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   NB he doesn't say that an edit was bollocks, he says that an infobox is bollocks. Further, this is a bonus addition to his main description, which, after minor editing, is: I want a SOURCE for this. All this as an edit summary for an edit consisting of the addition of a single SOURCE tag. Never mind the bollocks, I say. -- Hoary 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   Exactly. As above, it was not just the use of the word bollocks, it was the overall tone implied in the edit summary that was particularly jarring. Pedro :  Chat  15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   It didn't jar with me. Actually I didn't fully understand it, but if he's suggesting that the "need" for biographical gimmickboxes is bollocks, he has my full agreement. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per the above concern. I feel that you lack experience in this project. I suggest you try again after a few months and you will definitely have my support. --Siva1979 08:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. This editor has been around a long time, but it not active enough for my taste. Only 132 edits in the last 6 months (between the two accounts). While is is definitely true that we could use some more admins who want to deal with images, making someone who is only semi-active an admin doesn't sit right with me. Useight 14:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not enough experience.--MONGO 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose A good editor but not a particularly active one. -Icewedge 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Around 1000 edits--not enough. Not very well thought out answers to questions. More interested in deleting images than actually building the project. OrangeMarlin 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   I see no sign that he wants to delete images willy nilly. He has a very commendable desire to delete images of fictional provenance or with spurious licensing, and more power to him. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

   He states in his answer he's more interested in saving images than deleting them. A lot of admins here aren't too familiar with the commons policies or anything related to commons (as shown by the followup question by Hoary in Q4, who didn't at first notice that the image description page on en-wiki is just a mirror of the commons description page), and therefore images that are moved to commons improperly and tagged with csd-i8 sometimes get deleted too hastily. In those cases, having someone who's an admin both in here and in commons can check the deleted history here and see how the original upload was tagged and see if it really is suitable for commons. If not, he might still restore the image here, if it would qualify under some fair use criteria. - Bobet 11:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, well said. -- Hoary 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Useight. With such a small level of activity as of late, the candidate doesn't have the experience required for me to trust them with the tools. Adminship on other sites is a moot point, as is all off-wiki activity. VanTucky 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Just not enough experience yet. Jmlk17 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I reckon I could trust this user, although I do hold reservations given English Misplaced Pages is so vastly different to other Wikipedias (one only has to look at some of the more notable ANI debates - IRC, civility blocks, deletion process, Arbitration Committee, etc.) that your inexperience may cause some issues. A generic sitting-on-the-fence comment here. Daniel 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)