Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 10 October 2009

MLauba

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (13/1/1); Scheduled to end 11:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

MLauba (talk · contribs) — MLauba has been registered since January of 2009, and I have been familiar with his work since May of 2009, when he began joining in heavily on copyright cleanup. I have been consistently impressed by his demeanor and dedication, and I believe that he would do well with the tools.

MLauba brings to the table an understanding of copyright and license as well as considerable commitment to keeping Misplaced Pages copyright-compliant. He already puts many hours into this task at the perpetually backlogged Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations and could do so far more efficiently with access to the tools. While he is able to remove CorenSearchBot tags that have in one method or another been fully addressed, there is redundancy of effort in those articles where copyrighted text remains, since after he tags them for WP:CSD#G12, an admin must also review the article and source before deleting.

He has the knowledge of which such text should be deleted, and even more importantly I believe he has the temperament necessary to deal with those who've placed the text. Many good faith contributors run afoul of copyright policies because they do not understand them, and clear, patient dealing with such individuals can prevent future infringement while at the same time not alienating the contributors. MLauba has good communication skills with them and with others. A look at his contributions to user talk will show that he follows up with other SCV taggers as well as persons whose contributions wind up at SCV, including those questioning Coren about CorenSearchBot tags. He is generally calm, patient and concise. Furthermore, he seems to be open to admitting when he's overlooked something (another, imo, very important admin quality). He is reasonable and open-minded, great qualities in an admin. I believe he clearly knows how to focus on issues in a way that avoids escalating tensions while at the same time getting the job done. Given this, I believe that he will also be prudent when it comes to administering blocks as may be occasionally necessary to prevent infringement from contributors who will not stop.

I have every confidence in his suitability to serve as an administrator. Given the combined factors of knowledge and temperament, he seems an excellent candidate for the tools, and there's no doubt that there is need for them in this area. I believe giving him access will be a great benefit to Misplaced Pages. --Moonriddengirl 15:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

co-nomination by SoWhy

Fellow editors, I will try to make this a short nomination. MLauba, who I want to present here, is one of those people who work in an important but unfortunately not-well-visited niché of our project: Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems and Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations. As such, his deleted contributions show of course a dominance of G12 taggings, the majority of which correct (and I am convinced that he will learn from those few which were not).

In his 10 months with this project, MLauba has done an important job behind the scenes but has also been an helpful editor in various other areas and has shown civility and calmness when dealing with other users. He is, one has to admit, not an article creator but rather a WikiGnome but I have always felt it necessary to point out that we need such users as admins as well. Especially if they work, like MLauba, in an area where the tools can be of much benefit for dealing with content which could lead to serious problems for the project. I think he has demonstrated with his many great edits that he can be trusted with the mop and as such I want to ask the community to grant this candidate the tools which would allow him to work more effectively. Regards SoWhy 14:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your trust, I will strive to live up to it no matter the outcome. MLauba (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If the community trusts me with the mop, I will use it first and foremost to continue and extend what has become the core of my activity in the past couple of months, to work on (text) copyright issues, mostly at WP:SCV and to a lesser extent, at least at first, at WP:CP. The parts of the toolset I see myself using most are selective revision deletion in order to remove copyvio from article histories wherever possible and practical (and I'm looking forward to the implementation of WP:REVDEL for a better way to do that), history merges in relationship to c&p moves that end up on WP:SCV, and possibly temporary page protection for the otherwise extremely rare cases where copyrighted material gets added over and over, in order to stem the flow where discussion was previously not possible.

In terms of governing philosophy, I intend to follow the lead of those admins I respect most and consider role models in their activities, User:Moonriddengirl, User:SoWhy, User:Dank first and foremost, in the sense that they seek communication, do so on neutral or even friendly tones, but also aren't afraid to submit their actions to wider review whenever there is contention - something I have been trying to do in similar situations in the past.

I do believe, in general, in the four-eyes principle, and intend to limit unreviewed actions to zones I am comfortable with, otherwise seek feedback where appropriate, or defer to the judgment of more experienced editors.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: As SoWhy has pointed out, I'm very much a wikignome. English being my third language, I don't have the skills to write good prose or copyedit and bring an article to good status by myself. That being said, I believe my work at WP:SCV, out of all the different things I've done at some point since January (gnoming a bit, I did some NPP and RCP early on as well), is what benefits the encyclopedia most. Not just because of the immediate legal risk, but also because having a Misplaced Pages devoid of copyright and plagiarism issues is an environment where the work of every contributor is recognized for its quality and originality, without being tainted by the results of a few usually well-meant but mistaken copy / paste efforts.

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: I haven't really had any conflicts so far, what comes closest is the argument that happened at Talk:Society for Mathematical Biology, much of it stemming from the fact that I only understood very late that the other user was actually believing that NPOV would also apply to talk pages. I handled that one quite poorly, but due to the way it developped, disengaging and leaving it up to the wikiproject to deal with the content issues was probably the only choice left in the matter. Since then, I have started seeking third party input early to avoid needless escalation in situations that could end up there, I've also found that factual and neutral communication tends to produce better results.

Beyond that, the only other circumstance was very early on where I had a minor exchange with User:Roux in an AfD, that was caused by me failing to AGF on his part. Nothing of similar scope has happened since.

Last, sometimes copyvio work generates arguments, and I have made some mistakes from time to time. In such cases, I found that remaining calm but also owning my mistakes and apologizing where I screwed up was the best way to act to defuse the situation and get everyone back to work.

4. A new user vandalizes an article you're working on. The user does not respond for requests to stop on their user talk page. Would you recommend a ban or a block for the user? Smallman12q

A: A block is the correct method provided the user continues to disrupt, and it may be an indef block if the account is a vandalism-only account, and the prefered venue would be a simple report at AIV. A ban would be completely inappropriate at that stage unless there's a lot more going on with that account than your scenario describes. That being said, if the actions are confined to one single article, requesting temporary protection is also a measure I would (and did in the past) consider to generate a pause and try to open a dialogue. MLauba (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

5. Can you please explain why material published in other wikis under GFDL, or images from a GPL program are unacceptable on Misplaced Pages?

A: For text material, if the source material was published under GFDL-only on a non-wikimedia foundation wiki after November 1st, 2008, the material cannot be added as a result of us moving to dual licensing on June 16th this year because there are some compatibility issues between the GFDL and CC-BY-SA that cannot be overcome. This limitation stems directly from the terms of the GFDL 1.3, which also set the cutoff date on November 1st, 2008. For the images part of the question, I am completely and utterly clueless on the workings of image licensing beyond the most basic parts and cannot answer, I would defer to Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Guesswork in that area is something I cannot afford. MLauba (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Abce2

6. What do you know about editor to editor conflicts and how to handle them?

A: Not all that much, in reality. Just like in the rest of life, conflicts happen, and they can be caused by many different reasons - failing to assume good faith, failing to be willing to listen and consider other points of view but also simple misunderstandings are just some of the reasons which do cause conflicts. Assuming we're not talking about a conflict that has become directly detrimental to article space (in which case we're probably in specific POV, 3RR or otherwise editwarring situations that require specific action), trying to defuse and encourage dialogue, before the normal dispute resultion process and possibly mediation are usually the best way forward. If this isn't possible or the situation has devolved into grudge matches or stalking, the editors in conflict should be encouraged to stay away from each others, and if this doesn't happen, the community will start becoming involved.

In practice, once two editors are no longer able to simply agree to disagree, we're often in a situation where the fallout spills over beyond them and starts causing disruption in an ever growing circle. There is currently an unfortunate trend that makes ANI the first and often only resort where these disputes are being brought up, and ANI serves several purposes, but certainly not dispute resolution.

In any case, dialogue, appeals to cool off and depersonalising disputes coming from an uninvolved third party are among the first and possibly best ways to defuse tricky situations - the on-wikipedia equivalent to recommending people to go and have a beer together. When that is not possible, securing the assistance of one the many editors who do have a true knack for mediation is the best way I see to avoid ending up in the downward spiral that involves ANI, RFCU and end up straight at ArbCom. MLauba (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for MLauba: MLauba (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for MLauba can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MLauba before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - MLauba is a friendly user who does great work at WP:SCV. Good luck! Theleftorium 11:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Seen him once or twice... not completely sure but noms convinced me. ceranthor 12:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as co-nom. :-) Regards SoWhy 12:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support not a moment too soon. MLauba's invaluable work at the ever-undermanned WP:SCV would be helped enormously by access to the tools. I have no doubt he can be trusted to wield responsibly.– Toon 12:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per my criteria, MLauba looks like he'll make a great admin. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Good luck, no issues I see. America69 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm familiar with his work, he's an outstanding candidate, and we need more admins who are this dedicated and clueful about copyvio in preparation for WP:FPPR. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - I have been impressed by MLauba's efforts for several months. This editor is a workhorse on investigating copyright violation reports -- an area which requires knowledge of complicated (often esoteric) policy as well as the willingness to discuss solutions with both new and experienced editors. I find MLauba to be diligent, responsible and communicative -- fundamental qualities I expect of WP admins. — CactusWriter | 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, why not? Excellent work in their area. Beneficial to the project to promote. --Taelus (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Support I applaud your work regarding copyright matters. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
12. I'll bypass my usual one-year-time-commitment rule this time, considering that Lauba has been around for 10 months anyway. Lauba understands the workings of Misplaced Pages and would use administrative tools well. @harej 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per User:A Nobody/RfA in that candidate made a compelling argument here, has received The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar and The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar as verified on his userpage, and has never been blocked, i.e. no glaring negatives, but several positives. Best, --A Nobody 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not nearly experienced enough to be an admin, and fails my

Neutral

1. I've seen the user around and am generally favorable to granting adminship. However, after the recent two fiascos with short-term users being made admins and then found to be socks of formerly problematic editors, I've decided on a personal 'one year waiting policy' (hopefully long enough!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Whilst I do not by any means attempt to force my view upon anyone, this approach alarms me slightly. Assuming that new users could potentially be sock puppets seems to not assume good faith to me. I don't think it is fair on anyone to demand they are tested by time to prove they don't have a hidden agenda or secret... --Taelus (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   It's a valid concern though, and RegentsPark's solution might possibly work. ƒ(Δ)² 15:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well, RfA is not a vote, and I am sure RegentsPark's general support but slight reservation will be picked up by the closing bureaucrat :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Casmith_789 has accurately phrased how I would prefer my !vote viewed.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)