Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Atcovi

Nomination
I think it's time we need a new administrator to help out with Maintenance here. I'm presenting myself to request Administrator permissions here on Wikibooks. The reason why I feel it's necessary for me to request this right is since we need one to hide revisions, delete pages, block vandals, and work on other maintenance. I have over 1,500 edits on this project, and projects I am most proud of my work is: Wikijunior:Asia (new project), Wikijunior:Africa (Edits throughout existing pages, planning on creating new pages), Wikijunior:Extinct Birds (project I created), and many others at my userpage listed under "Best Contributions". My plans for administrator is to hide some gross vandalism, I've emailed an admin to hide the revision, rather than having to send an email and waite for it to be hidden hours later, I can do the job myself as a sysop. I'm also looking forward to working on Category:Files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons <-- 38 files in there I'd like to clean up/delete. As well I have closed 3 Requests for Deletions, helped at Reading room and most of the pages there. I'd like to help with blocking repeating vandals, and spammers who pop up from time to time. I usually check Wikibooks daily, and spot pages that are awaiting to be deletion. I usually ping an admin to review these pages set up for deletion, but with the sysop bit, I can simply do the job myself without having to ping admins on IRC to do it (or email). If they're are any questions you'd like to ask me, feel free to do so. Thank you. --atcovi (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Supports

 * . Showing a promise, on benefit of the doubt, most mistake happens years ago was due to childishness of Atcovi, often being rash, but today I see significant improvement on him, look right now he admit his own mistake politely unlike two years ago, and he did a lot of good job on many things including his contributions globally, I would like to see his contributions as Administrator in the future.--AldNon Ucallin?☎ 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of good work from Atcovi. Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs 04:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Atcovi has been growing in many ways. We learn and we grow and can grow into a job. Key is his ability to learn from and correct his mistakes, which I have been watching for many years. He has developed and demonstrated an ability to listen to and respond positively to criticism, and that is crucial in an administrator. Raw skill can be developed. It's a wiki, mistakes can be fixed. Raw character is not so easy to find. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering the work you've done, I am inclined towards giving support to you(I've seen your edits , especially those with reviewing , and I find them good.). But , before I give full support to you , I'd like to know as to what you would use the tools if you're granted with them(describe it more clearly). Also , most of the supporters appear to be Wikiversity contributors instead , which may raise a concern for some. However , I commend the fact that someone finally stood up to this however , whether you succeed or not.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Leaderboard, I’d be more than happy to further explain what I’d do with the tools. What I’m mostly going to do is help out with the recent waves of spam. Usually once I tag a page for spam, it takes a while for it to be deleted, unless I ping an admin on IRC to review and delete the page. As well as with spam deletions, I’d like to work on some of the edit filters to prevent some spam coming in as well, just to decrease the number of spam on Wikiversity. Another topic to come to is vandalism. For some, maybe there isn’t much for the vandalism on Wikibooks. But when they’re is a big vandal out there vandalizing pages constantly, such as https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.154.150.225 this ip for example, who kept vandalizing pages about the featured cookbook, Au Jus Sandwich. The IP was blocked for vandalism for 3 days 2 hours later, which shows the lack with sysops reviewing recent changes. We even have global sysops like RuyP stepping in to blocks some vandals, that shows that there is a need for one person to step up to the job to help out with the administrative tasks. Last one would be some editing/creating new filters (this task may not be done on my list fast tho) to, as I said above, decrease the spam on Wikibooks. I understand their could be flaws I’ve done, but we all make mistakes, and the most important part (to me) is that we learn from the mistakes, and not do it again. Thank you, and feel free to ask me any questions if you’re questions have not been answered.


 * And to add for the last bit where the supporters of this request are editing from Wikiversity. They aren’t actually, check http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aldnonymous Aldnonymous’ edits on the English Wikiversity, less than 20 edits, and as well with http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jianhui67&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1 Jianhui67. Yes, Abd edits at the English Wikiversity, but I don’t necessarily see how it concerns you. Thanks. --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 19:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (sorry for commenting under IP, my computer keeps crashing whenever I log in)
 * Okay, fine I was wrong about the supporters , I saw one of them and since you're well known on Wikiversity , I just accused you without fully checking the facts.
 * But back to the review. To quote what you said ,
 * ...just to decrease the number of spam on Wikiversity :- What does Wikiversity have to do here?
 * Well, I am now sufficiently convinced for I to your proposal.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it means a lot. Oh and sorry about adding Wikiversity in there, got mixed up. --atcovi (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

 * While I do agree with Atcovi's premise, that more active administrators would be useful, I'm unsure of Atcovi's abilities. Granted, my own area of expertise is almost entirely one project, the Muggles' Guide, but twice now, within that one project, Atcovi has approved deltas, one which was egregious vandalism, one more recently which was misspelled and ungrammatical. I'd be happier about supporting this candidacy if my own experience suggested that he was going to handle it reasonably competently. Chazz (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to apologize for that incident, I honestly didn't know and just to keep that from being an unreviewed edit I reviewed it. Didn't this issue happen months ago? --atcovi (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The incident with randoms replacing character names with their own and also inserting their own names did happen, yes, almost a year ago. The incident with an ungrammatical and misspelled question being added, which you approved, was maybe a week and a half ago. Chazz (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah alright, i understand. I greatly apologize for the incidents nonetheless. --atcovi (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I do accept your apology, I am afraid that I see this as somewhat systemic. Perhaps you are in too much of a hurry, and approve things that look to be all right with only a cursory check. But while speed can be good, too much speed may lead to this sort of carelessness... and particularly as it is response time that you're on about, that is what worries me here. Chazz (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand Chazz, I'll be taking your advice if I get the permissions or not. Thank you for giving me advice, it's gladly appreciated. --atcovi (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Per some of the concerns mentioned previously. While I'm glad to hear that you are mainly interested in combatting spam, I'm curious as to how familiar you are with regular expressions. It's used extensively with the abuse filter extension and one wrong entry or modification there... could potentially disable editing for a large amount of users. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, everyone has his/her first times. A mistake or 2 by any admin should be reasonably accepted. Is there any testing area for this anyway? --Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Although there are some kinds of mistakes that you hope don't happen and if they do you mitigate as best you can and try to do better in future &mdash;I'd hate to have us turn into something like en.wp has seemingly become, where to pass RFA a candidate has to already know everything that could possibly be known about adminship&mdash; the bigger the potential consequences of a mistake, the more important that the mistake not be made even once. One does want someone who will take the tasks involved seriously in proportion to their impact.  I'd much like to know what Atcovi has to say about their knowledge of (so-called) regexes.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Az1568, in response to my regex expression experience for the abuse filter, honestly I won't be going into that unless the Spam rises, it seems a bit high (toward my standards) atm, but if it rises it could get me to toggle around them. Now, experience? I have edited edit filters at two Test Wikis, as well as read other edit filters. I understand the damage an edit filter can do, and as well why I won't be going into edit filters a lot. Plus, I might email another sysop just to make sure I don't mess up accidentally, better be safe then sorry! I honestly don't even think edit filters might come to my to do list if I pass sysop tbh, there is no big need. Tho, I'd like to add an edit filter to block out words such as "pussy", "vagina", "penis", and some sex acts. If they use that for educational purposes, and not for vandalism, I'll be more than happy to allow it to go by. But overall, I'm pretty familiar with regex, knowing I have edited and seen edit filters on the two test wikis I usually contribute at. Thanks. --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the three words you mentioned &mdash; "pussy", "vagina", and "penis" &mdash; are all, out of context, things that could perfectly legitimately arise in ordinary contribution to Wikibooks. Edit filtering is tricky.  I recall some problems we had on en.wn a while back with an edit filter that objected to edits that reduced the page size by more than a certain amount and also resulted in something containing "poo"; we disabled it because it was preventing us from making certain kinds of space-saving custodial edits to any article that had to do with the city of Liverpool.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * . With my 'crat hat on, I am intending to close this (unless someone else does) no later than 13 March. While it's been open for a while, we've not had many comments and historically RFAs have seen in the order of six or more supports. However, this can't stay open forever hence why I'm setting the time limit at 13 March. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on this discussion, but I'm also confused and a little bit worried. Considering the posts of support, that are mostly unnecessary on this proceeding (even if usual at times from known active Wikibookians), are rarely participated by newcomers to the decision processes. They however demonstrate that you can gather support for your initiatives, this allied with your young age (and the age I also perceive on some of the above posts) preoccupies me when and if you make a mistake or are strongly opposed on your actions. Together to what you have said, that people around your age group are not often well intentioned, gets me a bit worried. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Panic, could you explain clearly why my young, unusual age has to do with this? Yes, most kids around my age don't know how to handle tools, but it's not all about the age. It doesn't matter what the age is if the person shows maturity and competence. Thanks. --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 15:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly at times age and its constrain to maturity, life experience and mental stability has implications. More or less from the age you are approaching, one also has to deal with a changing hormonal levels and drastic mind and body transformations, all this simple biological facts, that are even gender distinct, are all good arguments to prevent granting a large social stage and responsibility to the young individual. Not that I agree with some of society's excessive and arbitrary age limitations but I recognize that they are significative to protect not only the impacted individuals but those around them.
 * In any case I'm not blocking your request, to me it should be as easy to grant you the rights as to remove them. I'm just concerned for the potential for future disruption, but recognize that it is not a good enough argumentation to prevent you to take on the extra functions. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) ,
 * I disagree with you, Panic. As Atcovi said , age should not be much of a barrier unless it can be proved that he is too young to handle the duties , which I believe that it is not. It depends on his level of understanding. Is any Wikibooks(or WIkimedia) rule requring sysops to be of a particular minimum age? Additionally , isn't there a probabion period of some sort?--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For my own and others' perspective, I've looked up my own sysop discussion. It was closed with eight in favor, none opposed: Kayau (the nominator), Panic, Jomegat, Adrignola, Thenub314, Mike.lifeguard, QuiteUnusual, and Chazz. Six of these are still at least somewhat active (all but Adrignola and Mike.lifeguard). It seems to me these six are still (five years later) a large part of the central overall-project cell of en.wb. Several were not and are not admins, but several were and are. Additional admins are Darklama, User:Az1568, Xania, and Recent Runes. Well, and myself. Of the eleven actives I've just named, two have declared their neutrality here and none of the others have taken a stance. I'm preparing to take one, myself. But I'm also wondering if we should be publicizing this discussion somehow; sitenotice, perhaps? (I've linked the actives I've mentioned who haven't participated here yet.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not common practice to make admin. requests into general broadcasts (to my recall it only happened in bureaucrat discussions due to the required number of express support votes) and in my view it can become more harmful than good to nudge the general population to participate at this point without the presence of a good argumentation regarding the request that could rally people behind. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Now this is so misleading, I am not Wikiversity contributor, in fact I only have 24 edits there on Wikiversity, and I have 224 edits here on Wikibooks and also a Reviewer, I expand Indonesian books here and only do anti Vandalism work at Wikiversity as part of my Global Sysops role. So please don't made weird accusation, in fact why don't all of you review my own contribution globally? Special:CentralAuth/Aldnonymous Really! You can! :D . Thanks for the input! --AldNon Ucallin?☎ 05:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Aldnonymous, I apologize for the accusation. Atcovi is a Wikiversity admin , and Abd is a long time contributor , so I did not check the full facts and simply concluded incorrectly that the supporters were Wikiversity contributors. Not that I was specifically pointing at you. Thanks.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * : I would disagree with your idea however. It does not matter how old you actually are, if the user can demonstrate their competence , then it shouldn't matter.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not, and I don't think I'll ever become a Wikiversity sysop in the next upcoming months. --atcovi (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, sorry again. Looks that my facts are all wrong somehow.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)