Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/AlbertCahalan

+Administrator
I'd like to delete things according to exception 1 (No meaningful content or history) and 4 (Very short pages with no definition or context). For example, a page goes in with the wrong name and is immediately renamed, leaving behing a redirect like Coobkook:Barbecueing is. (look closely; there is a typo) Another example would be dead categories... the cookbook has a way of collecting cruft. AlbertCahalan 05:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that, despite the above, I am clearly not a deletionist. Just the opposite: I have an additional need to see deleted pages; pages with real content sometimes disappear (in clear violation of policy) without even a vote. For some strange reason, admin rights are required for this. AlbertCahalan 23:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record for this discussion: Perhaps you can let us know that you wouldn't persue an "anti-deletionist" agenda in the event you are granted admin rights? For example, the process does allow for some entries to deleted (in addition, the deletion process can expand, and has been expanded in the past, in order to exclude entries that do not belong on wikibooks). Would you be willing to let that process continue, despite perhaps ideological differences you'd have with it? MShonle 21:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It all depends on what you mean by that. Obviously I will make efforts to prevent needless destruction of pages with actual content. An awful lot of that seems to go on around here. On the other hand, when a strong majority feels that something does not belong, it must go. Note that, statistically, it is an abomination to count a handful of votes and call it a consensus. AlbertCahalan 01:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It depends upon what you mean by needless. Nobody here at wikibooks, as far as I've seen, has ever needlessly deleted a page: further, undeletion is a forum for addressing those concerns. Basically, I trust the wiki spirit, and if there are good reasons to keep something, those reasons will shine from the discusion and people will do the right thing. So, I disagree with your claim that "an awful lot of that seem to go on around here." For example, you voted to keep the Getting a girl book, but Jimbo and most of the other administrators believed it should be deleted. Does that qualify as a "needless" deletion to you? MShonle 02:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I oppose. You are uncooperative and argumentative with others and you seem to believe "anything" can be a wikibook, no matter how against the spirit of the project. If you want to have short pages deleted I recommend that you simply post them on candidates for speedy deletion. MShonle 02:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that MShonle is one of two users with personal reasons to argue with me and oppose adminship. MShonle has in fact argued with me against undeletion of an article that was destroyed in violation of policy (it had content, and did not go to a VfD -- it needs to be restored in VfD status). He has also proposed to delete a legitimate Cookbook ingredient that I added (maybe it offends him), persisting even though he is not a Cookbook contributer and I am one of the most serious cookbook contributers. The other user I expect opposition from is the one who deleted in violation of policy, but perhaps he will abstain or do the right thing. AlbertCahalan 04:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong support. We need more good anti-deletionists like you! --Node ue 04:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: this user's contributions are slim: possible sock puppet. MShonle 04:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh my that's sinking low. You can find him over on wikipedia, same user, with a history of over 2500 edits going back to 12 Sep 2003. (for your next objection, note my comment on his wikipedia talk page which verifies that he is the same user on both wikis) You have 701 edits here, and 428 there, and you only go back to 18 Jan 2004. Now I'm sure you'll say that I must be the sock puppet for him, so... would a sock puppet provide over two dozen original recipes? Also, if you have a Linux box, type "man ps" and email the maintainer -- that's me, and do note that I use my real name. Heck, I probably wrote code in the kernel running on en.wikibooks.org even. You should not have indented Node_ue's vote as if it were a comment applied to your own. Why did you do that? Seriously, you'd better explain yourself. I have restored his original indentation, and adjusted follow-ups to match. AlbertCahalan 06:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support: I'm not endorsing any agendas here but AlbertCahalan seems like a regular and proficient contributor. -- mattrix 20:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm new here, so don't know much, but AlbertCahalan seems to have made a good number of edits. makiaea 19:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that this user was not granted admin status. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

+Administrator
In cleaning up this page, I decided that there was no consensus for Albert's adminship. It was a tough call, but I decided against it, but I am re-nominating him now to give another chance. FTR, the last time User:Mshonle objected with reasons that Albert defended himself against, and User:Node ue gave "strong support". meta:User:Mattrix also supported, but as he apparently doesn't have a Wikibooks account, I gave his vote little weight. User:Makiaea also supported, but admitted to being new and apparently voted only because of a high number of edits (I don't think this is appropriate) so I gave his vote little weight as well. Even if Makiaea and Mattrix's votes did count, I'm unsure if three supports and one (perhaps) substantive objection should be considered consensus.

My nomination is partly procedural, however I consider myself neutral, leaning towards support for the actual nomination. TUF-KAT 16:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * support. I do think that a high number of non-vandal edits is a good reason to grant admin rights, partly because it indicates someone who cares about wikibooks content and partly because frequent contributers often struggle with being unable to move pages over trivial stubs and edited redirects. Also, given the currently severe vandalism and spamming problems, the adminship standard should be set fairly low until there are enough admins to watch over wikibooks 24 hours a day. AlbertCahalan 17:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * support: Too many vandals, I say we need someone like Albert on board. MShonle 03:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) hold (not an oppose: just a placeholder for either an oppose or an abstain). I'll retract my oppose vote if I could be reassured that Albert would not become an "anti-deletionist". If we allowed every insane edit and article to go through simply because "people delete too much" then wikibooks would become mush. Part of the wikispirit is that there is editorial guidance and that, when people vote and discuss items for deletion, typically good information will come through and thus most votes are well-informed. MShonle 03:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Further, what's the business with strong support and leaning support? Is this eBay, where someone being an A++++++++ seller means more than being an A++++ seller?)


 * 83.92% support ;): I do have an account here (User:Mattrix), it's just that my userpage is only on meta. -- mattrix 21:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * support: I support Albert's adminship. He shows genuine concern about Wikibooks and would make a good admin in my opinion. Reubenbarton 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * oppose for many reasons, including this dif.  Degrading the work of others, even if they are in need of work and might be copyright violations, are not qualities I look for in an admin. Gentgeen 08:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I truly do think many of the "Native American" recipes are fake. This is understandable, actually. How do I put this... there are some who desire to have a day of cooking like Native Americans. Problem is, they have no clue how to do so and would be unable to get appropriate ingredients anyway. So they improvise, radically. The first clue should be that tribes are not mentioned. They're not all identical you know. But hey, I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong. Perhaps a Native American would like to step forward and tell me that these are both really used and not part of generic USA cuisine. In any case, I don't see how my opinion on the categorization of these recipes has any relation to anything else. It's not as if I'd delete such a page w/o a VfD or block the author. AlbertCahalan 14:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Putting a dispariging comment on the page itself hardly seems like a very constructive way to deal with it. -- mattrix 18:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the comment as being all that disparaging at the time, but I can see now that it was a bit tactless. I will try to find a more polite way to make the point. I was in a rather bad mood, partly from the mess, and partly because the page is non-historical. If the page is going to be about modern people of a particular race, well, that's racist. (imagine a Cookbook:White cuisine page if you don't see the point) I'd like to point out that the quality of edits surely follows a bell curve; after well over 1500 edits I'm sure to have some rotten ones. The bell curve goes out a good long ways in both directions. AlbertCahalan 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. He posts a message in my talk page beginning with "The cookbook is not a place for you to violate copyright. Hire a lawyer if you need legal advice..." He does go on to provide some helpful advice, but notice that he never even mentions which recipe he's talking about. I had to figure out on my own that it's this one: Cookbook:Wild_Rice_Blueberry_Dessert. Although by looking at the history page it appears that I'm responsible for the recipe being here, I merely wikified it over from Native American cuisine. That "Unsorted Mess" that Albert refers to has been around for some time, I was simply trying to help clean it up. Perhaps I should have followed my suspicions and checked for violations, though. PurplePieman 19:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your name was on it. You did not credit the original source, as the GFDL requires. Sorry I forgot to mention which recipe. AlbertCahalan 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, my name was on it, because I moved it. In the future, I'll make sure to comment that in the history. PurplePieman 20:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * oppose on the grounds that, in the short time I have dealt with him, he seems to be very rude, unhelpful, and (perhaps worst of all) unwilling to let his writings be modified. (See the edit wars between us on Alcoholic Drink (Talk) and Bonito Flakes.) I think that he should attempt to get more experience working with the community and practicing diplomacy before trying to become an admin. PurplePieman 19:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll second the idea that he doesn't like modifications to his own work. I recently changed the placenta article just to make it clear that this questionable activity has nothing to do with vegetarians, as he claimed. I voted to have the page deleted, but at least if the page is going to remain it doesn't have to be insulting and offensive. Anyway, I hope those changes (which are NPOV and reasonable) remain put, otherwise I'll think he's quite unreasonable. MShonle 20:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the comment below went in w/o being an edit collision with MShonle's comment, but anyway... I noticed the Cookbook:Placenta change, and decided not to revert. I have half a mind to query PETA on the issue though; if PETA says that human placenta is OK then I hope you will concede that it is. AlbertCahalan 21:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It takes 2 to have an edit war. As anyone can see, I have been making an effort to be balanced on the Alcoholic Drink page. I added the note at the top specifically to address your NPOV concerns; I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that effort by removing the NPOV dispute notice. As for the bonito flakes, I put 5 URLs on your talk page as proof that bonito is commonly considered to be a type of tuna. Additionally, to address your concerns I noted that some countries do not allow bonito to be marketed as tuna. If I use Google to search for "bonito tuna" (no quotes), the first page of hits is all about bonito being a tuna. AlbertCahalan 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * oppose reluctantly, because obviously Albert has done a lot of good work, and we need more anti-vandals. But I have to agree with other people that his attitude comes across as rude, dominating and uncooperative: dangerous qualities in an admin. Sorry, Albert, perhaps this is not your intention but it's how you seem. Redlentil 07:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm really not any of those things in person. I picked up a rather forceful arguing style from the linux-kernel mailing list. There, subtle and tactful words will be misunderstood by the many people who do not natively speak English. (probably my sentence structure is too complex though) Verbosity will be ignored, as it must be in such a high-traffic environment. It's a confrontational prove-me-wrong sort of environment. While harsh, this style gets things done fast. Having myself been on the receiving end more than a few times, I know it can be painful. Hopefully you can believe me when I say that I wouldn't be abusing admin powers (edit blocks I guess) to cause you trouble. I haven't done anything bad with privileges elsewhere, including as procps maintainer and as a person with CVS commit access to Tux Paint. AlbertCahalan 19:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * oppose Albert is a tireless and energetic editor and defender against vandalism. But, I have to agree with Redlentil. Cheers, Donovan. 09:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just one note here that "Adminship shouldn't be a big deal." I think Albert could really help out more than he is already if he were given the privileges to block and rollback changes. (For some IP addresses the quicker they can be blocked the less work for everyone else.) Also, Albert's powers would be kept in check by the other Admins, so concerns about abuse of powers would be limited to a one time deal: after one major abuse (by any Admin) they can be de-Admined. MShonle 23:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * support Because it looks like there will not be another vote for Albert's adminship, and now that he has started contributing again, I elect to change my vote now. I would have been happier to see him contributing for a bit longer though. But, I suppose that it's not that important, because we will have a couple of active admins to make sure that he doesn't bite the newcomers.;) Geo.T 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Geo (or should I call you Donovan?). I think as the number of admins increases, we'll have far less to worry about. With myself, yourself, and soon Albert and Garrett, as new admins, we should be able to ensure that things run more smoothly. I felt it a bit harsh to start yet another vote for Albert, since, if you check the /Archive, you'll notice he's had a bit of a bad rap in this department already. He may be somewhat terse in his comments to other users, but I guess by spending less time on each, he can get a lot more done. I'm hoping we can all put our petty disputes behind us, and work together in the best interests of the site. - Aya T C 01:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Donovan is fine (it's my name), but it may confuse the others, because I no longer include it in my signature. I hope that we don't get another user wanting to be called Geo, because I'm using Geo. as my signature (short for Geocachernemesis). I will continue to use Geocachernemesis in my signature on other Wikimedia projects, however.
 * It's unfortunate that Albert didn't feel that he could support my adminship. But, I offer him this olive branch, in the the hope that it will serve the best interests of the Wikibooks community. Geo.T 01:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll stick to 'Geo'. It's less letters to type anyway. :) I saw it more like you and Albert had fallen out over something a bit petty, and then both boycotted each other's votes in RFA. In my opinion, since you both have good edit histories, you should both be admin'd. It really is 'no big deal'. There's nothing you can do that can't be undone. - Aya T C 00:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "That can't be undone" -- except for deleting images, that is? :-) MShonle 01:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Shhh. It was going so well until that comment. ;-) - Aya T C 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * support despite his rough-and-tumble style and questionable taste in food, Albert is definitely committed to the Cookbook project and I have found his responses to be more measured in the last month or two (especially when he made a couple suggestions that I should seek consensus instead of going balls to the wall as I was prepared to do). He has also done good work with vandals. Kellen 07:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * comment This user hasn't made an edit since June 15th, so I'm questioning if it would be wise to make him an admin. I hope that the wait for adminship wasn't considered a sign of apathy from anybody here on Wikibooks and discouraged him.  With almost 3000 edits, he certainly has been very active by any criteria, particularly with the cookbook.  Still, I would like to see an admin that would be active than filling the ranks of admins with another inactive admin.  --Rob Horning 19:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually heard from Albert today that he's been moving (I sent him an email, wondering about his absense). So, lets give him some more time. None of us are doing this as a full time job. MShonle 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This nomination for adminship has been up for over three months, and that's far too long. I propose that we declare this one closed, and allow a new nomination to occur (MShonle may like to do the honours). We should try to limit the voting to no more than two weeks this time. I think that would be advantageous for Albert's chances, because we won't have all of this extra baggage that has accumulated over the months, and people may be more willing to vote differently this time around. Before I lend my support to his adminship, I would like to see Albert contributing again, however. Geo.T 02:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. I had put this one off for a while, since Albert had seemed to have vanished, but, as you can see from his 'contribs', he has returned recently. A few comments:


 * Regarding the diff posted by Gentgeen, the revisions have long since been deleted as confimed copyvios. I have checked the diff against the deleted revisions, and I do not find his comments to be in any way offensive, but rather the kind of comments of a user who is prepared to speak his mind, rather than just be another 'yes-man'. Personally I respect this sort of attitude, and am leaning towards discounting a vote based on such flaky reasoning, especially considering his edit correctly pointed out that the page was a copyvio.


 * Regarding the alleged edit wars and arguments with PurplePieman, I consider these academic and philosophical discussions, rather than heated flamewars - the sort of 'arguments' which would occur between any two people whose definitions of such concepts differ slightly. In my opinion, this should not be grounds to deny adminship.


 * Regarding the other oppositions by Redlentil and Geocachernemesis, they largely opposed on the grounds of oppositions of existing people, which don't really deserve to be considered oppositions in their own right, especially as Geocachernemesis seems to imply that he would support Albert, should he become a regular editor again.


 * My own opinion is that more admins is always a 'good thing (tm)', and should be 'no big deal'. Should Albert subsequently abuse his powers, he can be easily demoted.

Consequently I am prepared to grant admin permissions to this user, assuming he still wants them. To Albert, if this is the case, please let me know by posting a reply here, and I shall make it so. - Aya T C 18:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So, why even have voting at all, if you can just dismiss opposition? --- PurplePieman 00:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good question. We need to be careful just doing things on a vote-count basis, as it may encourage sock-puppetry, cliques, and sheepy voting. The other problem is with vote turnout. It would seem apparent that anyone who's had a petty squabble with another user will turn up to vote against them, whereas the majority of users, who have probably unwittingly benefitted from someone with such an extensive edit history, won't bother. This leaves the results statistically disproportiate. I wonder if this page was better advertised in such a way as to encourage more users to vote, this might prove more successful, but bear in mind many votes for elections in the real world suffer from similar turnout problems.


 * The alternative (like VFDs) is to base the decision on the reasoning of people's votes rather than the actual votes themselves. Wikipedia seems to base it mostly on length of time spent on the site, and number of edits made. Perhaps you might suggest an alternative means of determining who should get admin'd and who should not? I am always prepared to consider sound reasoning. - Aya T C 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still interested. Thanks. AlbertCahalan 02:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - Aya T C 05:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

+CheckUser
Not that I expect to use this, but really, all admins should get this right. Abuse is unlikely. What are we worried about, some DoS attack or hacking into a machine? Yeah, sure, like an admin is going to a giant botnet on somebody. The 25 votes is completely nuts outside of the English Wikipedia. AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could not achieve in several months' time. Stagnated and thus failed. -within focus 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

-Administrator
AlbertCahalan was elected 13 August 2005.
 * Last edit was July 2007.
 * Last admin action was July 2006.

Based on VVV's adminstats tool, which counts admin actions, not edit (so I may have missed someone inactive). &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)