[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hlevy2 (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 30 September 2019 (→‎Support: good luck). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GermanJoe

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (61/0/1); Scheduled to end 23:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

GermanJoe (talk · contribs) – GermanJoe has been an active editor since August 2010, amassing over 60,000 edits, two thirds of them to main space. I know GermanJoe from the spam blacklist, where he is a valued contributor who makes regular well-formed reports. He has worked extensively on content, with experience as an FA reviewer, and latterly he has become active in fixing problem edits, for example [1], [2], [3], tagging promotional and other problem articles for deletion and warning spammers [4] and so on. A look through his edits shows much evidence of patience and decency and solid understanding of policy, and this is reflected in a completely clean block log. I believe that GermanJoe would make good use of the tools, that having the tools would allow him to improve Wikipedia more efficiently, and that he is a low risk for abusing them. Guy (help!) 20:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for this nomination, I accept. Disclosure: Before registering an account, I occasionally edited as IP user, but I do not have any alternative accounts. I have never edited for pay or in other situations with a personal conflict of interest. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: I intend to focus on spam-related administrator activities and, more generally, on handling promotional editing. I can also help out with vandalism, username problems, speedy deletions (log),vandalism and copyright violations. In all of these areas I already have extensive user experience with cleaning up and reports. These are just common everyday maintenance tasks, but I'd be glad to provide more specific details if you have further questions to any of these areas. As I am not a native English speaker, I don't plan on involving myself into complex dispute resolution efforts but I'd be glad to offer general help and advice for common situations.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I started regular editing with Featured Article reviews for articles like Madagascar, Germany or Scotland in the High Middle Ages among others. Although interests have changed in later years, the cooperation among all involved editors to work on a common goal was a positive experience that motivated me to learn more and to contribute more regularly. My personal favorite contribution is Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor. Since 2012 I have revised large parts of the article and its referencing (still a work in progress). Defining "contributions" more broadly, I believe that maintenance efforts by all users in all the various areas of this project are also valuable and vital contributions.
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: A few instances of common content-related disagreements - rarely in a timespan of 9 years. Sometimes a discussion just starts on the wrong foot or moves in the wrong direction, but I usually try my best to keep comments in a constructive tone (rare mistakes or a bad day do happen to everyone in my opinion). Aside from 2-3 minor cases of back and forth editing where I should have initiated a discussion earlier, I was never involved in any serious conduct-related disputes. I believe that I also got better in recent years in using article and user talk to avoid disputes and to clarify possible misunderstandings.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Schazjmd
4. What is your view of unregistered (IP) editors and how should they be treated on Wikipedia?
A:IP editors should be treated with the same collegial respect like any registered user, and their constructive contributions should be equally appreciated. But IP editing also has a technical and practical side. It has several significant downsides for the IP editor and the community: decreased user security, more difficult communication, several technical limitations, to name just a few points. When discussing IP editing we should be aware of these flaws and disadvantages. While I am critical of IP editing as a concept, I fully respect the current consensus.
Additional question from OhKayeSierra
5. You show interest in using administrator tools to handle spam. What criteria should be used to distinguish a useful external link from a spam link?
A: The basic requirement for a useful link is meaningful, relevant content that is unsuitable for direct inclusion in the article, although "usefulness" is often subjective. Following the principles outlined at WP:ELNO (I am not going to paraphrase all 19 points for the sake of brevity), such links should also not be promotional. In rare cases promotional sites can be linked if their encyclopedic value outweighs a secondary advertising effect, but such exceptional usages should be decided by uninvolved editors. External links don't have to be absolutely "reliable" per our standards (WP:EL is less restrictive than WP:RS), but their content still needs to be reasonably accurate. Lastly, Wikipedia is no link directory: broad topics could theoretically have hundreds of useful links, but editors should focus on a small selection of ressources that are most useful for a general readership. A bit tangential but worth pointing out: blacklisting has several safeguards to prevent or mitigate the blocking of useful external information. Editors can suggest specific useful links in blacklisted domains to be whitelisted and less-serious cases can be listed to get automatically reverted via XLinkBot instead of being fully blacklisted. Erroneous blacklistings are extremely rare, and like other admin decisions they are also open for review to get such mistakes corrected if needed.
Additional question from Clovermoss
6. How are blocks for unregistered users (I.P. addresses) different from blocks of registered users who have created an account? Clovermoss (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: The main difference is the recommended length for such blocks. As most IPs are usually dynamic and/or potentially used by several editors, extended blocks in this area risk preventing good-faith edits from other uninvolved IP editors. To avoid this, blocks for IPs should be applied cautiously and usually with a shorter block duration compared to a unique registered account. Of course serious repeated disruption from specific IPs need to be handled with appropriate longer blocks, but such blocks should only be done in exceptional cases with the minimum necessary duration.
Additional question from Nsk92
7. As you mention in the answer to Q1 that you plan to focus on dealing with promotional editing, I wonder what your thoughts are regarding dealing with articles created in violation of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and of the WMF paid editing terms of use, and with editors creating such articles.
A:Creating articles for pay without disclosure is a clear violation of WMF's Terms of use and of our equivalent WP:PAID policy for this aspect. Articles created by undisclosed paid editors need to be checked against our basic content guidelines by uninvolved editors. Depending on the state of each article, deletion, draftifying or consequent trimming to a stub article could all be viable options - such articles are likely to violate guidelines and policies such as WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and WP:SPS. Like with all other policies, editors repeatedly violating WP:PAID should be blocked after sufficient warnings have been given. On the other hand, we should try to assist the minority of paid editors who are willing to follow our policies in that regard. Such editors often struggle to understand all nuances and details of these policies and may make mistakes out of ignorance rather than intent.
Additional question from Levivich
8. Will you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If so, under what criteria? If not, why not? Thanks.
A: Yes, I will add myself to this category. The process gives the community another option to hold admins accountable and that's usually a good thing (TM). Looking through some of the more common recall options, I am tending towards an RfC-based recall process that can be initiated by n editors in good standing, but I will need more time to think over all the details - I hope a general assurance is satisfactory for now. On a personal note, I would simply resign if I made grave mistakes and felt to have lost the community's trust, but I appreciate that the community should also have an explicit kind of safeguard. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Beeblebrox
9.This is basically a direct follow up to the above question. If you look at that category, you will note that the vast majority of admins are not in it. The main reason for this is that there actually is no such thing as administrator recall and never has been. It is an entirely voluntary process and there is no way to force an admin to step down even if all the criteria they listed themselves are met. (I have personally participated in a recall process where the admin in question stated who could recall him, when I tried to do so, he simply removed my name from the list. There really aren't any rules at all) Given all that, would you reconsider your answer to the previous question?
A I am aware that the process is entirely voluntary, non-binding, and not governed by any "formal" policies, but plan to join nonetheless. It is listed at Wikipedia:Administrators, so I am assuming it is still a valid option. Of course problems will occur in literally every Wikipedia process from time to time. That doesn't necessarily mean that such a process cannot be useful in other cases. But thank you for the advice and additional information.

Discussion

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

Support
  1. As nominator. Guy (help!) 21:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. AfD work looks good. Haukur (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I've seen GJ around here and there over the years. After a refresher via the interaction analyzer and a look through some other figures, I'm seeing plenty of good reasons to support and none to oppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I'll admit I'd never heard of GermanJoe before as he's a bit gnomish, but looking through his history, I'm impressed. Joe has kept his hands clean, and been a great asset to the community. We've long been asking for admins in more than just North American time zones, and this is a great opportunity to expand that. A nom by Guy cements my support! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support As TRM says at ITN/C, "satis". While Cryptic brings up a fair enough point with sparse anti-spam activity, WP:NONEED allows this to not be a dealbreaker. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I believe I've seen him in AfD, and I'll support anyone working in the gnome regions for 9 years. Nothing says he'll abuse the mop. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Some of the gravest cases of copyvios have been found in articles from the sub-continent; so it's heartening to see an editor contributing to improve the project in an area that is significantly ignored by the majority of us. Extensive editing and maintenance experience, good conversation skills, seems a good choice here. Lourdes 01:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - long term editor with a clear need for the tools. I've stumbled across his work hundreds of times and I trust him to make the right decisions. Kuru (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom good contributions and well versed in policy clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support does good work, will make a good admin. FitIndia Talk Mail 03:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I've also never heard of GermanJoe before as he's a bit gnomish, but after spending a good hour researching, although he falls short on several of my criteria, his knowledge of policy and guidelines is more than adequate, he has a calm, polite, mature and helpful demeanour, and there is therefore no reason not to trust him with the tools or the sense of judgment that goes with the job of janitor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Great candidate, looks to be a great admin too. Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - very good editor,definite net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Of course, I have seen lots of good things. —Kusma (t·c) 06:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I've seen them around doing good stuff - never disagreed with their actions. No red flags in a look through their history. Polite, knowledgable, helpful - seems like a clear net positive to me. -- Begoon 07:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I don't see any problems and they have the experience and skills so as to use the admin tools well. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support has many years experience, although it doesn't really matter as long as he has enough, just like edit count. His AfD logs are impressive. Contributes mainly in article space. Has plans to help at AIV. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. One who I thought already was an admin. Been extremely helpful in the past on image licensing queries, which interaction showed him to be knowledgeable, patient and unfailingly calm. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, no issues here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I don't generally like editors who claim to be "anti spam" as it often means "anti topics I haven't heard of", but I've checked out GermanJoe's contributions, and I don't see any concerns. Going through his talk page archives, I find lots of constructive and helpful advice. His CSD tagging is good with no obvious recent declines or mistakes. He talks a good argument at AfD, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokaglish when consensus didn't go his way (and in retrospect probably should have). I was a little concerned over what appeared to be (at least superficially) edit warring at Hyperthymesia, but this seems to be reasonable action for somebody who doesn't have the block button, and GermanJoe reached out to the other editor with a polite, hand-written message before getting action taken. Give him a mop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support precious nit-picking tools and brainstorming --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: excellent temperament, the most important quality for an admin, and very competent. — Bilorv (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per nominator. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Sufficient tenure (steady and active since Sept. 2014) and participation (63.9K edits, 66.4% mainspace) for this native German-speaking editor. His first stable version of his user page after becoming active at WP looks like THIS, which is a very good sign indeed. Clean block log and no indication of assholery. AfD win-loss record using my scoring system is 17-2 voting Keep and 223-7 voting delete, which, while definitely a bit out of balance on the deletion side of the ledger is nonetheless excellent in terms of meeting consensus. One bad deletion nomination in the last two years, for social psychologist Lee Jussim which ended up as a 6-0 keep if nominator is excluded. Stuff happens. Appears to be an excellent candidate. Appears to have a need for the toolkit as a spam-fighter. No concerns whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jussim was a procedural nomination originally requested by an IP, so I wouldn't even hold that against Joe. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that fact, thank you for the clarification. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Strangely I never came across the candidate even though they have completed a mountain of edits, guess it shows how the big the project is. I had a look last night and seems a reasonable decent candidate. scope_creepTalk 11:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support.has many years experience. I believe I've seen him in AfD. very good editor,definite net positive. does good work, will make a good admin.--Nahal(T) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support meets my criteria. I’m particularly impressed with the answer to Q5, and think that he would be a net positive with the tools. See also: WP:Yyy?. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support strong content contributions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems like a right guy to handle the admin mop around here. - Darwinek (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I don't see anything that makes me wary. Trustworthy, been around a while and is experienced, and definitely a net positive. In addition, the answer to my question was exactly what I was looking for. Clovermoss (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support An excellent candidate. A net positive. Good luck, N.J.A. | talk 12:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Everything I reviewed looked good to me. — Ched (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support The spam blacklist always needs work, and I trust JzG's nomination. Good answers to questions so far; no drama is a welcome plus, so I have no reason not to support. Miniapolis 13:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Seems like a solid choice who would make the project better if granted admin access. Michepman (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Competent, well-intentioned, good temperament, unlikely to abuse the tools, and huge extra points for the early version of their user page found by Carrite, which emphasizes how diligent this editor has been since first starting to edit. Also how diligent Carrite is. --valereee (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Edit history shows candidate to be helpful and collegial and reasonable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Per nom and others, particularly Kudpung and Richie333. GirthSummit (blether) 14:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Strong content work, no concerns. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Doesn't show up in all the wrong drama places so with the above supports, looks like an ideal candidate. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I have seen GermanJoe around. I've found him a competent editor, temperamentally suited for adminship and trustworthy. Vexations (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks well qualified, and I don't see any cause for concern. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Adminship is no big deal. As long as the user has good knowledge of Wikipedia policies through experience, and there is no reason to believe that the user will abuse the tools, there is no reason to oppose. William2001(talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support solid record at AfD, appears to have a track record of civility, no apparent reason to oppose. signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support remember him as very solid in any cases I've come across him on articles and highly likely to make good use of admin tools.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. OK with me. Neutralitytalk 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, well-rounded experience, good temperament, clueful answers to the questions, will make a good admin. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Per nom, and I think Nsk summed it up well above. With thanks to GJ for stepping up and volunteering. – Levivich 21:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Competent and trusted candidate, I see no red flags here. –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - I see no red flags. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support One of the easiest decisions in RFA in a while. Good content history, no drama. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - as per nom. Reviewed contribs and no concerns. Loopy30 (talk)
  59. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Looking back through XTools and AFD Stats, and I can't find anything wrong. At all. Utopes (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - work in policing promotional editing policy can be tricky. I wish you the best of luck with it, and hope that you will uphold the trust that WP's users place in us to provide NPOV, unbiased coverage. Hlevy2 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
  1. I can't find anything really objectionable in his deleted edits or CSD log. (Maybe some overoptimism in trying to save things like Bihar Entrepreneurs Association or RecoveryManager Plus, both of which I'd've G11'd without a second thought, though that says as much about me as him.) What is objectionable is that they're both very, very sparse for such an anti-spam-oriented nomination and Q1. —Cryptic 00:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


General comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GermanJoe&oldid=918723261"