Meta:Requests for adminship/Seddon
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
Meta:Requests for adminship/Seddon (Temp)
- Seddon (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
- Scheduled to end at 02:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC).
For a very short background on myself I have been involved in the movement in some shape or form since 2006, mostly on the english wikipedia where I am an admin and have been in various trusted roles there. Heavily involved in the UK chapter where I served as a director and trustee for two years (2009-2011). Whilst involved in the chapter ran the fundraiser for 10-11 where I had temporary adminship for access to central notice. Become heavily involved in the Wikimania bidding process which is my other main activity at meta. Currently a contractor with the WMF as a Production Coordinator working on the the 2011-12 Fundraiser (staff account: User:Jseddon (WMF)) where again I hold temporary adminship.
I would like to request adminship mostly to avoid having to continue to try to pin down other Meta admins that require the tools. This is mostly to have access to central notice as a volunteer still involved in WMUK and for any reasons that may arise related to my continued involvement with the Wikimania bidding process. Though I would be happy to fullfil any other requests as they come up.
- Support, trusted user. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Strong OpposeBesides a personal dislike after his conduct and tone off-wiki related to some Wikimedia committee discussion, I can't trust this user to be thoughtful or helpful to new and foreign users who don't have english as their first language. His tone can be more often than not, very condescending and abrasive to people he doesn't know. I also don't see Seddon using his previous temp. adminshipprominentlyat all until thelast few dayslast day (14 feb.) for tasks that could've been done as a regular user (a mass-deletion request to any active admin). As long as he has the current WMF account with staff rights, anything related to WMUK or WMF fundraiser work would not require a local adminship on Meta. I can't trust him to be a part of a multi-lingual community like Meta, if he needs it for any work related to his work/job(s) he can request as many temp. adminships as he needs. I also don't see any relevant x-wiki work. Theo10011 09:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)- As a (small) point of order, he did use his temporary adminship on a fairly steady basis -- even though editing the MediaWiki namespace doesn't count as a logged action, it is an admin one, as an account must have sysop (or global equivalent) rights in order to edit that namespace. Courcelles 10:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Clarification I would like to clarify my opposition in light of Seddon's private message. My reason is not opposition based on his behavior with people who don't have english as a first language but more simply his inability to assume good faith with new users, he cc'd several people (staff/board members) on a reply to a private email I sent him some months ago regarding a committee/policy related question, starting with "Lets get a few things straight here Theo.", he was expecting that I was lying when I made reference to them in the email, I didn't. He repeatedly made reference to not trusting me or knowing me because at the time I wasn't as active on en.wp. He repeatedly mentioned that I am not party to some privilege information that he has, Incidentally, at the time I was a staff member at WMF and had access to several mailing list, and wikis he didn't, I even had discussions about that topic with some staff members in person who asked me to help, I was well aware of that privileged information he kept referring to, even before asking the question . Since then, he has gotten to know my work but if that was someone new working in good-faith, I would have serious concerns about that. In his defense, a few exchanges later on that thread after other people who were cc'd commented, he apologized. At the time, I only took an interest in the discussion as a Meta community member who came across that particular discussion. I can't support someone with that conduct who would be approached by people who aren't able to articulate their position as well as I could at the time or even handle requests from small wikis in other languages. Note: Seddon if you read this, please comment here and not in private, I would rather not do that, there is nothing in my conduct related to that discussion that I would hide. Thanks. Theo10011 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- To address the points raised here:
- Clarification I would like to clarify my opposition in light of Seddon's private message. My reason is not opposition based on his behavior with people who don't have english as a first language but more simply his inability to assume good faith with new users, he cc'd several people (staff/board members) on a reply to a private email I sent him some months ago regarding a committee/policy related question, starting with "Lets get a few things straight here Theo.", he was expecting that I was lying when I made reference to them in the email, I didn't. He repeatedly made reference to not trusting me or knowing me because at the time I wasn't as active on en.wp. He repeatedly mentioned that I am not party to some privilege information that he has, Incidentally, at the time I was a staff member at WMF and had access to several mailing list, and wikis he didn't, I even had discussions about that topic with some staff members in person who asked me to help, I was well aware of that privileged information he kept referring to, even before asking the question . Since then, he has gotten to know my work but if that was someone new working in good-faith, I would have serious concerns about that. In his defense, a few exchanges later on that thread after other people who were cc'd commented, he apologized. At the time, I only took an interest in the discussion as a Meta community member who came across that particular discussion. I can't support someone with that conduct who would be approached by people who aren't able to articulate their position as well as I could at the time or even handle requests from small wikis in other languages. Note: Seddon if you read this, please comment here and not in private, I would rather not do that, there is nothing in my conduct related to that discussion that I would hide. Thanks. Theo10011 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- On a techincal it is generally considered bad form to be using a staff account for edits related to volunteer activities. In fact the reason for this request was because I didnt want to activate a campaign for WMUK using a staff account and requested another admin to activate it. Ideally I should tried to have created the banners etc... with a volunteer account. Adminship isn't that big a deal and given you have said yourelf I can request access as and when I need it, I want to at least remove the need to be constantly requesting it for my volunteer stuff. It really shouldn't be that big a deal.
- With regards to the disagreement we had it was purely just that, something that I could have with any individual and was not in anyway related to you not speaking english as your first language. I dont want to get bogged down in picking details but I was and still am sorry and I did apologise quickly for the way I responded to you and I thought we have had a good working relationship since then. It was a bad time for me as well and I later stepped down from my role at WMUK within a week or so of that incident with you because of problems in real life. This was not and is not the norm for me. To be honest, I have never had a similar situation like this where I have snapped at someone in private as I did with you. I have a great working friendship with many people who do not speak english as their language both on and off wiki, through related project, chapter, wikimania, foundation. Even now I work with non-EN chapters with the foundation and my manager is brazilian with portuguese as a first language. I dont know what I can do to convince you theo but the impression I gave you is not one I am proud of and its not one I think people have ever held before or since. Seddon 12:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seddon, that apology and explanation might have helped in the last several months since that incident, we never really resolved it, you apologized on that thread and moved on. I was not aware of your resignation or personal issues. I can understand when personal issues take over and you create a bad impression on someone. I do trust you to be thoughtful of people who don't have english as a first language, but I would like your word that you would AGF with newbies especially when its about things close to your work and heart. I would be happy to withdraw my oppose in light of your clarification and apology above. I wish you the best with your work, consider our matter resolved. Thanks. Theo10011 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)re
- If my word still counts with you then yes I would always do my utmost to AGF with newbies or individuals I havn't met and to me thats more than just being understanding and patient but genuinely being a pleasant person to interact with. Please dont feel the need to remove the oppose. In the the end not every admin is perfect and we will all have our off days. This was one and there is nothing to say it might not happen again years in the future, its these days we have little control over and its these I nor anyone cant prevent. But I can tell you that it will not happen without the most extreme of circumstances to cause it. I hope we can move on from this in great and awesome things :) Seddon 12:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, your word does count. I would have happily supported you or even nominated you for adminship here if not for that particular incident. I can def. understand when personal life gets in the way and makes us different people than who we are. I hope to put this unpleasantness behind us, and I would be happy to have you as a fellow member of Meta community. Good luck! Theo10011 12:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- If my word still counts with you then yes I would always do my utmost to AGF with newbies or individuals I havn't met and to me thats more than just being understanding and patient but genuinely being a pleasant person to interact with. Please dont feel the need to remove the oppose. In the the end not every admin is perfect and we will all have our off days. This was one and there is nothing to say it might not happen again years in the future, its these days we have little control over and its these I nor anyone cant prevent. But I can tell you that it will not happen without the most extreme of circumstances to cause it. I hope we can move on from this in great and awesome things :) Seddon 12:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seddon, that apology and explanation might have helped in the last several months since that incident, we never really resolved it, you apologized on that thread and moved on. I was not aware of your resignation or personal issues. I can understand when personal issues take over and you create a bad impression on someone. I do trust you to be thoughtful of people who don't have english as a first language, but I would like your word that you would AGF with newbies especially when its about things close to your work and heart. I would be happy to withdraw my oppose in light of your clarification and apology above. I wish you the best with your work, consider our matter resolved. Thanks. Theo10011 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)re
- As a (small) point of order, he did use his temporary adminship on a fairly steady basis -- even though editing the MediaWiki namespace doesn't count as a logged action, it is an admin one, as an account must have sysop (or global equivalent) rights in order to edit that namespace. Courcelles 10:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral Through the fact that he hab been a director and trustee of WMUK for two years, the points raised by Theo10011 makes me to have a neutral vote. Vaibhav Talk 10:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support Seddon is doing a great job with his staff account and I'm sure he'll continue this with his main account. Trijnstel 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, per Trijnstel. Ajraddatz
- Oppose Effectively insignificant contributions here I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 10:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- In passing I think it would be a courtesy to this community to improve your user page somewhat. --Herby talk thyme 10:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ill work on it over the weekend. In response to your point with regards to my contributions, I do agree that I am not particularly active outside of my work with regards to wikimania and the fundraiser, however both are areas I will be working in in the long term, I intend to continue to contribute to the fundraiser through my chapter in future years if I am not employed by the foundation. Work on the fundraiser occurs accorss nearly 8 months of the year and its vital for me to be able to seperate what I do as a volunteer and what I do as a staff member. If I have adminship for 8 months of the year I just feel I may as well have it for the other 4. Personally I feel the issue with adminship is about whether a user can be trusted. Even slow, minor contributing admins do something to contribute, even it is small. Those minor roles are just as important. Seddon 17:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- We will have to agree to differ - they are tools for using when folk are active and need them not badges. However - fortunately - that is merely my viewpoint gained after watching shed loads of folk who get the tools and do nothing to help with them. --Herby talk thyme 17:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ill work on it over the weekend. In response to your point with regards to my contributions, I do agree that I am not particularly active outside of my work with regards to wikimania and the fundraiser, however both are areas I will be working in in the long term, I intend to continue to contribute to the fundraiser through my chapter in future years if I am not employed by the foundation. Work on the fundraiser occurs accorss nearly 8 months of the year and its vital for me to be able to seperate what I do as a volunteer and what I do as a staff member. If I have adminship for 8 months of the year I just feel I may as well have it for the other 4. Personally I feel the issue with adminship is about whether a user can be trusted. Even slow, minor contributing admins do something to contribute, even it is small. Those minor roles are just as important. Seddon 17:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, I don't see the need for the tools in your contribs. -Barras 13:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support I trust Seddon not to screw up. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- So far neutral with a tendency to oppose. If you need admin rights for your work here, then you should have it. Alone, I don't see that you need it. Maybe you can explain or examplify, when, under which circumstances, you would have needed admin rights on Meta in the recent past or for the fundraiser? What kind of working on Wikimania proposals/preparation would involve sysop rights on Meta, given that there is still a separate wiki for each Wikimania where these things are housed usually? --თოგო (D) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- By seeing the contribution history of the user and the nomination statement, I don't see the need of sysop tools here, therefore, I would say
Nay. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- I do think it is a real pity that, despite saying he would work on it over the weekend, there is nothing useful on this user's user page. I understand people who want a minimal page - I was like that once and on projects where I am not active my page is minimal. However Meta is a hub project and it multi lingual so the least I would except is a pointer to a main project or projects and some babel info. Maybe it is me but that does seem a minimum somewhere like Meta if folk are active here. --Herby talk thyme 07:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not successful: 4 supports against 3 opposes and 2 neutrals of which one tends to oppose is not a consensus to promote. I'm surprised that only that few people voted here at all. -Barras 08:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)