Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex valavanis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Alex valavanis

Ended (55/0/0); Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 11:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex valavanis (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to bring you another potential admin candidate who's great with images, Alex valavanis. He's a very composed user who has primarily been an article writer for us, as evident by making Kid A a featured article. As I said earlier up there, he does contribute to IFD, and as a commons transcluder, giving him the tools would effective make him an asset for two projects (he can transclude and delete this way instead of waiting for others). I don't see any problems with this user, and giving him the tools will only help Wikipedia out. Wizardman 18:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accepted. Thanks go to Wizardman for his support. - Papa November 1 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My recent work on Wikipedia has focused on bringing ancient images up to the standards of the modern Image use policy, and admin rights will be quite useful. In particular, I aim to perform the following admin tasks:
  • Move free images to commons, and delete local copies provided the criteria for local deletion are met.
  • Speedy delete images for which neither I nor the uploader can provide source and license information. (I will replace them in articles with free alternatives if possible)
  • Add fair use rationale to copyrighted images if appropriate, and flag fair use violations. Delete violations after notice period has expired.
  • Help to remove backlog from CSD tagged images.
  • Act on consensus decisions at IFD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I should make a slight correction to User:Wizardman's statement. My extensive work on Kid A was to coordinate its improvement from B-class to FA. The bulk of the text was originally written by other authors. I carried out a thorough copyedit, fixed copyright violations, brought it in-line with the WP:MOS and WP:ALBUM guidelines, and primarily served the role of chief pedant! My other contributions have been to formalize the assessments process and to do list at WP:ALBUM. I carry out routine maintenance tasks on thousands of album albums, including moving pages to meet naming conventions—a task that frequently requires me to wait for an admin to delete a redirect page blocking the move.
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: No real conflicts, and I try to reserve stress for my work in real life! I've received a couple of minor gripes about tagging people's images for speedy deletion, but I only tag things if I can't fix them myself. When possible, I've helped the editor by explaining what information is needed to keep the image from meeting CSD and doing all I can to fix the problem myself. So far all discussions have ended amicably. See this discussion for an example: me<->StuRat. I also had a few comments from a user, disappointed with my "relentless" edits to Kid A. I compromised slightly on my removal of the numerous quotes in the article, and soon afterwards it became featured. Aside from blatant vandals, I believe all editors viewpoints are important, and there is nothing intrinsically "right" about my opinions. If something is not explicitly decided by policy and can't be agreed mutually, then inviting other experienced editors to the discussion is the way forward.

Optional question by DarkFalls

4. What is your view on WP:IAR, and when should it be invoked, and not invoked?
A: I believe Wikipedia has existed long enough for policies/rules/guidelines to cover most situations, and WP:IAR should not be invoked as a justification for personal disagreement with consensus e.g. believing that custom fonts highlighting text in an article looks good (against WP:MOSCOLOR). The rules show what has been done previously, and how to act in similar situations, but each edit is a new event and exceptions are possible. Returning to the custom font example, an article about rendering of CSS styles by browsers may require a contravention of the WP:MOSCOLOR style guidelines and WP:IAR may be appropriate. An endless list of exceptions to rules would be both unrealisable and unhelpful. Therefore, provided that the spirit of the project (summarized by WP:5P) is not broken, common sense may occasionally dictate invocation of WP:IAR.

Optional question by LessHeard vanU

5. While humour is a very effective tool in promoting a congenial atmosphere within Wikipedia, are you confident that you have the experience to recognise when it may be inappropriate - for instance subbing your sig for another name in your acceptance - and confusing for others not familiar with your style? This is not really a big deal, but it was the very first impression I received upon viewing this request.
A: Thanks for your question. I considered the implications carefully before changing my default signature a couple of months ago. The reason was not an attempt at humour, but a matter of personal security. I decided to change all of my web service user names to avoid revealing my real name so readily to "interested parties". In the case of Wikipedia however, I felt I had invested a lot of effort in my account and it would be counter-productive to start from scratch with a new one. Also, a google search for my name already reveals my Wikipedia account as the first result. A suitable compromise was changing my signature to hide my name from casual readers, while preserving my history. I accept that it may be slightly confusing for new editors, but I'm certainly not a unique case and I hope you'll understand my reasons. As for humour within discussions, I agree that it's good to keep things fairly light-hearted. No one wants to have a conversation with a robot, but I try to err on the side of clarity rather than humour in discussions. Please check any of my talk page contributions for examples.
Thank you for your comprehensive reply, and I apologise for misunderstanding why you used a different name in your acceptance statement to that which you are applying under. As communication is vital as an admin, may I suggest that in any similar circumstance you note that another name is an "aka" or "formerly known as" to help clarify matters for the slow of uptake (that would be me, that it would!) I also withdraw the inference that you may be too light hearted to properly fulfil all of the duties of adminship, which was prompted by my misunderstanding above. Right-o, off to look at your stats... LessHeard vanU 09:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Alex/Papa, Is there a reason you can't do this through WP:CHU? I admit I find a signature that's completely different from the user name a little confusing. --JayHenry 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me of this option. I will go to WP:CHU once this RFA has expired. I think it would make things even more confusing if I did it immediately, however! - Papa November 1 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Vodak

6. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?
A: I'd rather not give too many personal details, but in brief...
Education
  • (in progress - expected completion October 2008) PhD Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds — "n-type Silicon/Silicon Germanium Quantum Cascade Lasers"
  • MEng(Hons) Electronic Engineering, University of York (2004) (First class with distinction, award for overall outstanding achievement)
  • 5 A-levels (2000): Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Chemistry, General Studies (all at grade A)
  • 9 GCSEs (1998): Maths(A*), Physics(A*), Chemistry(A), Biology(A*), English Language(A*), English Literature(A), French(A*), Spanish(A*), Information Technology(A*)
Positions held
  • 2005-present: Research student, University of Leeds [1]
  • 2004-5: Software engineer, CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory, Cheshire
Publications
"Intervalley splitting and intersubband transitions in n-type Si/SiGe quantum wells: Pseudopotential vs. effective mass calculation" A Valavanis, Z Ikonić, R Kelsall, Physical Review B 75 205332 (2007)
"Vertical spinal electronic device with large room temperature magnetoresistance" E Ahmad, A Valavanis, J Claydon, Y X Lu, Y B Xu, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 41(10) 2592 (Oct. 2005)
Recreational interests
  • Alternative music and cinema
  • Cookery and dining out
  • World travel
  • Eastern philosophy
Optional question from Luna Santin
7. I noticed you don't seem to have email enabled for the Special:Emailuser function. Often, blocked or confused users will have no other way to contact administrators, or users may wish to keep certain communication private for a wide variety of reasons. In my experience, it is considered customary for an admin to have email enabled; do you have an opinion on the matter? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
A: I agree that new users may find it easier to contact admins by email. I disabled the email function a couple of months ago as a matter of privacy, at the same time I changed my signature. I received a couple of emails from users wanting me to give them free technical consultancy for commercial software projects. I pointed them in the direction of some free web resources, but I felt uncomfortable that users knew my real name from my user account, could google for details of my work in real life and then reach my personal email account via Wikipedia. As stated in question 5 above, I will go to WP:CHU after this RFA has expired. If I manage to change my account name, I will gladly enable the email function again. Thanks - Papa November 1 09:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Jusjih
8. How would you think of images considered copyrighted in the USA even if now in the public domain in their source countries due to American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term?
A: My opinion is not as important as how to best deal with the images legally. Naturally, I'd like to see the law changed as it restricts some good material from being used, but for now there are two important points for admin work. Firstly, the images can still be used on en.Wikipedia if supported by a valid fair use claim, and images in categories such as Category:PD-AR-Photo should periodically be checked for compliance. Secondly, this rule is currently not well publicised to users so some "copyright expired in other countries" tags should be edited to explain their PD status in the USA. - Papa November 1 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Alex valavanis before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support Nom beating or otherwise. A refreshing approach in the badly under resourced image section of Wikipedia. Contribs evidence a good understanding of policy, discourse and activity (particularly January!) and the essential civility. I'm delighted to see a potential admin who will work in this often slightly overlooked area by other candidates. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. Just missed being #1. Wizardman 11:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. (S) (yes I did the support different . Definitely. Ds.mt 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    Note: Ds.mt = Rlest avoiding his week long block. See user's page. Miranda 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Nom. Has always been helpful in policy clarification. Schlamniel 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support solid candidate with well rounded experience and appears to be thorough and civil. We can definitely use extra admins willing to tackle the image backlogs. Pascal.Tesson 14:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support An excellent editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support No issues here, nothing in his edit histor stands out and he seems fairly well-rounded. Trusilver 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - No issues. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose - Sorry but you have been nominated by a rouge admin whose only propaganda is to nominate good editors. He is trustworthy, reliable, experienced and a very helpful admin and I hope you can be just as evil as him..Good Luck..hehe..--Cometstyles 16:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    If that's intended as an "inside" joke, those of us outside your circle don't "get it." Please clarify. Xoloz 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    I get it. Politics rule 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Good editor. Politics rule 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I can see no reason not to trust this editor with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per above. Solid edit counts, especially since November 2006, and no complaints. Bearian 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support as per above edits do not reflact any particular POV.Hence neutral and is a Good Editor. Harlowraman 20:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Shows a need for tools per question 1 --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    A small remark for educational purposes: not that "a clear need for tools" is a prerequisite. Pascal.Tesson 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support definitely. —Anas talk? 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support per above. -Lemonflash(chat) 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Answers to optional questions were very good. Definitely a good editor. --Hdt83 Chat 00:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Jawohl. I like what I see. Jmlk17 03:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Looks good to me. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Can't see any reason to do otherwise. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Everything seems to be in order. LessHeard vanU 10:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I think Alex is a good person. He has done a great job for Wikipedia and we need more Wikipedians like him. RS2007 10:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. The name issue is minor and though I'm still curious about my question above, a review of contributions show this is the intelligent and reasoned sort of administrator we need and I am happy to support. --JayHenry 19:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Absolutely, and answers to the Qs were impressive. ELIMINATORJR 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Experience editor, time to give him the mop! --Hirohisat Talk 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Well rounded candidate. Lara♥Love 04:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Nothing worthy of opposing over. A great user nominated by another great user. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - All-around perfect candidate. --xDanielxTalk 11:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Civil and helpful. A fine candidate and all-round great editor. Plus he has a good taste in music ;) CloudNine 14:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. SilkTork 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I like what I see here. Images are most vexing to me, and adding another competent mop to this task is never a bad thing. The contribs look good, and nothing popped up to give me pause. Good luck! Hiberniantears 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Per WP:PRIVACY, you didn't have to answer the RL questions. Miranda 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support A.Z. 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - Zeibura (Talk) 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support A solid candidate. — Wenli (contribs) 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - ha, I got ten A*s at GCSE. Eat it!!!! (um, yes, will do fine) Neil ╦ 13:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  38. Fine editor. 100% RfA? :-) Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support We need morepeople who aren't confused by image copyright rules and laws. He would be extremely useful. Hermione is a dude 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support — umdяums 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  41. Strong support Need a great admin who knows images per Hermione is a dude.  hmwith  talk 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support- I see no reason to oppose; he is a good editor who can be trusted with the tools, with intelligent answers to the questions. Neranei T/C 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  43. Strong support another good candidate brought to us by Wizardman. Acalamari 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Fully qualified candidate who appears poised to do useful and important work. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  45. Pile on! Giggy Talk | Review 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Good editor. ~ Infrangible 02:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, good editor. @pple 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support the tools will help him. <<-armon->> 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support The only thing that concerns me about this editor is agreeing to post personal information, since that sort of info tends to lead to death threats and admins leaving Wikipedia. That said, I doubt it will become a problem. --Lucid 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for this valuable advice. Just to clarify, the information I posted is only that which is available by googling for my name. In the discussion above, I stated my intention to change user name as soon as this RFA expires, so hopefully this will cease to be an issue. - Papa November 1 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Yep. -- Kicking222 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support - I see no problems here. Need picture help too so that is a + Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support per PEAR. Nick 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. WjBscribe 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support per Nick. --Kbdank71 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose per Block log. Having never been blocked himself, I don't think Alex valavanis understands the full Wikipedia experiance. How can you appropriately weild the awesome responsibility of blocking others when you yourself have no experiance being blocked? --PEAR (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So only users who have been blocked in the past (for example for reasons of vandalism, incivility or breaking of 3RR) are acceptable as admins, as that way they have experience? I'm sorry, if you want to oppose that's fine, but at least provide a more valid reasoning or just none at all. We might as well say that people can only participate at WP:XFD once they've had an article or image deleted, or can't clerk at WP:RCU until they've created a few sock puppets. Pedro |  Chat  17:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, admins should never block where they are personally involved. Admins should only block when it has been requested by an involved party, after checking that policy has been properly applied/violated per the request. The only judgement, once it is determined it is an appropriate action, is the tariff. This ability to judge both whether a violation has taken place and the appropriate tariff is not derived from experience of the consequences, but from experience of editing wikipedia. I think this is a poorly reasoned oppose. LessHeard vanU 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, at first, I would've safely assumed this was a sarcastic oppose. However, considering PEAR has never commented on an RfA before, and considering PEAR has been blocked multiple times... I'm honestly not sure. -- Kicking222 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To make this weirder, according to my research PEAR and Alex have never come in contact with each other. So this oppose really confuses me. If it's a point violation then I have no idea what point it's to make. I almost want to ask if he'll change his vote to support if I block him for one second :P Wizardman 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will change my vote to support if Alex is blocked, although a length of time (a day or so) that allows him to experiance being blocked would be prefferable over a second. My three favourite admins — Golbez, Gwernol, and Antandrus — have all experianced both sides of the block experiance (blocking others and being blocked). --PEAR (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
To further support my point that being blocked is an imporant rite of passage all Wikipedia editors should go through, I would like to mention that Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales has been blocked on many occasions. --PEAR (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Gwernol's ony block is a self-block that he reverted though. Wizardman 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's why he's my least favourite of the three. --PEAR (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. —Kurykh 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I refuse to discuss this further and would strongly advise other editors to do likewise - this oppose is minor within the context of this RFA and the opening remarks by Pear and subsequent discussion fails utterly to benefit Wikipedia. Pedro |  Chat  18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This user is now indefinitely blocked, anyways. --Deskana (banana) 11:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.

}