Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smith609

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Because this was in the discretionary range, I've offered an obligatory statement about this close.

According to the percentage, this RFA is at 76%, smack dab in the middle. As a result I carefully examined the oppose and neutral !votes. Disturbingly, several users saw it fit to oppose because of the "lack of a need for the tools." This should not be so; an oppose of this sort is so vague as to offer no constructive criticism to the candidate, nor does it indicate a serious concern in the user's ability or conduct. Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course.

Other edit summaries pointed at his use of edit summaries and minor edits. It should be clear that both are actually optional, though highly encouraged. The fact that Smith609 was willing to examine his own behavior in this regard, and opposes based on hesitancy to adapt were not particularly compelling as a result.

Based on these judgments of the opposition points, I feel that there is enough reason to close this RFA as successful. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smith609[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final: (69/22/3); closed by bibliomaniac15 at 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smith609 (talk · contribs) – Bot operator (Citation bot, User:Anybot); also contributes to palaeontology and biology articles and templates (such as the citation templates) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments below, I felt I should expand on my introduction:

I'm Martin, a graduate student working in paleontology. I started editing Wikipedia as much of its coverage of paleontology was either absent or inaccurate. The two areas of weakness with which I have been most involved with have been articles on paleontology and biology; and referencing. I like to think that I have played some small part in the the significant improvements in these areas. I have also developed some bots to help out in these areas; the most significant being Citation bot, which I continue to hone when I get the opportunity. As my studies encroach into my free time, I find myself with less time to devote to improvements, yet my research brings me across more and more areas which my expertise could benefit. I have recently been encountering instances where I have had to request or wait for administrative intervention relatively frequently - in uncontroversial page moves, or when my experiments with templates or bots produce pages which require subsequent deletion. It would save me - and other admins - a considerable amount of time if I were able to perform these routine tasks myself. A current feature of the Citation bot also needs a little improvement, and this testing involves creating new pages; if I can't delete these pages myself I am creating a lot of extra work for admins and I don't feel that this use of resources is really justifiable. In rare occasions, bots may be blocked because they contain a bug; bug fixing often requires me to perform test edits, and if I have to wait an hour for an unblock it can mean the difference between getting the bot fixed immediately and having to wait a couple of weeks. For these reasons it would allow me to use my time more efficiently if I had access to administrative tools. I do not currently involve myself in areas of policy dispute, and don't see myself using the tools in this context. While I do not intend to use my tools much, I feel that they will increase my productivity and allow me to take on more editing than I could without them. I hope you will consider my track record to demonstrate the trustworthiness, maturity and reliability necessary for the tools I request, and that you will recognise my occasional hastiness as symptomatic of somebody ambitious to achieve the maximum possible in limited time.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (self-nomination)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

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

A: I only intend to perform relatively minor admin tasks in the following categories:

Mainly, minor edits (protection, unblocking my own bots) associated with fixing bugs with my bots. I have little free time for bot improvements; on rare occasions where my bot needs blocking or a page needs protecting, I am unable to fix the bug until an admin has unblocked/unprotected the affected bot/page. This means I waste my bot-fixing time twiddling my thumbs. I would only use these tools with utmost discretion when they were essential to speed up the bug-fixing process; I only envisage needing them very rarely, but when I do they would be of great use to me.

In addition, I often find minor edits (e.g. uncontroversial page moves over redirect pages; editprotected requests from other users) which I have to request admin intervention for, which often sit waiting for a long time - this can be frustrating at times. I would only use admin tools when other people requested them; I think it's useful to have to propose edits and have them checked by other users in the case of highly-used templates. As I am occasionally prone to rushing edits without thorough testing, I would only use administrative actions on my own 'improvements' after clear consensus from other editors suggested their implementation.

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

A: Many of my contributions have involved the better formatting of references, which I like to think makes it easier to add references and improves the verifiability of wikipedia. The unification of output from the Template:Citation and Template:Cite journal series of templates was a large undertaking which has minimised the incompatibility between these templates and made metadata more widely available. I have also made significant improvements to WP's coverage of Palaeontology, including writing a FA (Ediacara biota) and much more editing (e.g. WP:CEX).

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: Yes - the most recent example which springs to mind is at Talk:Clade. I feel it's important to deal with such situations with the utmost of calm and civility, and to try and take the other person's point of view. I feel that administrative rights enhance the responsibility of the user to be accountable for their actions and present a dignified public face of WP, so will exert even more caution to cause the minimum of offence. I feel that the use of administrative tools to 'fix' a conflict is rather unsatisfactory; it's much better to address the concerns of the grieved party so they don't feel that they're being 'silenced'.

Additional questions from Looie496

4. What's the story behind the User:Verisimilus account?

I started under the pseudonym Verisimilus to remain anonymous, but eventually decided that I was happy to be held accountable for my editing, and felt that the transparency of a 'real-name' username was more respectable than a tongue-twisting alias. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from S Marshall

5. Hypothetical situation. You're closing an AfD. The article is about something unfamiliar to you—say, Eskimo Marital Customs, or something. The deletion nomination just says: "Not notable". Beneath that you have seven "Delete" !votes—two "Delete per nom" from ordinary users, two "Not notable" from ordinary users, one "Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability" from an ordinary user, one "Delete this NN cruft" from an IP address, and a 500-word reply citing three policies, two guidelines and an essay from an admin that finishes with "Strong delete". Beneath that you have three "Keep" !votes: one from the article's primary author whose rationale boils down to pleading rather than policy, one from an IP address that says "Keep, notability has been established" and one from an ordinary user who's rewritten the article with an extra source from the BBC and feels the article is now properly-sourced and notable. Beneath that you have a "Trim and Merge to List of Exotic Marital Customs" from an ordinary user who doesn't elaborate.—How do you close?

Without familiarity with the subject material I wouldn't feel qualified to get involved in this situation, and I don't really plan to get involved in such scenarios. However I appreciate that with administrative rights it would be possible for me to be involved in such a case at some point in the future; if I did feel compelled to be involved with this situation, I would feel a responsibility to establish for myself the notability - or otherwise - of the topic. If the weight of evidence others had presented, added to that which I could find myself, suggested non-notability, then I would consider a merge of the content into an existing article to be preferable to than deleting the content outright. If no editor came forwards to perform this merge, I would feel that the onus would be on me to perform it as best I could, before deleting the article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Toddst1

6. Why do you inappropriately mark most of your edits as minor? sample diff. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute and signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version.

The short answer is that I have the 'mark edits as minor' preference set 'on' by default. Often I only untick the box too late. Also, I had considered a 'minor edit' as 'an edit which isn't major', which covers the majority of my edits. I assume that you quoted an official definition; under the light of this, I've turned off the 'mark edits as minor by default' option, so will mark more edits as major; thanks for pointing that out to me! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Why is your edit summary usage so poor? It's 29% on what you call minor edits.

I tend to be quite pressed for time; as such I only tend to use edit summaries when I feel an edit needs explaining. With the 'popups' tool, it's very easy for editors to see what edit I made; as the majority of edits are additions of simple facts or references, I don't feel that they necessitate separate explanation. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the comments below, I have come to appreciate that many editors find edit summaries a lot more valuable than I had realised! I value this feedback and will increase my edit summary usage. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Clarification - I have now enabled the 'prompt if no edit summary provided' preference, and intend to provide an edit summary for every edit. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC) amended 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)][reply]

General comments[edit]

Links for Smith609: Smith609 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Smith609 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Smith609 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

I find it disappointing to see the number of opposes based on WP:NONEED reasoning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say it, but that is an opposition reasoning that happens offen. America69 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But it is a terrible rationale in my opinion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you came here expecting maturity, sensible rationales and good reasoning? Have you considered standup? :P. Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those that prefer them:
- WikiChecker edit counter
- Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support. I interacted with this editor several times in the past (when dealt with editprotect requests), and I think that he is one best template coders here. Martin will be a great asset for the project, if he is given the admin tools. Ruslik (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Smith609 has an excellent article-writing history, including FA experience. I would like to see an opinion from Philcha, one of our best editors, with whom Smith609 has interacted very extensively, but barring any developments I see no reason not to support. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No problems here. How he intends to use the tools isn't a concern. Jd027 (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Looie596. -down load | sign! 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Could use edit summaries more, but that's not a reason to oppose/go neutral. The only intending to perform minor tasks isn't a problem, it isn't like we have a minimum level of administrative activity required. Esteffect (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed my support to weak per a reply to an oppose vote, stating that he did not know that "no consensus" is an option in AFD closure. This suggests that the user perhaps doesn't know enough about policy, but I'll still support. Esteffect (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Works for me. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Erik9 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough Lets drink Tea 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good history + will be a net positive = support. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the answer to question one a few times, and Smith609 didn't say he was just going to use the tools just to help out with his bots: he added in the second part that he would use the tools to help out with small tasks, and when other users need admin assistance. Even if he was just going to use them for his bots, then that would be useful as he wouldn't have to get admins to do what he needs doing (and have to explain things to them), but as he's said he will do other tasks, and him being able to do them would save time as, again, he wouldn't need to get hold of an admin to do them for him, then I think giving Smith609 the tools will be positive. In addition, Smith609 is a good content contributor, which is a bonus combined with him being a bot-owner. Acalamari 21:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good contributor, but lack of edit summaries kinda scares me. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure, why not. Not seen anything worrying. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whatever makes Wikipedia run more smoothly. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — He has a good reason to have the sysop tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked and I don't recall us having any negative interactions either. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If he only uses the tools once, he will benefit the project and as such I have no problem supporting someone who plans to only do administrative duties casually. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wizardman 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support my rationale can be found at Oppose section--Caspian blue 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per above. South Bay (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the_undertow ^talk 03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -- Fastily (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything I've seen says 'yes', nothing says 'no'. Smith will make a fine administrator. LK (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I was happy with the work you did with AnyBot and fixing the various bugs with it, you were responsive and polite to the concerns that were raised and showed good sense. I can see how admin tools will be useful to you, even in a fairly minor way, and am happy for you to have them. I do acknowledge Toddst's concerns in the oppose section though - I'd definitely request that you improve your edit-summary usage and mark only genuinely minor edits as such. It's certainly a valid concern that I hope you'll take on board, but I don't personally consider it a deal-breaker to getting the admin toolset. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good interaction with the user over the bugs in his bot while creating alga stubs. Someone I would trust with the tools. FingersOnRoids♫ 16:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the botmaster. Where would we be without them? Flying Toaster 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the pretty clear and focused areas he'll use the tools in, which says to me "no abuse likely". GARDEN 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Best, ₮RU CӨ 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to balance out any one of the absurd opposes. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unorthodox candidate, but he makes a reasonable case that he would benefit from having the tools, and there's no obvious evidence that he would misuse them. I would like to see him use more edit summaries, though. Robofish (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I used his Citation bot. Very nice thing.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support! I don't consider any of the oppose votes actionable. Also, excellent answer to question 5. — CharlotteWebb 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Civil, and receptive to criticism. A niche admin candidate who will clearly make things run more smoothly. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I agree with the points made in opposition, and I don't think any harm would be done by giving this candidate 3 more months to work on edit summaries and broaden his knowledge of process a bit, I think he's dedicated, knowledgeable, helpful, and careful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nooooo! By then somebody will find a valid reason to oppose. — CharlotteWebb 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No indication he will abuse the tools; no red flags. Take the suggestions regarding edit summaries to heart and you'll be fine. Tan | 39 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jake Wartenberg 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - He seems trustworthy and competant enough; I'll just go ahead and support as default. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We get a clueful, quiet, responsible editor with significant content contributions, a history of efficient collaboration, three years of involvement in the project and we're going to deny him tools that would make his life easier and take some load off our dwindling corps of active admins because people don't see a need for the tools or because he has low edit summary usage... As one of the 920 remaining active admins, I find this very frustrating. Edit summaries can be forced with a tick in the preferences: so in less time than it takes to write this sentence, that part of the problem can be solved. As for the no need for tools argument, I thought that had been completely debunked before... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good editor, with good reasons for using the tool. Now that he realises about minor edits, I see no serious objection. (And perhaps it is our fault, in letting the default be "minor"). Judging him unsuitable for that is taking it way out of proportion.DGG (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support- This user appears not to have a great need for the tools so I wasn't going to support, but I generally only oppose if I think they shouldn't be trusted with them. So I wasn't going to !vote at all. But I find myself persuaded by Pascal.Tesson's reasoning. Reyk _YO! 02:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above supports. Seems a sensible sort, with a genuine need for tools to help with his useful bots. "Minor edit" concerns are pretty minor.John Z (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – He won't abuse the tools. No harm in Martin becoming an administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Martin and I have come across each other many times over the years in the editing of the articles on Ediacaran biota. He has always acted in a mature responsible and cooperative way, and can handle intricately formatted templates and references. So I can drop in a positive referee report on him. He has taken action to improve use of edit summaries so I won't count tat a negative any more. I guess it makes it harder for us to see what he has done! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I see no issues. You would make a great admin. Good luck!--Michael (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've pondered this for a few days. Initially, I wasn't sure whether there was a real desire for the tools beyond making his bot run smoother. However, in my first few days of my own adminship, and having really appreciated the backlog that builds up of uncontroversial moves, another user to help clear those at least can't be a bad thing. I see no reason that this user will misuse the tools, and his agreement to work on his edit summaries shows that he's prepared to listen to comnments from the community; thus, I support. --Ged UK 09:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Initial need for the tools is not, in my opinion, something to be concerned about; if a candidate is good, mature, shows none of the normal problems that crop up and wants to do something helpful then there is no reason he shouldn't be given the tools. The oppose section is not convincing, and in some places is downright ridiculous (too many admins, for example. Nobody who has seen the backlogs we have in some admin-related areas would agree with that). Ironholds (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support With respect to the opposing editors, I feel that their reasons are not major problems; very few admins know it all at the start of their career. I am certain that this editor will not abuse the tools.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to lack of any logical reason to oppose. Edit summaries? REALLY? -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking their own malfunctioning bot? REALLY?. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this editor seems to have a narrow focus on where he'll use the tools and given that, and taking him at his word, no worries - even the edit summaries and other issues by the "opposers" don't sway me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? "The user didn't leave edit summaries" is a very weak reason to oppose. This is a good contributor to Wikipedia, no evidence that the user will misuse the tools. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no reason to believe he will misuse the tools. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - has a experience, has a clue and has a need for the tools. These are way more important than edit summaries and minor edits, which he can change with a click of mouse, as he has already shown himself willing to do.--Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a great user, and has shown himself to be responsive to the Wikipedia community in this very RfA. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no reason to suppose he will misuse the tools and it seems they will be of use to him even if not in the conventional way. |→ Spaully^₪† 17:14, 25 March 2009 (GMT)
Support - being able to unblock his bots after debugging should not be an issue, and he doesn't strike me as someone who'll be jumping in to resolve debates without reviewing the relevant policies first. (Why _do_ we have a "mark all edits as minor" option, anyway?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support iMatthew // talk // 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Martin does a lot of behind-the-scenes technical work that will be more efficient with the admin tools. He was very helpful and patient with my initial blundering about at Cambrian explosion. We've worked together on other articles, we've quite often started with different ideas, but we've always managed to resolve issues and often to have a laugh in the process. If / when Martin gets involved in the more controversial admin duties like AfD and blocking / unblocking, I'm sure the same qualities will be much appreciated by those involved. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine as long as you use edit summaries more often. LITTLE MOUNTAIN 5 ^review! 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stable editor, around for some time, no big concerns i see yet, so ill give myt supportOttawa4ever (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I very much like your answer to Q3 in that the extra privledges of adminship mean that you are more responsible for you actions. fr33k man -s- 02:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a consistent and calm contributor with an obvious interest in improving Wikipedia. Please do something to improve your edit summary usage, and stop tagging so many edits as minor when they aren't. Other than that, fine by me. Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with no hesitation. Editor seems calm, collected, and fully capable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TeaDrinker.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support opposes do not go to the issue of trust. I'm sure Smith will do fine as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No blocks, civil contributor, and I'm happy that edit summary use has now been resolved. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support especially now that the edit summary/minor edit situations have been dealt with. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 11:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support believe editor is a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. --Stani Stani 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting double vote. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, I thought this page looked familiar. I have no idea what is wrong with me. *sigh* — Jake Wartenberg 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per several of the people above. Spinach Monster (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate his work on issues of academic interest. My limited experience interacting with him has been pleasant, and the answers he gave to the questions above confirm that impression. Rl (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Oppose While I can see it must be frustrating I can't agree that we give you all the tools just so you can fix your bot more quickly. There must be a better way of addressing your problem. Dean B (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I initially came to support you for your more than sufficient content building, no noticable conflict with editors, your creation and management of the useful bots. However, I oppose you because of your answer to Q1. All you say about what you're going to do with the admin tool is just matters of your bot? That does sound like you want the tool for your own business (though it serves for the community) than for the community's sake. I think you're not ready yet to have the tool or have a poor communication skill.--Caspian blue 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be good to elaborate on "poor communication skill", I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to by that. Esteffect (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poor self-introduction.--Caspian blue 21:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Suppose; oh well, his self-introduction is really poor, but he seems to be a qualified candidate way more than hugglers with almost-no-content-creation.--Caspian blue 02:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just being nitpicky here, I think you meant Support? FingersOnRoids♫ 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm allowed to respond to comments; feel free to remove this message if not. I like to think that my business is to improve Wikipedia. I'm not aware that administrative tools incur any cost to WP, so even though I may not use them much, what use I do plan to have for them will allow me to spend more of my time improving WP. I'm not sure that I would classify an increase of my WP-editing efficiency 'selfish', as you seem to imply, but perhaps we place different values on the administrative tools. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment - I didn't find it very clear what was expected in the 'self-introduction' section. Perhaps the {{RfA}} template or the [Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate|nomination instructions]] could be modified to include slightly more guidance on this point? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this even a valid reason? I thought there was some study somewhere that said admins have more work to do now than ever before, and that we needed more. Anti venin 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. More users = more admins needed. -down load | sign! 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose which is something I've only done a couple of times: Lousy use of edit summaries - 29% on minor edits, compounded by a clear misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what a minor edit is. It appears almost all of this editor's recent edits are marked minor and shouldn't be. As an example look at this. No edit summary in any of those edits - more than a dozen intervening edits, and clearly not minor edits although each has been marked as minor. This user needs to reform his or her editing habits and forget about being an admin. I stopped looking after finding this.Toddst1 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mark your own page protections as minor, which I do not agree with. WP:RPP is a process, and certainly not a minor one. Editors should educate, and not segregate based on such flaws in interpreting policy. Simply, checking the box is not enough concern to think that future administrative actions will be done in bad faith. the_undertow ^talk 10:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point - I wasn't aware that that was happening as I'm not actively doing that. The web form I'm presented with doesn't give me the option of marking protection as minor or not. I wasn't aware of that being the case and I wouldn't mark them as minor if I have the choice. I'd be glad to fix that, but this discussion isn't about me. Toddst1 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that trying to reconcile the actions of two editors was redirecting the focus to the voter. I was under the conception that voters, who bring up topics, would be open to looking at their own behavior. Myself included. the_undertow ^talk 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your protects and unprotects before you were de-sysoped were marked minor as are it appears every admin's protect/unprotect actions. It appears to be a "feature" in the Wikipedia system. To be clear, I'm glad to discuss my actions. However, I am not mischaracterizing 90+% of my edits as it appears Smith609 is and summarizing less than 30%. Toddst1 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All protections and unprotections are, as you surmise, automatically marked as minor (sensibly, IMHO, but that's a question for another place and time). 68.249.4.50 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral per discussion with candidate. Toddst1 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why "reforming his or her editing habits" has to mean "forgetting about being an admin". I'm sure that Martin can walk and chew gum at the same time. As I noted above, a simple modification to the preferences takes care of the edit summaries. As for minor edits, I'm not sure why we keep that feature around: it has become pretty useless. The vast majority of editors never check the minor edit box anyways and a probably even greater majority don't even notice the m in the history of the article. I know that one can choose to hide minor edits from the watchlist but who would be dumb enough to do this? Many vandals mark their edits as minor in the hope of flying under the radar so if you toggle "hide minor edits", your watchlist loses part of its function. And now that watchlists provide the size of the edits, you can get a good idea of whether an edit by a trusted user is significant or not. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no compelling reason for granting for the tools based on answers to questions above. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per what I feel is not a compelling reason for granting tools, and also edit summary usage; being "pressed for time" and expecting others to add extensions so they can see what he has done is not helpful or constructive. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your sentiment; I feel I should mention that extensions are not necessary to see the content of my edits, and that the extensions are likely to be installed already by people who spend a lot of time checking edit content. To defend my lack of edit summaries, my personal opinion is that a constructive edit is usually more constructive than a minor edit summary. If this is a point of disagreement, so be it, but I (and, I suspect, the majority of our audience) would rather see a well-written article than a verbose history page; and (in the areas which I tend to edit) there will always be much more work needing doing than there are spare hours in the day. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tend to agree with Martin on this one, although it may be because I don't use edit summaries as much myself as I used to. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per answer to Q5. Where there's been a discussion, the applicant's role is to determine what the consensus is and then implement it—not to form his own judgment in despite of the consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question stated that one user had written an essay in support of its deletion, and another considered it to be properly sourced and notable. One first has to determine what the consensus is, if there is one; from the information presented, I didn't consider there to be one, because there was unresolved disagreement. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understand that. :-) What I was looking for was a closure of the AfD as "no consensus".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise that was an option! I guess I should have researched the AfD process before taking the question. Fair cop! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per answer to Q1. If nominee's bots are so disruptive that dealing with their blocks is inconvenient for him as the bot operator, the bots probably need more scrutiny, not a grant of special rights to the bot operator. My experience in other fields has been that if you need to report mistakes and problems to someone else, you're more careful to begin with and make fewer and less damaging mistakes. Admin rights aren't supposed to be given so editors can avoid scrutiny. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced that the tools are even needed in this case. And, even if I was, the poor use of edit summaries and the over-checking of edits as minor prevent me from considering supporting. JPG-GR (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to strong oppose based on the evidence presented below by Pedro. JPG-GR (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons stated above. The edit summary usage and the marking of so many edits as minor are not desirable traits/habits. I'm not even sure if the candidate really needs the admin tools. Tim meh ! 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Question 7, Question 5, and Caspian Blue's initial reasoning. Come back in a few months and i'll likely support. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I don't think the user really needs the tools yet, as it would be for the bots. Also, self-noms give me the feeling that the user wants the tools too badly. My suggestion is to wait a little bit and get more involved in the Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the first two parts of the rationale but ok, let's just say we disagree. But how much more "involved in the Wikipedia" can Martin be? He's been editing for three years and over the last two years there's never been a month where he had less than 150 edits. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per the minor-edits issue. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a good point. I'd have looked over it but then I checked the logs for your bots. Anybot was blocked just once [1] and that was for less than 20 minutes, and Citation Bot has also only been blocked once [2] with what seems to be a serious concern. So I can't really see the time spent waiting for a bot to be unblocked argument is a valid one. I'm also personally of the opinion that bot owners should not unblock their own bots, rather like admins should not unblock themselves. In addition I'm not in agreement with your about your rationale for not using edit summaries when adding a fact or a reference. "+ref" takes next to no time to type, and admin actions are all about effective communication of actions - the edit or log summary being a key starting point for that communication Pedro : Chat 12:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the statements above. Looking at this RFA, I don't see no need for the tools. I also see I am not the only one with that view. America69 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing per some of your answers to the questions, the optional ones in particular. The concerns that Pedro above outlines relating to your bot operation are also substantial. Please consider returning in several months, and try to remember to use edit summaries more often; they may at first seem pointless, but they're effective communication tools. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Errmm what? You're going to unblock your own bot? Although automated and semi-automated tools are often a benefit to Wikipedia, having admin rights simply to assist in the maintenance of those tools is not the idea. You shouldn't likely be unblocking your own bot anyway, after all, you're then no longer an uninvolved admin :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per bad edit summary usage and lack of policy knowledge. Also, I wouldn't like an admin who thinks unblocking his own bots is any different than unblocking themselves after another admin blocked them. So Why 12:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I would only unblock my own bot if:
- The bot was initially blocked because a bug in its code resulted in it producing bad edits
- I had stopped the bot from running unsupervised
- I believed I had got as far as I could with the debugging process without performing test edits.
Currently I would have to trouble an administrator and let them know these things; it would save both other admins and myself hassle if (on the rare occasions that a block is enforced) I could simply unblock the bot myself when it was ready. I have nothing to gain from creating a bot to clean up pages, then allowing it to mess up those very same pages by inappropriately unblocking it. I hope that reassures you that I would use the 'unblock' tool responsibly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you don't see a difference? Why bother using a separate account if there's no difference… — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User isn't familiar enough with wikipedia (minor edits, no summaries, seems clueless on AfDs). Seems like will be a good admin later though as these problems get addressed. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I hate !voting oppose, but in this case I feel I have to. I don't think there needs to be an overwhelmingly compelling reason to grant the tools to someone, but using edit summaries is a crucial communications tool that all editors and administrators must use. Sorry, but if you start using edit summaries I can see no reason why I wouldn't support a second RfA down the line. AniMate^talk 04:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bot needs debugging first; poor edit sumamry usage; concerns raised make me nervous. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your edit summary usage for minor edits is too low in my opinion. It is fine for major edits though. Also, I don't think an admin should unblock his own bot for any reason. Running your bot without it being flagged is also a factor.--Rockfang (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Smith609 generally provides good quality contributions. However he should not be using admin tools to unblock his own bot. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could suggest a way to check that the bot is successfully working without it actively making edits, I would be very happy to hear it and implement it. However, I don't think that this is always possible - the bot can only be fully tested if it is able to make test edits. I don't understand how another administrator (who has no access to the source code or understanding of whether the bugs which caused its block) could judge whether or not to unblock the bot - the bot operator is the only person with enough understanding of the underlying code to know whether or not the bot is safe to run. As many people have suggested that unblocking one's own bot is in itself A Bad Thing, I would be interested to hear the rationale for this, if I only perform an unblock in the situation described above (under point 16). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is . you run a bot - it makes mistakes to the point an admin blocks it - you believe you have fixed it so you unilaterally unblock it .... and if it makes another mistake you'll just unblock and fix? And if it makes yet another mistake you'll unblock and fix? Do you realise that there are intimations of WP:WHEEL combined with poor practice and an assumption that "you know best" in your above comment? I suspect you do not realise this. Bot operators are deeply valued members of the community, but when they look to their bots only, and preserving them at all cost, I wonder about their operators judgement. Pedro : Chat 22:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what he said was "fix then unblock", not "unblock then fix".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a slightly more thorough description to clear up any misunderstanding - let me know if I need to clarify it further. The only source of mistakes leading to a block would be if an update introduced a bug which I didn't spot in initial testing. When I identify the bug, the next step is to write fixed code and ensure that this new code hasn't introduced new bugs. While testing this new code, I put the bot in a state where it can only be run by me on single pages - in effect, it is on a very short leash; other users cannot cause it to run, and I only run it on where I want it (taking full responsibility for cleaning up any aftermath, in the unlikely event that that is necessary). In effect, it is blocked on all pages except the one I happen to need to test it on. When the fix appears to be complete, I let the bot work on unseen pages, page at a time, checking its output is correct (and fixing it immediately if not). I supervise its operation for a while, and only when I am convinced that it is not making systematic errors do I let it run 'unfettered'. If the bot makes it through its first 20 or so pages without blundering, experience tells me that subsequent edits are almost certainly safe. I've learned a lot about bot development via my experience with Citation bot, and hopefully the more thorough testing processes I now employ will mean that the bot won't go haywire again - as mentioned above, blocks are not a regular occurrence, but it is useful to be able to act promptly when they occur, so that people are left without the Citation bot for as short a time as possible. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per his plans for the tools seem counterproductive and violation of the spirit of the community. Poor communication and lack of edit summaries (and lack of concern over the lack of edit summaries) seal this one for me. - Dravecky (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how my plans are counterproductive? My aim in asking for the tools was to improve productivity. Also, I'm always looking to improve my communication skills, so would be grateful if you could expand on where these are falling short. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your own self-nomination was just two lines of text until prompted to expand it two days later and you appeared to accept only grudgingly the need for edit summaries after much prompting. You cite being "quite pressed for time" as a reason for not leaving edit summaries, for unblocking your own bot, and for wanting the tools. To my mind, these are strong signs of impatience, not a quality much sought after in admin candidates. - Dravecky (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd choose to attribute both failings to a lack of knowledge on my part. I hadn't known what was expected in my introduction, and as soon as I understood produced something more comprehensive. I hadn't grasped why edit summaries were useful, but as soon as I understood this switched my behaviour. One part of communication is responding to criticism, I've certainly received plenty of that here and I hope that I have responded to it in a responsible way. In other areas of communication - resolving controversial disputes, for instance, or justifying article improvements to a sceptical editor - I think I have improved a great deal in the course of my WP editorship, and have reached a high standard. I appreciate that there's a fine line between ambition to achieve the most possible and impatience; hopefully it's a line I don't often overstep. I realise now that it would be much easier for you to see evidence supporting these assertions if I'd been leaving edit summaries! In any case, thanks for your response - much appreciated. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: From what's I've seen, if a bot is blocked and the operator says he wants to test it, another admin will easily unblock it to allow him to do so. I don't see the need to be able to unblock your own bots yourself, and don't see any positive from adminship. Your bot gets blocked, you acknowledge there's a problem, someone unblocks and then you can practice and resume editing. Yes, you may have to wait a little while but even the vandalism protection bots don't get to be instantly put back into service. No one's going to keep your bot blocked unless you've shown a pattern of not responding well to user requests. To me, an operator unblocking his bot is no different than an admin unblocking himself. It's still just a matter of them getting to do the edits they want, regardless of what others think. I really don't see how a small delay in adding ISBN links is any concern at all, and I really don't want us back at ANI in six months debating whether to desysop you because you keep unblocking your bots on your judgment alone. We've already seen that stupidity with one admin bot operator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fair, but please remember that unblocking my bot is not the prime reason for adminship. There are also aspects such as subpage deletion which are useful (sometimes very much so) in bot debugging. Some editors use the bot to expand entire citations from an ISBN or PMID, so the functions aren't all as minor as the example you give. Beyond bot-related issues, I'll also be performing other administrative tasks as I come across them. While I am unlikely to devote large periods of time to reducing backlogs, I will at the very least not be adding to them. Whether occasional help with 'conventional' administrative tasks or not is of value is not a judgement call I'm qualified to make, but it seems better than none at all! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Neutral Not sure about this, per Dean B. -down load | sign! 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support after seeing contribs. -down load | sign! 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the candidate seems pretty good and has some quite solid good experience across the board, I would prefer that he have just a bit more policy knowledge (as evidenced by his second followup to Oppose 6, for example). Smith609 seems like a great user though, and I should happily be able to support in a few months. Almost, might I request that you please improve your edit summary usage? Thanks. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to support. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:Formerly a fairly strong and vocal oppose, but after discussion with candidate have changed to neutral with a lean towards support. Best regards. Toddst1 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the need for the tools, but I can also see the no need. It's no hassle to find an admin to take care of the bot issue. Less than 5 minutes and the bot will be blocked. It's a toss up. I'd support if you had more of a contributory value for the buttons. Keegan^talk 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Support ~~Lean towards support. Examining contribs and interactions.~~ --Stani Stani 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Neutral per Question 7, Question 5, and Caspian Blue's initial reasoning. Come back in a few months and i'll likely support. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (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.