Jump to content

Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/EncycloPetey

Add links
From Wikisource
< Wikisource:Administrators | Archives
Latest comment: 2 months ago by TE(æ)A,ea. in topic EncycloPetey

EncycloPetey

Latest comment: 2 months ago119 comments38 people in discussion

2012-11 admin

EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) • activity • Global

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)

The following discussion is closed:

Successful


Hesperian 11:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2013-12 confirmation

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.

2015-01 confirmation

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

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.

2017-03 confirmation

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

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

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.
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.

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)
  •  Support. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support, as head boy in a borstel. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  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  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)

2020-06 confirmation

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.

2021-07 confirmation

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.

2022-08 confirmation

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.
  1.  Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  2.  Neutral. More edit summaries would be much better.--Jusjih (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  3.  Support, that's enough edit summaries. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  4.  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

2023-09 confirmation

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.

2024-10 confirmation

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/EncycloPetey&oldid=14663419"