Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/West.andrew.g

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

West.andrew.g[edit]

Final (106/10/6); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

West.andrew.g (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to nominate User:West.andrew.g for administrator. Andrew is a University of Pennsylvania PhD candidate in his final year, writing his thesis on security in collaborative online environments. In other words, he builds computer tools that scale to protect Wikipedia and other wikis. He has demonstrated his ability in this area by developing the anti-vandal tool WP:STiki, which to date has been used to revert over 250,000 instances of vandalism. STiki uses a metadata algorithm to identify and prioritize likely vandalism, including 'subtle' vandalism'; presents an interface for human review of lower confidence but still suspect ClueBot findings (that cannot be reverted automatically); reviews external link spam; and engages STiki users through regular recognition and statistical tracking of participation. Andrew has also been a rollbacker since 2010 and manually classified 67,000 instances of suspected vandalism himself.

Andrew has been with us since 2008, but he came onto my radar in 2010 when he conducted a rigorous but ill-conceived breaching experiment which involved using multiple accounts to test Wikipedia's security and response to spam. Andrew was blocked and negotiated his return to good standing with ArbCom shortly thereafter. Since the breaching experiment Andrew has shown himself to be willing to work within our community rules and to advance the interests of Wikipedia, not putting his own research priorities above those of our project. He has built tools that permit others to carry on valuable work at a massive scale. Moreover, he has added some of the most authoritative and useful scholarship about vandalism detection on wikis of any researcher in the field.

Andrew's scope of research is vast and includes not only vandalism and spam but also suspicious editing by IPs, copyright-violation detection, category organization, deleted content, and article popularity (see here and here). Andrew needs the Administrator tools to continue his research and tool-building, part of which involves analyzing revision-deleted content in statistical detail, as well as other aspects of site operations. While he could pursue the Researcher userright, to date this has never been granted to volunteers, only WMF staff. A successful RfA will permit him the access he requires while also demonstrating community support. In all, I believe he's not only someone we want on our side, he has shown that he is on our side, and we should keep him around by enabling him to continue and expand the innovative and compelling work he has undertaken. Ocaasi t | c 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I'm gratified to be able to co-nominate User:West.andrew.g for adminship. My reason for doing so is simple: I believe that having Andrew as an administrator will be a net positive for the project. I have reviewed his work and his methods and I think they speak for themselves; I say this even of the spam research that he conducted in August 2010. The paper it engendered is a fascinating treatise on research ethics. It's clear throughout the paper that Andrew did everything possible to minimize harm to Wikipedia and its contributors, and what harm there was was justified by the knowledge he was able to share with the community. This knowledge directly and indirectly contributed to improvement of the Edit filter and RevisionDelete, now some of our most effective tools against malicious spam attacks.

Andrew is of course not the typical adminship candidate and he's not going to be the typical administrator. I don't think we're going to see him closing too many deletion discussions, editing many protected pages, or performing too many history merges. And that's okay, because that's not how he can best serve Wikipedia. Data analysis and tool-building are what he does best, and they are skills of which the community is always in need. I'm pleased to see him approach the community directly for the permission to keep on doing what he's doing, and I have the utmost confidence in his ability to use those permissions wisely and always within the scope of our processes. — madman 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I thank User:Ocaasi and User:Madman for this nomination and it is one I accept. They have well summarized my contributions on the project and I would like to expand on just a few main points before the community's discussion/questioning (West.andrew.g (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)):[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The catalyst behind this RfA is to obtain access to the administrative toolkit for purposes of data analysis and tool-building, not so I can use it for my personal editing. My 2010 attempt to get the researcher user-right dissolved in a philosophical debate, and a more recent request via WMF research/legal contacts suggested this RfA was the most appropriate venue to secure the needed permissions. My previous inability to secure the user-rights made my analysis of oversight/deleted revisions a far more challenging process than it needed to be. Regardless, that research showed copyright violations were perhaps the project's biggest vulnerability (understandably, they are not surface-level damage like vandalism). An autonomous means to discover copyright violations would be very exciting, and indeed, my participation with WP:Turnitin (and the need to view RD1 deleted content) is a catalyst for this request. However, the opportunities do not end there. I hope to analyze article deletion and page protection actions (among others) and hopefully bring machine-learning to bear by creating tools that can autonomously perform/suggest some fraction of these tasks and prioritize the remainder for human review.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my community involvement here is not one best reflected by my contribution history alone. I am an researcher/developer, and I am confident my tools (e.g., WP:STiki, WP:WikiAudit, work-in-progress) and reports (e.g., WP:5000) have enabled others to efficiently perform a magnitude of work that I could never approach as an individual. Countless researchers have used Wikipedia as a dataset, but I feel I distinguish myself by practically implementing my findings for the benefit of the community and continuing to improve and support these tools long after they have fulfilled their research role. Virtually all of my edits are (a) vandalism/spam reverts or (b) on talk pages in support of my tools/reports. I don't arrive with diverse experience regarding dispute resolution (though I've had to ask some users to stop using my tools, and dealt with a few angry vandals), edit warring, or many of the other oft-discussed topics here. While I may not edit in these spaces, I do understand the processes by which they operate. I follow along at WP:VPT, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:BRFA -- and subscribe to a number of related mailing lists. I've also attended the past three Wikimania events (Gdansk, Haifa, Washington D.C.). Finally, I've contributed a great deal of wiki and Wikipedia relevant academic research, which can be accessed via my website, C.V., or WikiPapers.
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: Without question, my link spam experiments were contrary to WP:POINT, WP:BEANS, and other community policies. To this end, all I can offer is (a) apologies, (b) evidence of good-faith intentions, and (c) to note how the events shaped my future/ongoing interaction with the project. My goal was to obtain data on human damage responses that could be used to prevent future -- actually malicious -- incidents of the same type. My findings have since been shared internally, externally, and integrated into my classifiers/tools. The experiments were rigorously planned to minimize harm to human subjects, have IRB approval, and vague details were published only months after the WMF was offered code/consultation on the vulnerability (more details). Regardless of one's stance on such practices, my conditions with ArbCom make clear that no further such experiments should take place; conditions I have now honored for 2.5+ years. Please consider that I am transparent about my real-life identity, and I consider many long-standing community members among my professional colleagues. For anyone concerned that my career and wiki-work are in conflict-of-interest, very soon I will be taking a research position unrelated to wikis/Wikipedia/collaboration. So, this RfA and the subsequent work that would result from it are done on purely personal/volunteer terms.
Outside such incidents, even ordinary wiki-work can sometimes cause stress in a community member. Indeed, with the data and tools I maintain, these requests can sometimes become taxing on my schedule. I have always sought to be honest with users regarding the prioritization of their suggestions. In places like WT:STiki they have become explicit parts of the organizational process (i.e., a bug and feature request tracking table). I've always sought to prioritize my actions based on community impact, and I've always been responsive to talk page and email queries even when I cannot pursue them further.
Additional question from Vacation9
4. You mention you will use the tools almost exclusively to access deleted revisions, but you did not mention how you will use these revisions. Deletion summaries which usually already explain for what means the page or revision was deleted (for example, because of copyright infringement) are available to the public already, and plain vandalism usually isn't RevDel'd. In short, please explain in detail how you will use deleted content in your research.
A: I'll address this query narrowly, as it pertains to the immediate copyright detection project. The goal is to mine past copyright incidents (i.e., those RevDeleted under RD1) to discover statistical indicators that can be applied in a predictive fashion. Specific to content, one might consider: (1) the length of the content; pages created with large amounts of text could be suggestive of copy-paste actions, (2) running sentiment analysis over the text; content copied from promotional outlets may describe a topic in very favorable terms, (3) whether the content can be found verbatim elsewhere on the Internet; akin to computational plagiarism detection. This is a small and by no means comprehensive sample (see WP:Turnitin if you want more gory technical details). However, I think it makes clear the point that I need to see past deleted content in order to develop these metrics. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Sphilbrick
5. Each admin has the ability to read every revdeled entry, which means they can see material that may have been removed for privacy reasons. We want trustworthy candidates because we don't want people to be able to see that information unless we believe we can trust them. I know nothing about you that would cause me to have concerns in this area, however, you aren't simply planning to look at the deletions, you plan to analyze them, which almost certainly means you will create a database which contains possibly every deleted entry. Access to that file by outsiders might be a minefield. What can you tell us about your project design that will lead us to conclude this data will be quite safe? Will your project plan, including security features, be reviewed by the WMF and/or others experienced in security issues? I recognize that you have a background in security, but I'll be uncomfortable with this project unless I know that there is some independent review of the security aspects. (I do realize the focus is on copyright, but it is hard to imagine how you would filter in advance in such a way that would ensure that you did not pick up any personal information.)
A: This might be a question better posed at WP:Turnitin, as it really pertains to that project and its participants, but it is one I will field here. First, it is possible to "filter" out the revisions of interest for analysis. We plan to look at the history of WP:SCV, as this provides a human-tagged corpus of both positive and negative copyright examples. When trying to learn more about one of these specific incidents, I often find myself needing access to RevDelete or deleted article histories/content. Thus, it is not as if we are dumping all RevDelete cases as our starting point. Even if we were, filtering by a simple "RD1" token in the log entries would keep us away from the defamatory/privacy cases (the most acute of which are probably Oversighted, anyway). Regardless, even RD1 and deleted article data have an element of sensitivity. We intend to perform all work internal to WMF infrastructure (i.e., Toolserver or Labs), so "copies" need not exist on local machines. I am not opposed to an independent security audit, but it might prove a bit circular. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TeeTylerToe
6. You say that your main reason to apply for this is for research. What would happen once you are no longer pursuing wikipedia related research? Would you maintain your Admin status?
A: As I point out at the end of para. 1 of Q3, I will very soon no longer be performing Wikipedia research in any "official" capacity. Any work performed under a successful RfA will be done on purely volunteer terms. I personally desire to continue helping out around here. Thus, I'll rephrase your question as: "If you no longer want to participate here, or do not require the admin bit to do your work, would you give it back?". Sure, I do not need the permission as some kind of "trophy" of my past wiki work. I have declined previous suggestions of an RfA, and I am only here now out of a technical *need*. I will emphasize that a completed "copyright project" is unlikely to be the end of my service. I plan to continue identifying and working towards novel projects involving the admin toolkit. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Tryptofish
7. Following up from Q5, I'd like to make sure that I understand correctly that all deleted content that you intend to analyze will be analyzed on WMF computers, and that no copies of deleted content will be placed elsewhere. Is that correct?
A: I'll emphasize again that this is not a question specific to my candidacy. There are other administrators on that project (including technical participants), and this really speaks to data security considerations for all administrators (but particularly those who might ever handle/analyze privileged data en masse). Succinctly, though: Given my access to Labs, I (and really, "we") intend to perform all work and data storage internal to WMF infrastructure. West.andrew.g (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Do you plan to publish your research results anywhere other than on Wikipedia or other WMF projects?
A: As per Q6, I will very soon no longer be funded/paid/supported for any form of Wikipedia-relevant research. I continue to use the term "research" for my ongoing volunteer work -- seemingly to the confusion of some -- as I feel this is still novel analysis. My ongoing work will be motivated by project impact and personal preference, not fulfilling academic/publication need. However, this does not imply that no interesting or broader scientific observations will come from the work. If that were to occur, in the copyright project or any other, I believe scholarly dissemination is appropriate. Consider that venues/publications like WikiSym (among others) are where wiki and collaborative science get done; WMF-supported research is often published there and the WMF is traditionally a leading sponsor. However, being an admin and having privileged data access does necessitate one to exercise greater care when publishing. For example, reproducing RevDel content would obviously be inappropriate. Just as a typical RfA measures "trust to utilize admin tools", one aspect of mine is measuring "trust to responsibly use the data those tools generate." Is there a more specific concern you are hinting at here? West.andrew.g (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my questions. Was I hinting at something? Well, no, at least I hope not. What you said – "reproducing RevDel content would obviously be inappropriate" – is what I was looking for. In other words, I was looking for you to respond to some specific aspects of the opposes that are based on the issue of giving access to deleted, sensitive material. I do think these questions are specific to your RfA, to the extent that you are asking the rest of us for exactly that trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from NativeForeigner
9. As a narrowing followup for #2, what are your best mainspace/filespace content contributions to Wikipedia? (ie. DYK, Good article, Featured Picture, Featured article)
A: I am not going to insult the impressive content additions/cultivation of other community members here by trying to cobble together an answer. Simply put, my only real main namespace contributions are 6,000+ damage revert actions (vandalism, spam, etc.). My tools have enabled a further 250,000+ similar actions by others. I "protect" -- not "create" -- article namespace content, and I think that the excellent work of others deserves to be secured as effectively as possible. Consider also that most of the actions the bit enables serve a similar purpose. West.andrew.g (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • Links for West.andrew.g: West.andrew.g (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for West.andrew.g can be found here.
    Note that the seemingly bizarrely high proportion of userspace edits is due to regular technical reporting which West.andrew.g conducts en masse in his userspace.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. — madman 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Hell, yes! Valuable contributor, just not in the usual manner. No sign he might misuse tools. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom. A great asset to our community in a unique capacity. Ocaasi t | c 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No concerns, very competent contributor. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I rarely edit these days, but West has my trust from very positive interactions in the past. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. It's almost impossible to not trust West. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 19:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Acknowledged, this could be construed as an unconventional request due to your area of focus, which is primarily technical work; but I've always been of the opinion that we need more administrators working on the technical side of the project. Viewing this candidacy in that light, you're well-qualified to do it. I've gone through your edits, in which I see some intriguing technical work and some good policy discussion and community involvement to boot. Looking through your talk page archives through early 2012, I see nothing but cordial interactions and friendly engagement with other editors. Your work on STiki is commendable and it seems to me that you're uniquely qualified to work with some of the more technical aspects of the site. You've got the right mindset and temperament, not to mention your technical experience, to be a sysop. I'm more than happy to support. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No concerns. Creator of WP:STiki, and a very competent user. Research is a great use of tools. I would have co-nommed had I known. Vacation9 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Very valuable contributor. His answers to the questions demonstrates skill and competence. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support and good luck with your research! Sounds interesting! --Go Phightins! 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Excellent personal interactions with the candidate. SpencerT♦C 20:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Absolutely, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the research that the bit will enable. Garamond Lethet
    c     22:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Special:Contributions/West.andrew.g Cmach7 22:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Absolutely. MJ94 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Easy to trust him with the tools when he's made one of them! I'm excited to see what else he has in store. --BDD (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support clear communicator, helpful, and dedicated user. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Great editor. Inka888 00:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I trust the nominators, and we need way more editors like him in the project. Knowledgeable scholar with a specific focus with the tools. Huge net positive. Secret account 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support The researcher flag sounds much more suitable, but since there's some problem obtaining that, I certainly prefer researchers of this calibre to have access to data. --99of9 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Per all the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --LlamaAl (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Looks good enough. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - sure. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per noms. INeverCry 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support OK .. I'm impressed. Often people with this level of technical skill suffer from either an inflated ego, or lack the ability and/or desire to interact well with others; not the case here. A fine example is the aforementioned STiki project: Not only is the work an exceptional benefit to the project; but the attention to detail in documentation is wonderfully rare addition to the tool. (also noting a rather good salesmanship ability in there as well. :)). I have no idea how long Mr. West will continue his studies and observations here with us, but I think it is a wonderful match which benefits the project greatly. If you don't mind the informality sir, then I say "Good luck in all Andy". — Ched :  ?  02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - A bit of a dust-up a few years ago, but that was then. Now, a fine choice to have extra buttons, and I salute the candidate's dedication and service to the encyclopedia. Should you pass Rfa, as it appears, my best wishes in your adminship! Jusdafax 03:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Good candidate. — ΛΧΣ21 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, and may he come up with a cool new tool for us with the mop. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Sure. Why not?! He has good contributions and also developer of an anto-vandal tool (STiki). I'm sure he would make a good admin.--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support While I have always cringed at the concept of an anti-vandalism "leaderboard", the STiki tool itself is an excellent contribution to the community, and that alone shows a huge amount of commitment to the project that is admin-worthy. Easily meets my RfA criteria. Trusilver 04:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support without reservation. - MrX 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Too many reasons to list. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Trustworthy, polite, and has good communication skills.--Rockfang (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - I'm very surprised that he isn't an administrator, already. Promotion will only lead to good things for Wikipedia, and he's already given us a lot with no indication of wrongdoing. He provides good support for the need for additional rights, too. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per noms. Graham87 05:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Full support from me. Widr (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support – My first thought was "why does he want to be an admin". But it was nicely explained in the nom. Looks like a good move. Tony (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Extremely trustworthy editor. His sincere work at this project is highly appreciated by me. He'll learn along the way. Wifione Message 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Given the nature of the request. I would probably not support otherwise given limited participation in other areas.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I have interacted with Andrew regarding the Stiki tool, and i have found him to be extremely responsive, with a good understanding of Wikipedia policies.His reasons for becoming an admin are clearly explained, and the project will benefit by accepting his request. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 08:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. What's not to like? Orchestrating an attack on WP? Limited contributions? Limited discussions? The advantage of this user is that he has not criticized the arrogance and incompetence of many administrators, one of the complaints of WTTRschen and Fluffer an annoying administrator about Carrite. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm? :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support We need users like this on the inside p*****g out! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support! being a user for years and having improved WP for creating such tools for reverting vandalism such as STiki. This nomination is very favorable of being successful at the end for this user should have been an admin ages ago. Mediran (t • c) 09:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Definitely a net positive. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Obvious Support. Trustworthy and long standing user.I'm pretty sure that he won't be deleting the main page.If Andrew is unaware of any policies as some people here say, I think he should first go through them or take suggestions from experienced admins.In my opinion, adminship is all about trust and Andrew seems to have it. TheStrikeΣagle 15:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Years of experience with anti-vandalism tools, absolute net positive to the project. While I appreciate Shirik's concerns below, I think there's enough evidence to show he won't get involved in areas he's not experienced in at all, so I predict he will either disengage or defer to another admin should somebody ever see his bit and read him the riot act in response. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - The admin tool bucket is mostly a vandal fighting power pack. Here we have someone who can make good use of the gear. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - As per nominated. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Torreslfchero (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Trustworthy contributor who has settled down, and their reason for wanting the tools makes sense. Miniapolis 17:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: Its hard to identify many editors who have done more to help with the work of admins through Andrew's anti-vandalism tools. Also, after collaborating with him on a Signpost article, I found his calm demeanor and intellect to be compatible with his nomination.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. The anti-vandalism tools he has created have been very, very useful. In fact, I use STiki much more than other such tools. Seems like he has his head on straight too. Guðsþegn (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. This user is obviously here for the right reasons, and is definitely trustworthy enough to be an admin, even if they don't intend to be a typical admin. The fact that he got IRB approval for his spam experiment says a lot (IRB approval can be notoriously hard to get, in my experience) and the tools he has written as a result are really something. Net positive is an understatement. I say give him whatever he needs to continue his work. Also, I read the (single) oppose below, and while I agree that this could potentially be viewed as a "hack" solution to getting the researcher right, I would point out that "hack"ing solutions together is what Wikipedia is all about. Ignore all rules is a pillar, after all :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - trusted user Kilopi (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Hell yes - This user has proven his mettle more than most of the existing admin corps, further, his unorthodox rationale for Adminship is technically valid and very astutely proposed. Every inclination suggests he is an extremely clueful user and would continue to expand and develop as a huge asset to the community if we gave him what he needs to do this. I wish him the best of luck. -T.I.M(Contact) 21:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. The Researcher right would not allow him to see the content of deleted revisions, and if we want him to improve his anti vandalism tools further it would help if he could see the actual text that was added by vandals. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - If someone goes through the trouble of writing a complicated anti-vandalism software package, then I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's here for the best interests of the project. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I actually don't think this is as unusual an RFA as it might seem. Basically, the candidate wants to work primarily on copyright issues, which is clearly an admin area. How he intends to work on them, as long as it doesn't break anything which it won't, is his business. Chick Bowen 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, trusted user. As long as the Researcher right doesn't include viewdeleted, the tools are necessary for the task. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support As the user is trustworthy, what is wrong with giving him the tools for selective use? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I see no reason that I shouldn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I trust this user based on their work they have done for Wikipedia, such as the creation of STiki and since the 'researcher' user right does not include looking into deleted edits, I see how getting the admin rights are needed for this user. Webclient101talk 05:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No concerns, very competent. LK (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Iff he can make a better tool to detect and delete copyvios, this may the easiest !vote I've ever made. Even if he doesn't, he's not the kind of guy to go peeking through deleted revisions to search for faeces to throw at a fan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. West.andrew.g's work has been of enormous benefit to the project, and giving such an academic pioneer access to deleted pages to help him further that work can only be a positive thing for us. I can understand the opposers who don't want RfA to be used for anything other than becoming a "proper" admin - but our processes are here to serve the project, not the other way round. So if the project would benefit from giving West.andrew.g access to deleted pages, if legal issues require a process of similar rigour to RfA, if RfA is the only process that satisfies that, and if we have no method for unbundling "view deleted pages", then we should use what we have to achieve something that's clearly good for us. (I also trust West.andrew.g with the whole admin toolkit anyway, even if he doesn't want to use it all) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I opposed Carrite's recent RfA because it was essentially a "view-deleted" RfA. I have no such concerns here. Sure, that right is included, but I am confident that that they are being used in an "administrative" "I need the tools to improve the Wiki" sense that is appropriate here. Also unlike Carrite's RfA, this one is careful not to argue that a lower bar should be applied and there is no indication that the access to deleted information will be the only use of the tools. This, I believe, is sufficient. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, and I ask anyone opposing due to this being an unorthodox request to consider whether the research the candidate intends to do may actually help the project. filelakeshoe (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I would be willing to support his use of all the tools, simply because he's been around for a while helping without showing any signs of misuse after the spam research several years ago. Why would I oppose him just because he won't use some of the tools? Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per Ched and per Q9. This is a case of a user doing fantastic things for the project, reaching a point where advanced permissions are holding him back from doing even more fantastic things, and requesting the ability to do those things. He has shown the maturity to handle the responsibility, the ability to utilize the tools to the fullest, and good ol' fashioned common sense. We need more Wikimedians like West.andrew.g. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Rzuwig► 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - Please forgive my rambling style, which doth emerge when I am as enthused as I am now, to tender my support of this RFA.
    1. Mr West could clearly have asked for access to the tools based on his extensive work on anti-spam. I have read over past RFA and dozens of less experienced anti-vandal fighters have gotten their stripes with far less credentials than he has on record. However this candidate has been forthright with us and avoided this shortcut and has laid the full facts out for us to debate upon, to this I say Kudos.
    2. I first met Mr. West at Wikimania 2011 and I can support his claim that his work has far reaching consequences far and beyond that of a regular editor. My involvement as a developer/researcher have been fuelled by his excellent presentation of groundbreaking work he and his colleges have done. As such he bridges a structural hole between the WP community and that of that of researchers, where Wikipdia(ns) are treated with suspicion.
    3. I too am a developer/researcher working in the community rather than a contractor for WMF, no disrespect meant but it means that the work people like Mr West do is a labor of love - the same kind of thankless good faith work that Admins undertake. As such his venture should not be treated with cynicism (per a number of the nay Sayers below). I can attest to the fact that the WMF research committee has pledged to make dumps included deleted edits available to researchers - but that they have been acting in a self-serving manner in this and have avoided updating the criteria for getting access to such materials while at the same time creating a world of red tape - and that they do respond to request in a timely fashion, if at all and finally that if the community does not pick the glove - it is uncertain if the community will even be consulted in the future on such matters....
    4. We generally grant access to the tools if they are needed and the candidate is trust worthy. So I believe that Mr West has done the right thing and brought his request directly to the community in an RFA, since AFAIK oversight and the like are not given to non-admins. Mr West has demonstrated such a need. I have seen his presentation from Wikisym 2012 and at and I have a very strong impression that he is a the most dependable candidate I have ever seen at RFA and that his abilities in the area of research and tooling will serve the community both as work multipliers and as open source code-base for future developers to extend, per standing on the shoulders of giants! BO | Talk 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - yeah, there have been a few of these lately and I'm not particularly excited about them. I think if you sign up for the tools, there needs to be an acknowledgement that the community is trusting you with everything, even if you only plan to use one particular tool. Like another recent RFA with a similar single-tool intention, I'm supporting this because I would otherwise support the nominee regardless. I would trust them to use everything. I don't care if they then decide to limit their own work to one particular tool. Stalwart111 23:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. West.andrew.g will certainly put the tools to good use. The breaching experiment is not a particularly serious issue in my view, and I think we can forgive him for that. Kurtis (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - I think he would be an incredibly helpful admin and a huge net positive even if all he ever did was look at deleted pages and start to figure out how to detect copyvio better. Having said that, I think he'll be an asset with the bit in the vandal-fighting arenas too, clearly he has extensive knowledge in that regard as well. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. User would be capable of excellent administrative service; the work he intends to engage in would be a huge asset for the project. dci | TALK 03:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support —stay (sic)! 10:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Weak Support it is obvious failure in procedures then only way to give someone rights for seeing deleted material require also giving him rights to protect/delete/block. I am just going by gut feeling that it probably won't cause any issues in this case.--Staberinde (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per Ched and others. The idea of an admin being interested only in one or two specific areas doesn't bother me in the least. Trust is a universal thing, either he can be trusted or he can't, and specialists are not a bad thing at Wikipedia. In this case, the trust is well earned and I'm happy he is interested in using the bit in any capacity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Wizardman 16:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support: I'm glad you could confront and explain your past issues. We need more administrators like you. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 16:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Weak Support - Competent contributor, understands and admits when he's made a mistake, and helpful. My one concern is how many userspace edits he has and how few talk edits he has. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. KillerChihuahua 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 23:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support--May puppies fly before pigs do. (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote removed as a sock --Guerillero | My Talk 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Viewing deleted pages is fine here as it was for Carrite. I don't get why it was WMF-wrong for Carrite but paradoxically WMF-required here (won't allow researchers it otherwise). In any case, I agree that the research is a very useful purpose and I think Wiki will get some other use out of the fellow on the side. TCO (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Thanks for the work you've done in the past. Yes, definitely. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I do not have a problem with niche admin rolls. Malinaccier (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Net positive. I have a slight inhibition against this degree of nicheness, but I always have supported on the basis they are still a net positive. Satisfied with extremely straight answer to Q9, despite its inherently unfair nature. NativeForeigner Talk 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. I'm supporting, but I'm just barely this side of neutral. So, to do research about sensitive content that we would not make available on demand to researchers contacting us from the general public, we have to determine that the person is trustworthy at the level of trust we place in administrators (reasonable, as far as that goes), but we are being asked to evaluate someone to be an administrator, even though they are unlikely to do most of the things that administrators do. On the one hand, I see a lot of editors whose opinions I value expressing enthusiastic support above. On the other hand, most of the candidate's editing track record is in reverting, and I feel like there's a defensive tone (questions should really be asked somewhere else, asking me if I was hinting at something) in the replies to questions, not a communication style I would generally favor in an administrator. And the concern expressed in many of the opposes and neutrals, about giving access to sensitive information, is a very real one. If the candidate were to want to be a typical administrator, I'd have concerns, but I've decided to make my decision here based on what he says he will actually do. Ultimately, I'm satisfied that we can trust the candidate to keep all sensitive information secure and private, and that the research is a net positive, so I think that this experiment is worth a try. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Though researcher rights seem to be the key issue, I do not believe he will abuse the tools. And that providing him the admin bits will be a benefit to Wikipedia. PaleAqua (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Copyright violations are a huge issue. We need more help to dealing with it. It these "no big deal" admin bits will help him I am supportive of him having them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support This user has done way more than necessary to establish my trust for adminship. Even as someone who probably likes a little more process than the average Wikipedian, I'm finding opposition based on "this isn't the right rights package" to be a little bureaucratic. Given this editor's previous contributions... I'm convinced that granting this request is in the best interests of the project. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support I agree with the opposes that note that administrator rights is not for research, etc., but there's no alternative at the moment. If the candidate wasn't fully qualified to be an admin, I'd say no - but they appear to be qualified, safe and mostly harmless, so why not QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, since this is for the overall benefit of the project. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. No reservations whatever. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I had extensive discussions with Andrew when I asked him for assistance with work needed regarding a long term abuser. Andrew was very helpful and demonstrated a desire to help the project, and is trusted. The concerns raised about this unusual RfA are valid, and any similar RfAs in the future should receive full scrutiny to ensure that the candidate is supported with a similarly good track record, and a very good reason that admin access would benefit the encyclopedia (detecting copyvios would be of significant benefit). Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Trustworthy user. --J36miles (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support No concerns; Andrew is a competent and trustworthy editor. He may not intend to do much work in administrative areas, but giving him the tools would likely result in a considerable net benefit to Wikipedia, so why not hand them over to him? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. yup --Hu12 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support with caveat: the nominee should announce that he would be an administrator open to recall. As much as I support this candidate and the benefits he has brought to the project, the concerns listed by the opposing voices are too strong and relevant to brush aside. - ʈucoxn\talk 23:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - I trust this user not to abuse the tools. What they intend to do with them is of little relevance to me so long that it is within policy. James086Talk 14:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Trustworthy. West.andrew.g's proposed use of the tools is narrow but the upside is great imo. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Really I'm usually the last one in this section, considering I generally feel the restrictions on being administrator are too strong, but I'm really surprised by the reaction so far. So since I'm the first, I guess that means the burden's on me to lay out some solid reasoning. I took a moment to peruse through your contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. The only thing I was able to conclude is that you're something of a robot. Yes, you've done a lot of vandalism cleanup, and it appears that you also have some solid work in enhancing that field. But that is not what an administrator is. An administrator needs to be someone capable of making solid decisions, especially ones surrounded by controversy. What I don't see, and what I need to see to be able to support, or at least go neutral, is some understanding of policy. I just don't see it. Yes, I get that you don't intend to be floating around WP:DR. Yes, I get that you probably won't close any WP:AFDs. I don't expect any administrator to know every policy. I don't think there is any administrator here that does. But that doesn't mean you can be completely ignorant of those policies. Instead, what I saw in your Wikipedia namespace contributions was two things: a lack of substance, and a significant bias towards your anti-vandalism tool. Don't get me wrong, I'm a software engineer myself, and I know the amount of work a tool like that takes. I value this contribution a lot. But I keep going back to that is not what an administrator is. I fear that this RFA is really some form of a backdoor researcher user right, and if that's really what you're after, then we should find some way to fix that problem rather than, to use a software term, hack out a solution. This RFA to me feels just like that, a hack, and I cannot support it until I find some solid purpose for granting the right and evidence to support knowledge backing up that purpose. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to give some background here, the WMF--from Mike Godwin through Geoff Brigham (past and current head of the Legal Department)--made abudnantly clear that anyone with access to viewing deleted content needed to go through a process identical in rigor to RfA to demonstrate their trustworthiness and community support. So I don't think it's as much of a hack as it appears. Plus, assuming the community believes Andrew is trustworthy enough to have the bit, there's no limit on how he might apply it outside of his current and existing research and tools (though he'd avoid areas where he's not sufficiently expert, as admins typically do). I've seen him change gears multiple times in the past 3 years and he keeps coming up with new and novel projects. I don't doubt that he'll make use of expanded rights in ways not currently foreseen or conceivable. Still, I respect your concern and think it's an appropriate topic to raise for discussion, especially as we approach others with similar but perhaps even more narrowly scoped interests. Ocaasi t | c 18:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Not specifically this candidate but I am wholly opposed to the precedent that the highly selective intended use of tools establishes. Regardless of WMF guidance, this is not what RfA is intended for. This candidate will pass without effective all-round scrutiny and once successful will not be the last to seek selection using this approach. Leaky Caldron 19:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, if I'm understanding the candidate's intentions correctly (and if I'm not, I'd appreciate a reply from him or the nom giving some more detail). It sounds like Andrew wants the bits to do (useful) work on his automated tools, and possibly academic research. It does not sound, in my reading of nom and candidate statements, like he intends to do any administrative work with the admin tools. If that's the case, then I feel similarly to Shirik - this is a hacky, if well-intentioned, way of getting what the Researcher right ought to do, not an offer to do administrative tasks for the community. I'll reference and expand on my !vote in the Carrite RFA a few weeks ago (which, contrary to the claim Kiefer Wolfowitz makes above, had absolutely nothing to do whether anyone has criticized administrators): I'm opposed to giving admin rights to people who intend to simply use it to view deleted content for research tasks or personal curiosity. I understand that viewdelete could be useful to Andrew's work, and that his work on tools could be of use to the encyclopedia, but I nevertheless feel that unless the candidate intends to use his admin rights for admin tasks, giving him the admin toolkit is the wrong way to go. We make people administrators because they intend to do administrative work; we make people researchers if they intend to do research work (and I would certainly re-evaluate my position on this matter if this were a "Request for Researcher", where Andrew was asking for community scrutiny to grant him +researcher). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    'researcher' is granted by the WMF, and one cannot see the deleted texts associated with the revisions using that right. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yeah, I completely understand that +researcher doesn't cover everything he'd need to do the work he wants to do (especially wrt copyvio detection, which would be an excellent thing to improve detection of). I guess I'm sort of squeezing myself into an awkward corner of "neither of these rights packages does quite what he needs it to do, but I'm not comfortable giving away the giganto-expansive one as a kludge for that if he otherwise doesn't intend to 'pay for' it by doing admin work". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All of you look the same. No wonder I get confused. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because I do not agree with granting adminship for research purposes. wctaiwan (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I did not read through the answers carefully and made my comment largely based on the nomination statements. On reading more thoroughly, it looks like much of his planned work with the extra access is directly for the benefit for the project. In light of this and the fact that he appears to have the community's trust, I'm indenting the !vote. wctaiwan (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose. And I'm not changing my mind. I understand how some people need to see deleted pages for some reason. However, the English Wikipedia does not currently have a way to do so without assigning Administrator rights. We assign Administrator rights for the maintenance of the project. We do not assign them because someone needs one right that they can't get elsewhere. Per WMF Legal, any review of deleted material should go through a process identical in rigour to RfA... Not RfA itself. Until the community comes up with a RfDeleteview type system, we should not be hacking around it by just making "temporary" or "single-purpose" administrators. If West.andrew.g needs to view deleted pages for some reason, they can contact WMF Legal and either have a special group made for them, or have the Legal department okay a temporary (i.e. set length of time) adminship for him for that sole purpose. If West.andrew.g rins another RfA, and expresses believable wish to maintain the project with the admin toolkit, then I may support. gwickwiretalkedits 01:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose - nothing against the editor, but becoming an admin is not something that should be done because someone wants to do research purposes. I suggest that if the user really wants to be able to do what he wants to do here, he make a stronger push to give the Research user group more abilities. The process of RfA and adminship should not be hijacked for personal gain, even if that personal gain is admirable an will eventually benefit society and the Wikipedia community. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose – I'm sorry but I can not support this RfA. I am concerned that deleted contributions, rev-deleted personal information and other non-public information might end up in a spreadsheet for shared analyses that was never intended; but rather guarded against.—My76Strat • talk • email 13:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Not that it matters. Intothatdarkness 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Q2. I can't support anyone that can't point to at least one mainspace article when answering that question. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. rigorous, but ill-conceived Dlohcierekim 08:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I oppose this as well, on similar grounds as for instance Inks.LWC and gwickwire. If the foundation wants someone to be vetted for a particular right, let them come up with a vetting procedure (maybe limited to certain rights, who knows), not this odd backdoor. I supported Carrite's request last time, and still feel a bit odd about that--but they were an actual contributor with proven knowledge of policy. If the usual standards for RfA are applied, then unfortunately it ought to be a clear fail since there are no mainspace contributions that expand the project, and such contributions, as precedent shows, are usually deemed mandatory for any admin candidate. This is simply the wrong procedure. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Temporarily neutral. I need to think about this. It is unusual to give a researcher access to raw data of a potentially sensitive nature that is not first stripped off any person information. That's what most organizations do. Shouldn't we, or rather Wikimedia, be thinking of how to make that possible? --regentspark (comment) 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this was sort of my thought process too - that it would be better to find a way to give researchers access to deleted data (preferably cleaned) than to have these not-quite-RFA-ish RFAs where the community may not have firm guidelines for when/why to promote research-only users. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this RfA will pass so I don't have to strain my brain over thinking things through :) Good luck and use the data made available to you wisely! --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Although I support West.andrew.g in essence, as he seems a perfectly good candidate, I cannot bring myself to support somebody that does not particularly want to use the tools other than in a very narrow sense. I do not expect a sysop to take part in every single part of Wikipedia that requires an admin, but I feel it is too niche; and potentially a conflict of interest if he is performing research (although, I appreciate this is coming to an end). My concerns are not enough to warrant an oppose, but unless he was considering using a wider range of the tools, I can not support either. iComputerSaysNo 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have talked with a number of admins at the Berlin Hackaton last year. What became evident is that de facto they are neither involved in RFAs not in any type of admin work other than they type in which they specialize that being tool production. I have had a similar experience when discussing admin duties with a number of the most active chapter members in a number of countries. They do not have time for editing or even much admin work. As such tool making is not a new niche, it was originally a preferred activity of early sysops when they also had SQL access etc... What has happened is that there is an artificial divide ever since many non technical admins have been created, the access to run SQL on the DB has been removed, the bot flag introduced and the job of admins in now perceived to be rooted policing the community. So in essence the above is not a valid argument to bar tool makers from becoming admins. BO | Talk 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I trust West.andrew.g, and I'm glad that WP:STIKI exists and that lots of people use it to rid Wikipedia of vandalism. I have no reason to think he'd misuse admin tools or do anything stupid with them. But I'm marginally uncomfortable with this kind of request. Not quite enough for me to oppose. It seems like what would be ideal is if the Foundation offered some kind of "researcher plus" right, which could be granted to technically competent people who are doing research. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For research that requires viewdelete, the WMF sort of puts people between a rock and a hard place. WMF won't give out the right to view deleted content to people without them being vetted by the community; the community (or at least some of us) don't want to give out +admin to someone who only intends to view deleted content, and anyway we don't have the ability to give out +researcher (or +researcherplus). It seems to me that the ideal way forward would be some sort of hybrid, where users apply to the WMF for +researcherplus, and then those who pass the WMF's researcher requirements are presented to the community at "Requests for Researcher" or whatever, for community vetting equivalent to RFA. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that he doesn't need to view deleted content but rather his algorithms do. Wonder if that makes a "researcher plus" thingee any easier?--regentspark (comment) 19:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I believe West is generally trustworthy, but nonetheless, this is a request for the entire admin bit, and there is nothing to go on that says he'll be a good admin. It's too bad there isn't a way to get a partial bit, but I'm going to have to stay neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I believe the subject is trustworthy, but I was under the impression that making certain things (like deleted revisions) "administrator-only" shields the site from certain types of liability. That shielding would arise if administrators are insiders to the site, etc. I wonder how far we damage that if we give people administrative status solely for the purpose of conducting and publishing research based on deleted revisions. RayTalk 23:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. This is the most unusual RfA since I saw a bot account at RfA a few years ago. West.andrew.g has helped Wikipedia with Stiki. However he has contributed little by way of content creation. Together with the declared intent to actually not undertake administrative duties, there is no compelling reason to grant the tools. I assume good faith with regard to his declaration to avoid any further spam/misuse of Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:22, 24 February 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/West.andrew.g&oldid=1131473235"