Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/Poetlister

< Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Access granted. --Aphaia 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Poetlister (talk · contributions) edit

I request Bureaucrat status here please. The activity on this site has been increasing steadily, and while the current bureaucrats are probably not being swamped, it seems that a third one may be desirable. I have been an editor here for a year and an admin for nearly all that time, and believe that I am fully qualified for the role.--Poetlister 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regarding to the discussion on the talk, as a b'crat of this project, I hereby propose to keep this voting open at least until 17:00, 18 February. --Aphaia 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been editing (mostly on Wikipedia these days) on Wikiquote for a reasonably long time and I know how diligent and how serious and how capable Poetlister is. She will do an excellent job as a bureaucrat, as she already is doing a great job as an excellent administrator. Her work is tops and she brings an expertise that is a valuable asset to the project. Modernist 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A diligent and painstaking admin who knows our rules and procedures inside out.--Cato 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, absolutely. BD2412 T 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserved (and at this point I am inclined to oppose): Though I have much appreciation of the extensive work that Poetlister has done here, and have never felt that decisions made on other wikis should be absolutely binding on us, they should usually be taken into consideration. Even if there is much confusion about what has actually occurred in the past, there are too many unresolved issues involving activity on other WIkimedia wikis for me to currently support this nomination.
    There is no personal animosity in my lack of enthusiasm, but I also simply do not feel that there is currently any pressing need for more people who can assign others admin status, or rename them and grant them bot flags. These are currently rarely used but potentially dangerous tools, and should not be granted needlessly. I entirely welcome more admins and general editors to the project, and usually grant approved nominees admin status as soon as possible after the minimum 7 day nomination period.
    I am aware my objections might be unpopular in light of Poetlister's contributions to the project, but even if I am out-voted on this issue, I think this nomination should be considered for at least 2 weeks before any final decisions are made. ~ Kalki 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My hope is that this request will be looked at fairly in terms of what works best at Wikiquote. There is a strong feeling that what happened on Wikipedia should have no bearing here. The mitigating circumstance of Poetlister's excellent work here at Wikiquote underscores that. There is also a strong feeling that what happened at Wikipedia should not have happened at all, and is best left in the past. It seems apparent that serious mistakes were made by her accusers. Modernist 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Cato. Ripberger 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two bureaucrats is not very many for a wiki of this size, and a third one seems prudent. Kalki raises points that are worthy of some careful thought, although I'm not sure there is a strong need to extend the nomination process for two weeks. I no longer am convinced of the absolute truth of the allegations on en:wp. On the contrary, despite how adamantly some insist they are true, I have quite a bit more than a reasonable doubt that Poetlister is anyone's sock, and in due time I believe those allegations will be reconsidered. Wikis traditionally have a policy of not being completely bound by what happens at other wikis, a point raised when the allegations first surfaced, and one that has a lot of merit. Even back then, there was a strong sentiment here that Poetlister was an upstanding user, doing a fine job, and the risk of abuse was low to nonexistent. While I do have some serious concerns about how Poetlister (and other folk as well) handled the quotes associated with Chip Berlet, by and large that record of excellent work and contributions, of heeding community consensus and of careful consideration of the issues, has continued. I have had a chance to work with Poetlister directly and I find this user to be thoughful and considerate, qualities that a good 'crat needs. Therefore, after careful consideration, I Support Poetlister for bureaucrat. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No need for me to point out how dodgy the evidence is against Poetlister; Lar has done so, far more authoritatively. In any case, let's stick to what's happened here, where Poetlister has done very well. (On Chip Berlet, Kalki was 100% in agreement with her.) Nobody opposes Aphaia because of what happened on the Japanese Wikipedia. It is also worth noting the attitude of Fred Bauder, then a leading member of Wikipedia ArbCom. He promoted Taxwoman (blocked along with Poetlister) to admin on Wikinfo [1]. Either he (as a member of ArbCom) knew something that Kalki doesn't, or he rightly only looked at her activity on Wikinfo.--Yehudi 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As someone that has been active here and on Wikipedia-en, I want to weigh in about the issue raised as a concern. Having looked into the issues around Poetlister's ban on Wikipedi-en for several months, in this particular instance I do not think a ban on Wikipedia-en should stop her from getting access to 'crat tools here. I agree that there is a need for another 'crat on a wiki this size and Poetlister has volunteered for the job. I see no reason to think that she is not qualified for it. If Poetlister gets the extra tools, I encourage her to remember that this position will cause her to be under greater scrutiny and she needs to be prepared to handle the criticism from her actions here and elsewhere. Good luck! :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Lar, above. I'm more than aware of the circumstances behind the enwiki issues and also hold my doubts on the matter. Her work here has been excellent to-date (yes, I checked!) and issues on other wikis shouldn't really hold sway here - Alison ❤ 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (update: since this seems to be relevant, I'm also an admin and checkuser on the English Wikipedia, amongst other places. And yes, I've contributed to Wikipedia Review)[reply]
  • Reserved oppose - I'm fairly new here and have no idea about Poetlister's history over on WP so my reservation is not based on anything Poetlister has done there. Or here for that matter. However I am ambivalent about granting access to give other people access to anyone based on verbage that includes "probably" and "may be". Either the current bureaucrats are swamped or they are not. Either it would be a good idea to have another, or not. If they are swamped then, yes, privileges should be extended to someone. If it is felt that there should be a certain number of bureaucrats regardless of their individual workload then, yes, privileges should be extended. But I do not feel that either of those two apply at this time. If they did I would probably endorse Poetlister. -- Greyed 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that Greyed appreciates Poetlister's politeness and diffidence in phrasing her request as she did. Also, he may not realise that Lar is a Wikimedia-wide steward who knows more than almost anyone here about how to run a medium-sized wiki and he says "Two bureaucrats is not very many for a wiki of this size, and a third one seems prudent." I'd call that a clear statement that another bureaucrat is a good idea.--Cato 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is better to stay in front of the issue by expanding access as a Project grows. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for the Kalki's proposal, to extend this request for two weeks, I am not sure if we need it, unless the course of this discussion changes later and our opinions are divided. We have hold sort of a vacuum about the threshold where we agree something reaches a consensus, perhaps we would like to discuss later on that, after see this request concluded. --Aphaia 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to have 2 weeks for this discussion, too. Poetlister has been a great contributor to Wikiquote, so I'd be inclined to support her, but I wonder as Kalki does if there's a need for a 3rd 'crat right now. I'd also like to see what I can pry out of the Powers That Be about her Wikipedia situation, given that I'm now a checkuser entrusted to keep such data private. As long as no one here can positively confirm or refute the basis of her reputation there, it will cause worry here. I'd like to make an evidence-based assessment that, while I could not share the details here, would at least give me a chance to try to address this nagging concern for Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the Wikipedia-en Arbitration Committee and I have reviewed the evidence. (I didn't identify myself that way because I prefer not to highlight it on other project where I edit but instead blend in with the crowd as best I can.) I support Poetlister as a 'crat here based on her good work here AND the possibility that alternative explanations exist that may explain issues that resulted in her ban. Coincidently, yesterday I started a discussion with another arbitrator about formally reviewing her ban on Wikipedia-en. The other arbitrator is compiling the evidence to present to the rest of the Committee. It is likely going to take longer than 2 weeks for us to look at it. I don't think waiting for ArbCom's review is necessarily in the best interest of Wikiquote. My 2 cents. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Poetlister is blocked on the English WP; Aphaia is blocked on the Japanese WP. I do not recall Jeff raising concerns when Aphaia was standing for bureaucrat, or indeed for checkuser (a far more sensitive position). If Jeff were to ask Aphaia to stand down from her positions here, I would strongly oppose but at least I could respect his consistency. As for getting anything out of the Powers That Be, surely Jeff knows that Lar is a steward and FloNight is on the Arbitration Committee. Surely they already know at least as much as Jeff will be told. Frankly, I don't care about the position on either the English or the Japanese WPs; I am only concerned with what I have seen here, and on the basis of that I happily voted for Aphaia for steward (as did Poetlister), and I happily voted for Poetlister for admin and bureucrat.--Cato 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually have very little interest in following WIkipedia politics beyond the extent it might affect this project. Though in the end I did not find it necessary to openly state my views on the matter, I was opposed to some initial moves to block or perhaps de-admin Poetlister here when the controversies at Wikipedia resulted in banning there. I do not know all that occurred but saw no need for such actions here, or to rush to decisions on them, and typed up many paragraphs stating my reasons, which in the end I thought unnecessary to post because consensus had clearly begun to swing against such measures. But, I also don't see any need to rush decisions in the granting of bureaucrat status, and thought 2 weeks a reasonable amount of time for existing issues to be more fully explored.
I am not sure of the exact chronology of things but I don't believe Aphaia was banned on the Japanese Wikipedia (largely because of what seems to have been personality conflicts and a mistake in judgment) until long after her Bureaucrat status was granted here, and I don't believe it came up here during her nomination for either Bureaucrat or Checkuser. Poetlister was banned on Wikipedia because of accusations including the use of sockpuppets in voting, which I believe to be a matter of greater concern. Personally, I have no objections to multiple user accounts, but of course have much objection to their use for multiple votes on an issue, and in granting Bureaucrat status to anyone who remains banned on Wikipedia because of such accusations, even if in they end they do prove to be erroneous. I simply thought the issue did need to be addressed here. ~ Kalki 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Cato, I'm afraid that you've nailed me on a point I'm quite embarrassed about. I did indeed fail to comment during Aphaia's candidacy for steward. I never have apologized to her about that, and I do so now. I can only say that I was consistent in a way not readily apparent in these public forums. No matter how much I trust anyone in Wikimedia (and I've repeatedly said that I trust Aphaia implicitly and without reserve), I feel compelled to review evidence on any serious matter concerning them before I comment. (In fact, you can reliably tell how closely I've been monitoring someone's work here, usually for the sake of nominations, by how quickly I support or oppose candidacies on this page.) Unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese, and I don't like relying on secondhand accounts. (I often recommend that people don't rely solely on my summaries, either, but read the cited evidence as well.) Before I could resolve the conundrum surrounding our excellent and tireless Aphaia, she withdrew her candidacy. Poetlister was a different situation. I spent many hours poring over the public discussion and evidence, the result of which was that I felt I should support her here and try to see if we could get the WP situation reviewed. But even there, I have not been as diligent as I wished, due to my contracted time in Wikimedia of late. This is why I am trying to push the issue now. I must say that I am happy to see that many vocal editors here believe strongly in English Wikiquote's long-time practice of putting local contributions high above all other considerations. I ask the community to forgive my unexpected hesitations and delays in speaking up quickly in these situations, but I'm an incurable skeptic, and I don't even trust myself to remember all the relevant data without periodic review. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserved now (inclining to support). English WikiquoteWikipedia(sorry, typo) thing doesn't matter me. Poetlister has been a good editor example, with her hard working and impartial handling of her tools. I haven't given a chance to look to the evidence which made Enwiki Arbcom members doubt sockpuppetry and reach the conclusion of banning those accounts, so my respect for them (I know some of them personally and enjoy collaborating them, being impressed their hard work and good discretion), and I know cases appear differently without some crutial data through my experiences of handling confidential matters, so I don't want to give my opinion on that allegation at this point. However it wouldn't be an excess I am happy to know they are going to review the case. I hope bot them and our beloved Poetlister the best for the best interest of Wikimedia project.
    In other words: I haven't been troubled with that allegation. I think I was one of sysops who opposed strongly to block her here on Wikiquote, solely due to her English Wikipedia ban. And I think we haven't seen any sockpuppetry on Wikiquote which we doubt her involvement. For me, that is all: it had never influenced me on her evaluation. I hope she knows my respect and friendship toward her.
    But, saddened to say, I have another concern. Her involvement into Wikipedia Review. I guess the best outcome between Poetlister and me would be "agreeing to disagree". I don't deny the productive external discussion place, but my observation to another external forum, w:2channel may bias my thought on that, that is, not every such forum is productive and beneficial. And I am not so much impressed by WR, I need to say. I am not sure if it is good for Wikimedia Community at large to have sysops who serve also Wikipedia Review deeply to some extent. This concern hinders me to express any strong opinion on this request right now. --Aphaia 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & reserved for now (with no indication of any likely direction of vote). This interests me. If the community (which contains a lot of people I like & respect) are happy I would request that this remain open a little longer than conventionally too. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand the point about Wikipedia Review. I am a contributor there, as are several other editors here. It is not Wikiquote Review; I can recall no more than a passing reference there to any of our editors other than those who are themselves contributors. We are not Wikipedia, any more than we are Google; would we criticise someone here for involvement in a site that reviewed Google? Nor is Wikipedia Review a "bad site"; many Wikipedia admins post there, and indeed Uninvited Company made a point of going there to invite its members to contribute to Wikback.

    Anyway, Poetlister has posted nothing there that would cast doubt on her ability to be a bureaucrat here. On the contrary, I admire the way that she has moderated difficult situations there, skills useful in a bureaucrat. (She also has the power there to rename users and promote to moderator, also of course very relevant experience.) Is it Aphaia's contention that because Poetlister is a moderator, she is personally responsible for everything on Wikipedia Review? Does Aphaia accept personal responsibility for everything here on WQ, including personal attacks on Poetlister?

    As to the comparison between Poetlister and Aphaia, I understand that when Poetlister, an admin, was blocked on (English) Wikipedia, she was temporarily blocked and desysopped here and there was a big fuss. When Aphaia, a bureaucrat, was blocked on (Japanese) Wikipedia, nobody cared. Yet nobody denies the reasons for Aphaia's block, although it may have been excessive. In Poetlister's case we have admins, checkusers, stewards and ArbCom members calling for a review of the block. No, they are not comparable!--Yehudi 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Approval of Poetlister because of the good work she has done here. - InvisibleSun 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I never really had any reservations about Poetlister (who has always done great work here) - I just wanted to wait for the end of the side discussions and any research. Unless something else turns up, I believe that discussion period has nearly passed and my support has not wavered (please don't think my hesitation to be anything but not wanting to rush when there is some contention). ~ UDScott 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - she's a good person. Will {talk) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I see this nomination in two parts: do we need another bureaucrat, and should Poetlister be that person?
    New bureaucrat? I routinely support new admins because there is admin-entrusted work (like faster vandalism reversion, deletion, deleted-page examination, VfD closure, etc.) that occasionally seems to need a boost from new blood. I am not aware that we have a similar need for more bureaucrats, and neither the community nor the current b'crats had expressed a need for more (until now perhaps). On the other hand, having only two of anything can be a bottleneck. People often step away for a while, and if one does while the other is busy, it can cause delays. A third b'crat is not a bad idea, but it's not as compelling as another admin.
    Poetlister as bureaucrat? I value Poetlister's work here; even our disagreements are quite engaging and useful. I would expect her to continue this trend as a bureaucrat. But the cloud hanging over her from WP interferes with that expectation. I've been receiving information from many sources in the past week or so, and I'm still plowing through it all in my ponderous manner. So far, that information is maddeningly split between highly suspicious correlations and plausible explanations (some of which I've had to deduce myself, as both sides are frequently selective in how they present the information, and much of the "evidence" is nothing but unverifiable testimony). There may be a smoking gun or an airtight defense in there that I haven't gotten to yet, but until I finish my own study, I don't want to support or reject Poetlister for a role I don't see as urgently needed. On the other hand, if I felt we were about to make a big mistake with the obvious trend toward approving Poetlister, I'd say so.
    I apologize sincerely to Poetlister for this damnably faint praise (idiom paraphrase intentionally directed at me). I'd had some silly notion that I could evaluate this complex situation fast enough to say something concrete before we finished here. I will continue to try to get to the bottom of her WP situation, but meanwhile I'll be delighted if her bureaucrat work makes my circumspection look foolish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: Though I saw no pressing need for another bureaucrat at this time, and still believe it was entirely appropriate for standing issues at Wikipedia (which appear to have no likelihood of any easy or definite clarification) to be brought up and discussed here, as there remains a nearly unanimous support for the the nomination, and some degree of assurance of confidence provided by a steward, I will not persist in any inclination to oppose the nomination. Constraining my assessments to what is clearly evident of the excellent work done here, I accept and accede to the general consensus, and will welcome Poetlister as a fellow bureaucrat. ~ Kalki 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poetlister is now a bureaucrat. ~ Kalki 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**** Wow! Thanks!! ****--Poetlister 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Poetlister&oldid=821610"