Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/Oversight/SoWhy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SoWhy[edit]

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi everyone, first of all let me say this: I am honored that the Arbitration Committee has decided that I may run in this election amongst such high-profile and long-time users.

As those regular to RfA and deletion related areas probably have noticed, following my RfA I have taken an interest in the speedy deletion policy on this project, being one of the more active admins in this area in both patrolling it and discussion. I am also (according to the page-contributions tool) the most active admin at WP:RFPP. Lately I have also taken a minor interest in clerking WP:CHU and attempting to bring saved articles from CSD patrolling to DYK (worked with one so far with two more currently nominated :-)

While patrolling CAT:CSD I have come across multiple pages with information that needed to be oversighted and all my requests were granted. I think having the tool myself will integrate seamlessly into this area of adminship I am active in. In all my time on Wikipedia, I hope I have demonstrated to be a calm, civil and communicative person when dealing with any issue that I have been confronted with and I have done my best to avoid the drama that befalls Wikipedia far too often. I think this allows me to serve in such a sensitive area of the project where the privacy of individuals is affected.

In real life, I am 25 year old law student from Munich, Germany, which makes my time zone CET/CEST (UTC+1/+2). My online time varies but I am usually quick to respond to mails which I monitor at any time I am at work, university or at home.

Last but not least: Elections such as this one will always attract opposition for everyone running. I do not expect anything else here. But, if I may, I would like to ask those who oppose this candidacy to add a brief reason or tell me on my talk page why they chose to do so. After all, if any mistakes I made or make made you vote in such a way, I can only seek to address and learn from them if I know what they are. Also, please feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page or via e-mail. Regards SoWhy 10:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for SoWhy[edit]

  • Question from Aitias (added 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
    • A.: To be completely honest: I was quite surprised when I saw who my "competition" was. When I decided to run for this, I never, ever thought it would be against such experienced and respected users, all of them senior to me in terms of adminship and on-wiki experience. So no, I do not think I am better qualified than any of them but then again, this is for the community to decide.
      Why they should elect me then? Good question. As pointed out above and in my first statement, I am both one of the "new guys" when it comes to administrating Wikipedia and someone who has so far successfully avoided to be caught up in any drama at all. I think the tool in question needs to be given to candidates who have demonstrated that they will never, ever make a rash decision in the heat of the moment because deleting a revision has a negative side to it as well as a positive. Naturally, it serves to protect privacy of individuals, which should be one of our most important tasks (after all, this project should serve to help people, not hurt them). On the other side, deleting revisions makes work harder for admins because it denies them certain information they might need to assess problematic behavior (and some admins might even feel a bit insulted that they are not trusted to see such information). I have hopefully demonstrated with my administrative record that I am able to be calm and drama-free when it comes to performing such actions and I think this is something that is very important for performing in this role.
  • Question from Porturology (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I would like to ask a biographical question which you are of course free to ignore without prejudice. I note that you are a 25 year old Law student in Munich but is English your first language and heritage? I ask this because in my few dealings with you I have noticed that your formal English is perfect but I feel you have occasionally missed the nuances of the language (certainly from the viewpoint of a slightly older Anglo-Celt medical practitioner in country Australia)[reply]
    • A.: It is neither, which explains these problems you have noticed. My heritage is Austrian-Italian (my name is completely Italian for example) actually, my first language is German, with (now rusty) Italian my second one. I learnt English from the internet actually and I have done much work in English-language communities (even semi-professional support work) to learn the language. But nuances of languages can not or only with great difficulties be transferred into online communications and although I prefer to watch almost all films and shows in English if I can, I have not grasped all nuances and subtleties yet (and I doubt I ever will).
  • Question from Mailer Diablo 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
    • A.: This is a hard question to answer in general. I do not think that the OS policy can be gamed easily because either an edit does need to be oversighted, then it's irrelevant who requested it, or it doesn't. I would really like to request some examples to understand what kind of behavior you imagine as such "gaming".
  • Question from TomStar81 (Talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC): In you candidate statement you penned the following: "...I would like to ask those who oppose this candidacy to add a brief reason or tell me on my talk page why they chose to do so. After all, if any mistakes I made or make made you vote in such a way, I can only seek to address and learn from them if I know what they are." To me, this is a sign of great maturity; one who acknowledges that he or she is imperfect and asks for his or her fellow contributors to provide examples of the things in need of correction is one who is ready to be entrusted with additional responsibility. However, if I may, I would like to ask why you and you alone have stated this, and what measures you would take if such information was provided to you?[reply]
    • A.: First of all, thanks. As for the questions, I have no idea why the other candidates have not stated this explicitly but I do have trust that they are equally wishing to understand why someone would not trust them with such responsibility in case they can do something to improve their behavior and/or gain that trust in a later election/discussion/etc. I have asked this explicitly because ArbCom related elections are somehow exempted from Wikipedia not being a democracy and thus people voting (not "!voting") in these elections do not have to explain their reasoning - which I think is an unfortunate idea because it does not place a burden on voters to justify their vote but allows them to easily vote based on ILIKEHIM/ILIKEHER / IDONTLIKEHIM/IDONTLIKEHER which does not help the candidate at all.
      I have asked this because I have so far tried my best to address mistakes I made and I wanted to do the same here. If someone does not trust me, I am eager to understand why they don't because it might be a mistake I made, a misunderstanding, a difference of opinions etc. If it's something I can address, I am equally eager to try and do so. For example: Two voters who opposed me so far have provided such reasons for me to understand. One of them was based on a fundamental difference in opinions on how to handle speedy deletions (which as any difference of opinions is not a "mistake"). The other one was a valid concern raised over my work at WP:RFPP which I will try to take to heart. I had hoped for more people to do so but unfortunately, only two editors took the time (which I appreciate a lot).
(comment moved from vote section) With your answer to my question you have earned this vote. Endeavor to take good care of it, as I do not issue a vote for these responsibilities lightly. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of SoWhy[edit]

  2. Strongest possible support. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongly. iMatthew talk at 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vicenarian (T · C) 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Aqwis (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Mentifisto 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ~ Ameliorate! 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. —Animum (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ThemFromSpace 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ~fl 06:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Without reservations MLauba (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Offliner (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Aditya (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. LittleMountain5 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ian¹³/t 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Barras (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, per my talk page, I am ineligible to vote in this elections. --Barras (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. — Ched :  ?  21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ceranthor 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Of course. Pmlineditor 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Pim Rijkee (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election, you do not have sufficient mainspace edits before the cut off.---Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. ~ mazca talk 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Taelus (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Caspian blue 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. FASTILY (TALK) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. decltype (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. RayTalk 07:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Ysangkok (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support ≈ Chamal talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Synchronism (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Calwatch (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50.    7   talk | Δ |   21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strongly FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. tedder (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Polargeo (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. AlexiusHoratius 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Junk Police (reports|works) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, ineligible in this election; less than 150 mainspace edits prior to June 15. Risker (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  60. Alio The Fool 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. —Terrence and Phillip 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. 2help (message me) 04:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. hmwitht 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Whitehorse1 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to SoWhy[edit]

  2. JamieS93 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prodego talk 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (X! · talk)  · @068  ·  00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pzrmd (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jehochman Talk 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Javerttalk 04:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. - Kevin (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  14. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. BrianY (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. iridescent 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Alexfusco5 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Triplestop x3 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Vote indented as user is not eligible to vote this time. Sorry. Risker (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Earfetish1 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Vote indented as user is not eligible to vote this time. Sorry. Risker (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Joopercoopers (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Star Garnet (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. WJBscribe (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Stephen 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Cxz111 (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Joe (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. BJTalk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/SoWhy&oldid=1144518682"