Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Selket

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] Selket

Final (54/1/1); Ended Tue, 1 May 2007 12:48:43 UTC

Selket (talk · contribs) - I'd like for RFA patrollers to take a look at this candidate, Selket. He joined the project way back in 2003, but has only recently been seriously working for Wikipedia. I first met saw him in Wikipedia:Third opinion, which he occasionally serves to help, but did not really look at his work here until his editor review in March where I told him I would keep an eye on him. He has some very fine edits, a total of about 5900 edits. Selket is knowledgeable when it comes to images, as shown by his clickable maps on the article Ear. He also operates a bot, SelketBot, which inserts {{Shared IP}} on education institution IPs. He also helps with repeating laborious tasks (e.g. fixing disambig links) and helping with backlogs. Finally, although he makes mistakes (as do all of us), he knows when to acknowledge his mistakes, such as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Route 11. I have no doubt that Selket will be an asset to the project and the community as an administrator. Thank you. bibliomaniac15 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Selket Talk 05:00, 24 April 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, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I expect to spend a lot of time in whatever backlog seems the longest. IfD and Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons come to mind. My (real world) work is such that menial tasks are actually enjoyable at the end of the day. I have been doing a lot of maintenance here, and look forward to being able to expand the types of maintenance I can help with.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of the ear diagrams mentioned by Bibliomaniac15, although I need to share some of the credit with Zondor, creator of the tool that greatly assisted. On the whole, I am a firm believer in incremental improvement so a lot of my big contributions are not a few big contributions, but many small ones. Examples I like to give are neuroanatomy articles and pharmaceutical articles.
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: I have certainly been in conflicts but don't generally find them stressful. Of course, everyone gets a bit worked up from time to time, myself included, but I have begun to see disagreements as an opportunity to build consensus. I do enjoy convincing people of my point of view; however, I also enjoy finding common ground. I will argue vehemently for my position, but I'm always open to being convinced that I'm wrong. When this happens I admit it and quietly move on.
Optional questions from MacGyverMagic
4. If you want to work in various backlogs, you cannot avoid cases were copyright is involved. How much do you know about copyright and have you shown such knowledge in your editing?
I think I'm towards the high end of people who are not IP lawyers. I do want to point out that the vast majority of cases where copyright is involved are uncontroversial. As for showing such knowlege, I think you can look to some of my recent posts on the debate over the merits of SVG logos. But do note that these are issues that are controversial, so even if you disagree with my initial position (it has changed somewhat) look to the way I support my position. --Selket Talk 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
5. What do you consider to be your weak points when it comes to editing Wikipedia?
This is one of those dangerous questions, and I've noticed a lot of people don't answer it. I'm not trying to hide my mistakes so here are a few. (I'm not implying anyone else is either.) I think my biggest weak point is that sometimes I "pull the trigger" a little too quickly. When trolling recent changes, for example, I might revert something that looked like vandalism and then realize it probably wasn't so then I have to un-revert it. I've done this with discussion posts also such as here where I misread a policy statement.
I am aware of this tendency and, as a result, will be very careful when using admin tools if I'm given them. --Selket Talk 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Would you consider opting in for the graphs in Interiot's edit counting tool if you became an administrator?
Yes. --Selket Talk 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Although, the database lag is so far back as to make the current graphs somewhat meaningless in my case. --Selket Talk 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A question from bainer (talk)
7. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
We are building an encyclopedia, not a new legal system. If the rule, as it could be applied to a particular situation, uncontroversially obstructs rather than aids in that end, it should probably be ignored. Someone who does this though should probably be ready to explain his or her actions. --Selket Talk 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
8. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a this can be a little bit of a judgment call but requires a little common sense. Unsourced, potentially libelous material should be removed immediately, but following that I think the prefered course of action should be to assume good faith and encourage the editor to do some homework and provide a source. If the user refuses, or simply insists on re-adding unsourced material, then warnings are in order. When that fails, blocks should be employed. How rapidly one progresses through those three steps requires some discretion based on the history of the editor and the nature of the statement. --Selket Talk 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I know this editor from all the pharma/med work they've done & I've seen them in action. "Interesting edit history", ramping up in a big way this year. I certainly trust them with the mop. - Alison☺ 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - Thip ("this person") is as intelligent as thip is thoughtful. (I noticed thip's opinion about gender-based pronouns being arcane, and thought I'd try my hand at creating some genderless ones).  :) Thip has wide experience. Thip is trusted by the community. Thip is fine by me. And I trust thep ("the person") who nominated thip, and you should trust thap ("that person") too. (At least it's not arcane).  :) The Transhumanist 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Y Yes. Real96 06:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - No Problems and has been around a long time (about to go into WikiRetirement)..:)..--Cometstyles 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - no problems here... good luck! Majorly (hot!) 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Checked through his contribs, saw nothing obnoxious or broken, just a lot of good work. Trustworthy nominator, trustworthy candidate. Why the hell not? Moreschi Talk 09:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Had dealings with Selket. Was impressed during these dealings with Selket. Am further impressed by Selket here. All good, to my way of thinking. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Selket is an asset to the project, and will continue to be so with the tools.--Xnuala (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - probably not insane - David Gerard 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support: Per Moreschi as there is a lot of article writing in his contribs. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 11:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per suffucient experience and willingness to deal with image backlogs is appreciated. Addhoc 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support looks good. —Anas talk? 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. I reverted a change made by this editor because it looked liked vandalism. Rather than getting worked up at all, the user took the time to apologise for not including an accurate edit summary and calmly explain why his edit was appropriate and supported by policy. He was right, of course, but his actions showed that he understands being right is not enough. I have no doubt this editor would be a good administrator. --Yamla 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support good hard worker, trustworthy. Love the bot. – Riana ऋ 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support He's been around forever and he claims to enjoy maintenance tasks. If there were any reason to mistrust him, we would know about it by now. YechielMan 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. PeaceNT 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Long and productive history, used to maintenance tasks as mentioned by YechielMan (and good at them, too!), and—this may be unorthodox—I feel that experience running a bot shows responsibility and commitment to the project. On a personal note, he has also done some very important work on pharm pages (an interest of mine), and I will forever be indebted to Selket for this tip :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. I don't see why not. --WinHunter (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, primarily to cancel out the vote given by Kelly Martin, which was (with respect) utterly irrelevant to adminship and to Wikipedia policy. Walton Need some help? 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong support Seems like a good user. Acalamari 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Looks fine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Looks good to me and SelketBot has just saved me some work. Adambro 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Trusted user who will not abuse the tools. -- Jreferee 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Looks trustworthy.-- danntm T C 20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Good work at Third Opinion, WikiGnoming, the bot... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support Per Yamla. good faith user.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support as I can find nothing which would indicate this editor can not be trusted or would abuse the tools. I do suggest, however, that having a vandalism counter on your user page is generally a bad idea. It tends to attract vandals, and we certainly don't need more of those here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Per above. Daniel 5127 02:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Thoughtful answers. The reason for opposition given below can't be serious. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Good work, thoughtful answers. Interesting choice of nominators (and username genders). Best, --Shirahadasha 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. I'm not entirely sure Selket was correct in the posts linked to the answer on question 4, but the rest of the questions have been answered to my satisfaction. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. The name rings a bell even though I can't really quite put my finger on it right now. Anyway, Selket looks like a good editor and I don't see any reason whatsoever not to support him. --Seed 2.0 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. A fine editor from what I can tell. I particularly like the answer to Q5 as it shows maturity and the willingness to engage in introspection. A look at contributions to XfDs reveals a good understanding of policies and guidelines. I must disagree with Kelly Martin and Nihonjoe on the question of the vandalism counter. Vandals will vandalise irrespective of the presence of counters. However, I think vandalism in the userspace is preferable to vandalism in the article mainspace as the userspace is of secondary importance and as userpage vandalism is more likely to be caught. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support: Plenty of experience and user seems very civil. Answers to questions also very good. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Do I think this user will abuse the tools? No. Frise 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per answers, comments, overall record. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support John254 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. I support this candidate; I agree with the sentiments of the nominator, and the answer to my question was probably the best so far. --bainer (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per User:Kelly Martin. (Actually, because I think Selket has enough experience and lacks copyright paranoia.) Αργυριου (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. support in common to my evaluation criterions __ ABF __ - - Talk - - 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support good candidate; I don't see anything that would give me reason to oppose.--Isotope23 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I've interacted with Selket regarding bot work. Seems likely to benefit the project from the tools. Gimmetrow 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support per Argyriou. And question answers, looks good. Mangojuicetalk 14:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, I see no reason to think this user will go insane. (And the road nominations don't look like a mistake to me at all, though all the ILIKEIT/ALLXARENOTABLE votes in the debate certainly do.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. --dario vet (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. Candidate has no problems IMO.--Wizardman 16:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. WjBscribe 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support I particularly like the straightforward and sensible answer to the BLP question. DGG 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. ElinorD (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. The presence of a vandalism counter on the candidate's user page indicates that the candidate does not know the importance of dissuading reputation. May reconsider if candidate resolves this problem and convinces me of his understanding of fundamental principles of governance in a wiki environment. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Please Kelly, if you want to campaign against this userbox, start an MfD. Of course, that particular template went through two MfD's 8 months ago and two months ago both resulting in overwhelming keeps. It's unfair to RfA candidates to oppose them because you think this is an effective way of promoting changes you'd like to see. Pascal.Tesson 12:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Kelly, please read meatball:GodKing and meatball:SnipingCriticism. meatball:CommunityExpectations would help in this case too. And please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Your strident opposition to everyone's RFAs isn't helping to build consensus. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I have been asked to retract this rather bizarre comment. Obviously, I need to shut the hell up and not express my rather bizarre opinions in RFAs. I'm expecting the block for disruption any time now. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see Kelly's opposition as strident, so much as the opposition to her opposition. I don't agree with opposing a user for something as trivial as a dumb template, but kudos to anyone sticking to their guns *shrug* – Riana ऋ 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have responded to Elkman's rather bizarre comments on his talk page. Please do not disrupt this RfA further by discussing them here. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Kelly, can you clarify what dissuading reputation means to you? That link isn't clear or even sure that the definition presented is correct. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with AnonEMouse. I find the essay that you've linked to be jargon-laden and substantially incomprehensible. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe we should create a new policy: Meatball is not bloody Wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Meatball Wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Whilst I am trying to understand your frequent and lengthy disappearences? (I ask from the perspective of being available as an admin - any comments?)--VS talk 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    I poked around as far back as 2003 and occasionally made edits. I have been using it as a reference source since. It was only in January of this year that I became serious about making contributions. Four months is on the shorter side of time to become an admin, but it's not at all unprecedented. --Selket Talk 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
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.