Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/EncycloPetey

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by EncycloPetey.
See current discussion or the archives index.

EncycloPetey[edit]

2012-11 admin[edit]

EncycloPetey (talkcontribs) • enWS activityGlobal

EncycloPetey has been around enWS for a few years now and recently has become more involved in the project. His experience across several of the sisters manifests in the quality of his contributions here. His comments on the project pages are well-thought out and level-headed. He is now walking in areas where the tools would enhance his work with us. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportWilliam Maury Morris IITalk 04:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Mpaa (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Impressive cross wiki presence. long history of stopping in regularly. Jeepday (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Cannot say that I have been overly watching, contribs looks good, WS:S presence, and not afraid to express an opinion, nice! — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportIneuw talk 16:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support sounds like a winner to me. :) --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed :
Successful

Hesperian 11:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2013-12 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2012 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). EncycloPetey will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIneuw talk 04:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGeorge Orwell III (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Haven’t voted yet? What on earth! —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mpaa (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solomon7968 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

2015-01 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2012 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). EncycloPetey will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2016-02 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2012 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). EncycloPetey will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support BD2412 T 14:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportbillinghurst sDrewth 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  — Ineuw talk 08:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support C. F. 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral: More edit summaries would be better.--Jusjih (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportProsody (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

2017-03 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2012 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). EncycloPetey will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2018-04 confirmation[edit]

admin since November 2012 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). EncycloPetey will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

2019-05 confirmation[edit]

The following discussion is closed :
Confirmed

admin since November 2012 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). EncycloPetey will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.
Achtung.svg The requirements for a vote of confidence are met below; the user's continued access will be decided by a simple majority of established voters.

The threshold of three "oppose" votes was met on May 27, 2019. The votes to date will be tallied along with any future votes, and the result will be determined by simple majority at the end of May 31, 2019.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Xover (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --BethNaught (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportHrishikes (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMJLTalk 18:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support BD2412 T 02:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ineuw (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    It would be helpful if you could identify some item at Wikisource:Adminship which you feel I have done incorrectly or have failed to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    i keep looking for facilitators, which is incompatible with admin locking pages. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    We have Wikisource:Protection policy, by which admins are expected to lock pages under certain circumstances. Locking pages is not incompatible with adminship nor with Wikisource policies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    adding a "not ideal link" is not disruptive. it does not harm the wiki. using admin tools to force editors to add links, the way you want, is a misuse of admin tools. you are an involved party in an edit war, and you used tools to prevail in that edit war. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    Wikisource:Protection policy makes no such distinction. The policy states that pages should be locked until the dispute is resolved through discussion. But when the other party refuses to participate in the discussion, resolution is not possible. You also assume that "prevailing" in an edit war was a goal; it was not. The goal was discussion to resolve the issue, which is the course that policy advocates, but the other party declined discussion. In the the Scriptorium, you asked why I didn't solve the issue by "uploading to commons and replacing", but two days before you proposed that solution, I had already uploaded to commons and set up a transcription project here with an index page. Thus, locking the page did not end my attempts to resolve the issue. I had already enacted your proposed solution before you posted your first comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    i will make that distinction. your use of tools stops collaboration, it does not lead to resolution; i will now cease "discussion" with you; no use, you are invested in dictation not collaboration; i will cease work on Land Birds of the Pacific District, you can handle it. please do not interact with me. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    Listening and reflecting are important skills in administrators. When one asks a question and then becomes argumentative is interesting means to explore an answer. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    battleground has increasingly become the norm: "i reverted you, now convince me to let your edit stand"; "i locked the page, now convince me to let your edit through"; i blocked you, now convince me to unblock". it is not my idea of collaboration. and you drive away editors, and talk becomes a ghost town. editors are not interested in the emotional labor of interacting in a "house rules" environment; rather they will avoid and route around the bitey behavior as an obstruction. you must adopt a "facilitator" model rather than a "drill sergeant" model, or the project will go the way of german wikisource, or wikinews. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    to elaborate - the german wikisource comment is not a throw away. back in 2010, german wikisource had more validated pages than english [1]; now as english crosses 1 million, german is stuck at 250000, and getting passed by polish and soon italian [2]. a cautionary tale, which i guess some choose not to learn from. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strongly for two edit wars at Help:Public domain [3] [4] being a very bad model.--Jusjih (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    That is two reversions with a direction to ongoing Scriptorium discussion that had not yet reached consensus. Two reversions does not constitute an "edit war". --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose without prejudice, pending further discussion. -Pete (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • My own observations and interactions to date had me at "neutral"; EncycloPetey is a highly engaged and productive user, who I feel could often benefit from a bit of reflection on how they engage with other users. Apart from the adminship question, there would be no issue; but I do feel it's important for administrators to maintain a high level of patience and diplomacy. The thing that persuaded me to cast the vote was the interactions with Slowking4 and Andy Mabbett above. I can't really speak to the merits of those issues, but I would like to see an administrator finding a more productive way to engage with criticism and pushback (even if that criticism is not delivered in an ideal way). -Pete (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Continuing to follow this, I'd urge anyone unsure of their vote to review this current Scriptorium discussion. I find myself swayed by @Koavf:'s words below, but with the admin in question continuing to escalate a feud (on which I generally agree with him, on the merits) I'm having trouble changing my vote. -Pete (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing my vote. I think the engagement of other administrators, and EP's engagement with a policy update begun by Hesperian, suggest this can all likely be resolved without removing the bit. -Pete (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
(Perhaps a more experienced Wikisourcer could clarify what is the process for the vote of confidence mentioned on this page?) -Pete (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The vote of confidence is simply this: if at the end of the month there are more "support" than "oppose" in this thread, EncycloPetey will continue to be an admin on this site; otherwise his admin privileges will be revoked (until such time as he may be re-nominated). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The vote is triggered today, and it's done in just 3 days? If that's the case, I'd urge to state it very clearly -- it is a much more rapid process than I would have expected. From the wording above, it sounds as though there are two separate processes -- first, establishing whether or not there will be a vote, and then a vote. But your description combines the two. Without any implication re: the merits of the current question, that sounds like a pretty shoddy process, and it's very poorly documented. -Pete (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        • The vote is triggered today because before today there were no more than two opposing comments. But yes, the wording could probably be better. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Thanks for explaining this. I think the language I've added above will be helpful to those less experienced in these decisions. -Pete (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't think anyone would question that EP adds a lot to this resource and I very much value his hard work, the high quality of said work, and most interactions with him but I have noticed some poor judgement and needlessly harsh or arbitrary actions in the past. It's not enough to lose confidence or make me lack trust but it's enough that I feel like it's worth surfacing when it's explicitly asked. Altogether, he is a very fine editor and a decent admin but is not exemplary and I would have caution about him (e.g.) having further elevated access unless he showed that he's chilled out. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, as head boy in a borstel. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as I haven't seen an abuse of the tools which is what we are measuring. That said, listening and consideration are key componenta of good adminship, and so is the ability act on the consensus of the community, rather than predicting what you think that it will be or should be. One's acts accumulate in positive and negative aspects, even on the most senior of other editors. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel that EP's activities add a lot of value to this site. He is a very hard working and conscientious contributor, even though at times he tends to be too orthodox in the interpretation of the rules. EP, it would help to lighten up a bit. Ineuw (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That's your second vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I believe @Ineuw: is following the process as described, in which (as I read it) there would be a separate vote of confidence begun following three oppose votes. However, it seems that standard practice is just to blend the two votes together (which I think is problematic, but probably not worth addressing during this proceeding). See the collapsed section above. Regardless, I'm confident whoever closes this won't count this vote twice. -Pete (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing: Removed my second {{support}} tag, so as not to confuse the vote count. Just consider it as another example of fraudulent voting. :-) But, still support EP. Ineuw (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Fraudulent but useful :) This illustrates my concern with the process. We now know that your support includes consideration of the "oppose" votes. But we don't know whether or not that's the case for Zyephyrus, Xover, BethNaught, Hrishikes, Londonjackbooks, MJL, or BD2412. That (as well as extended time to consider) is what triggering a separate vote , as I think is described in the policy quoted, would accomplish. Hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but this situation illustrates the point neatly. -Pete (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
            • My support is unaffected by subsequent events, but I take your point. I agree that there are some material differences between a routine reconfirmation vote and a contested one. I disagree, I think, that that case needs a separate process; but it might benefit from a longer deadline and wider notifications (a week or two extra, and by-policy required notification of the Scriptorium, maybe?). But I'm not sure this is doable in practice if we don't want unnecessary bureaucracy: what objective criteria would separate Phe's "contested" reconfirmation (bit dropped because they are inactive) from a case like this where someone is actually challenging the reconfirmation "for cause"? My initial stance would thus be to maintain the status quo, but am open to be persuaded otherwise; and I would encourage you to open a separate thread about it if you can think of good practical solutions (feel free to copy or adduce this message as my starting position).
              Hesperian: I agree it makes sense to delay the close a little bit due to Pete's changed vote; but I'll also note that I otherwise see no real discussion with bearing on the vote. This subthread, for example, is about a meta issue that belongs elsewhere then EP's reconfirmation vote. --Xover (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • While I disagree sometimes with EP (eg. about policy interpretation), I think they do a lot of positive work here. So my potential Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral vote here would be meaningless. Ankry (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


This confirmation is scheduled to be closed; but perhaps I ought not to curtail an active discussion in which someone has changed their view within the last few hours. Tell you what: I will close it in ~12 hours unless I see consensus to leave it open. Hesperian 00:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I see the point. If we presume that the second vote is just a continuation of the discussion of the first, then there is no reason to initiate a second process, with the outcome already established. If there is to be a second process, let's just have it. BD2412 T 02:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the process, and I agree the outcome is established. I was only holding off because I think it is bad form to summarily close a discussion that is active and that some people are quite invested in. Hesperian 02:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if there has there been any off-site discussion of this confirmation. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Hesperian 01:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)