Commons:Administrators/Requests/Nyttend

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 30;  Oppose = 3;  Neutral = 0 – 91%. Result: successful. odder (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend

Vote

Nyttend (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to present Nyttend as our next candidate for adminship. Nyttend is a highly experienced user with more than 88 thousand edits. He is a native speaker of the English language and he is mostly active during the European nights. A time zone that could use a couple of extra admineyes in my experience.

Nyttend is already an administrator at the English Wikipedia since 2007 and he is a patroller, filemover and rollbacker at Commons. At Commons he is often busy with some every day maintains work but he also uploads quality content. I always found it important that administrators also provides content. I my experience Nyttend is always friendly in his communication and his request towards administrators are always clearly motivated which is a huge plus because that means that he will also be able to motivate his admin actions clearly. He often participates in deletion requests for files and categories. In my opinion Nyttend has proven that he has enough experience with copyright related cases to wield the admintools here. Plus he also participates in community discussion which gives him a better understanding of their wishes.

If the community grants Nyttend the admintools I am sure that he will be a great asset to the current adminteam. He has already accepted my nomination as you can see below. Thanky you for taking this candidate into consideration.

Natuur12 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. Thank you for the nomination! I often find myself tagging images for speedy deletion, requesting admin help to fix my own errors (e.g. the second section at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 53), asking for category content moves (the stuff CommonsDelinker historically did), and making other requests for administrative assistance (example) on things that I'm familiar with doing myself at en:wp, so I'm sure I'd use the tools frequently. I don't immediately plan to go looking for administrative backlogs (but after eight years of adminning at en:wp, I know that I'll go looking for those backlogs anyway), but at any rate I'll be able to reduce significantly the number of routine requests that I make at other admins' talk pages if I'm given the admin rights. I'm not particularly familiar with the admin election process here (I know a good deal about en:wp:RFA, but I've never even voted in a Commons admin election before), so someone please ping me if I've made some sort of mistake here. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • I just followed the link you provided and arrived here: "I'm sorry; I misunderstood what was going on." For me, it is a well acceptable attitude from a person as he showed his willingness to accept his mistake. We're humans and prone to do mistakes. What important is the attitude to accept it. Jee 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but had he looked into it as others did later, he would have likely seen what they saw as well. Being an admin doesn't mean making assumptions, it means acting when the evidence shows a problem. Some projects already assume guilt and block and I have seen evidence of this project doing the same thing already based on the assumptions of other projects without evidence. I would hate for this project to continue down the road others are travelling where we automatically assume that anyone who is accused by an admin of something is presumed by all the others as guilty because they "trust" the one making the accusation. Its great he admitted he made a mistake, but its a mistake that shouldn't have been made and again, is only a recent one in a list of problematic decisions over the last few years. Reguyla (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Nyttend: Would you mind commenting on the actions mentioned by Reguyla. Do you agree or disagree with the allegations? --McZusatz (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A downside of me being active during the European night is that I'm asleep during the European morning. I disagree with his accusations. Reguyla is a habitual troublemaker at en:wp; see his block log under 1, 2, and 3 different usernames, for example. Since the failure of his request for adminship over there, his perspective on anyone who's an admin there has been [1], and for more than just the arbcom; see the 3 August discussion at our Village Pump that was collapsed as trolling after Reguyla was blocked. Regarding the incident that he links, it's a rather different situation. Another administrator went to the admin noticeboard saying "Here I've identified a lot of socks of a banned user, but I don't have time to block them all; would others please help? Here's evidence that they're all socks." I blocked a few, as did other admins. Later, it was discovered that most of them weren't socks (a banned user was trying to trick us into thinking that average new users were his socks), so yet other admins unblocked everyone or almost everyone. Since the other admin said "I would block these abusive accounts, but I don't have time, so would someone else please do it", I trusted that the other admin had exercised due diligence and simply did what he was going to do otherwise; it's not as if I'd just gone and decided that a bunch of users were sockpuppets and blocked them. And finally, as you can see at the other discussion of the subject, I quickly understood that there had been a mistake; it's very different from "has an attitude of his decision is always right and is always final", and I would have responded sooner except that I had driven more than 1000KM over the day and wasn't online very much. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I offered an opinion based oppose and provided one recent link of many that I feel illustrate why Nyttend is too fast to block/act without taking the time to investigate the real problem first. Its not a one time isolated incident, its a long term problem that hasn't been dealt with because ENWP has virtually no functioning way to remove the admin tools from an admin once they get them. Since Nyttend feels it necessary to use personal attacks directed at me here, that illustrates my point pretty well. Also, since he brought my "history" into the middle of this, let me explain that I am also an extremely high output editor having done more than 500, 000 edits on ENWP, I created hundreds of articles and have more than a dozen to Featured. I was banned because a couple people who didn't like me criticizing some abusive admins (not Nyttend) continued submitting ban requests one after another until they got the result they wanted and I was mad. I am not, nor have I ever been a "habitual troublemaker". If you want me to provide more links of additional actions I can do that. I simply limited the submission to a very recent one for the sake of brevity. But you can also add the personal attack above and the attitude that conduct is ok to the list of reasons for my oppose. As for the baseless accusation that I have something against Nyttend, I do not. I do not think they are a good admin, and don't think they would be here, but that doesn't mean I have something against them. I think he is a good editor and does a lot of good work on the project, I just think his history of use of the admin tools without doing the necessary research first and his attitude don't align to what we need or want for admins. Reguyla (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there seems to be some doubt about my integrity in my oppose, here are a few more links.

  • July 2015 - Blocking User:JRRobinson for 1 week here for the crime of Disruptive editing: Continued non-use of edit summaries and inappropriate minor-edit marking. Really, a week and an accusation of Disruptive editing for marking edits as minor?
  • Going farther back to 2012 we have this discussion which caused Nyttend to resign his admin tools for a bit in a huff or to avoid it being forcibly removed (access was restored a few months later).

There are plenty of examples in between, I just chose a couple of additional examples at either end of the timeline. Others include blocking users indefinitely "to get their attention", block users accidentally and having to fix it later like here because he wasn't "paying attention", etc. So although he does do a lot of good work, he also does some bad and I don't think I am cherry picking by pointing out that this lack of attention to detail is not representative of what is expected as an admin and has occurred since he became an admin. Simply taking more time and care before making blocks is necessary. Blocking editors for bad reasons leads to them no longer wishing to contribute, it leads to some becoming trolls and vandals and it also leads to them not ever being able to become admins themselves because someone accidentally made a hasty block at some point in the past years ago (actually happens on some projects). Reguyla (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is framing. Every active admin who has the guts to deal with the more complicated cases is in sore weather every now and than. And for the block. You forget to mention that this user had been warned numerous times without responding to them and continuing his behaviour for months and the block was placed after the community discussed this case at one of the local noticeboards. This is personal and you know it. Just pick a random highly active admin at any project who deals with the blocking or other unpopular cases and you will find exactly the same. Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you hacked the archive of the bureaucrats' mailing list and read my please-desysop-me email from last February [it was this year, not 2012], you'd see that my resignation was related to off-wiki issues: I was facing real-life pressure to use administrative tools in favor of the pressuring institution's interests and in violation of Wikipedia standards, and I requested desysop so that, if necessary, I could demonstrate that I didn't have the ability to perform the actions in question. Meanwhile, when you've performed nearly 1000 blocks over the years, you make mistakes occasionally; that's the benefit of a wiki, because a mistake can always be fixed. Nobody suffers if you mistakenly block someone, quickly undo yourself, and apologise. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an enwiki bureaucrat, I am happy to confirm that Nyttend's description of his email to our mailing list in February 2015 is accurate. In my opinion, relinquishing access in such circumstances showed nothing but utmost integrity. WJBscribe (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, you did request a desysop in 2012 and again this year. I did not include the one this year because it was understandable. Secondly in response to Natuur12 how is an oppose personal? Is it because you say it is, because of my history of feeling that admins should have to follow the rules and being blocked for criticizing admin abuse at ENWP or is it because you are the one that started this nomination and feel slighted that I am bringing your submission into question. Its also not fair to call opposing a candidate for valid reasons framing because they "deal with more complicated cases". None of the examples I chose were complicated, and anyone who looks through Nyttend's contributions will find a lot of good decisions and a lot of bad. I am simply not going to dismiss all the bad decisions and short sighted blocks because he might block a few vandals and delete some spam at the same time. Its also not fair to give him a pass because he is an admin for obviously questionable actions. Again, these are just a few, would you like me to list about 30 or 40 more so you can pick them apart and justify why he is doing hasty and poorly researched actions? This RFA is clearly going to pass so there is no reason to go on debating it. If you trust him and want to give him the access then that's fine and I'll live with it, but I opposed it for the reasons I stated and I do not appreciate being badgered or vilified because I did oppose. If you want to blame someone for my oppose, blame Nyttend for not doing a good enough job when researching cases and being too fast at blocking people until they tell him what he wants or demands to hear. Reguyla (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend - For the desysop I am referring too, that helps to show that there is a pattern of conduct over time, refer to this log and look at the entry for 19 June 2012 as performed by User:Bibliomaniac15 and restored 29 June 2012 by Hersfold. If you bother to read the discussion here You will see why and you will also see that it wasn't done in 2015 for "personal reasons". Now, this is my last comment on this since its A) a waste of time given that the RFA is going to pass regardless and B) because its a waste of my time to argue with 2 people whoa re going to attack and badger me for opposing a candidate in an RFA with baseless accusations of it being personal. Which BTW also make me think even more that my oppose was justified.Reguyla (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I'll say further is that the 2012 desysop was related to real-life events, but that it was unrelated to the thing that you linked, which was from this year. If you look at en:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 24, you'll see that a computer failure forced me to use public computers; I didn't want to use an admin account on public computers lest my password be compromised by a keylogger, and the talk page for my public-computer sock redirects to my main account's talk page, so using the alt account would have prevented me from noticing messages. Nyttend (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your right I did post the wrong link for 2015. My apologies. I had copied a link for another discussion at about the time of your 2012 request for desysop that appeared to be the catalyst for the request and I must have clicked on the other what I read it and wiped it out. Based on what I saw around that 2012 desysop it appears to me it was more due to a disagreement but I'm not going to spend more time digging through links again since its not going to matter anyway. I am still going to keep my oppose however so you can go ahead and continue to accuse me of being a "habitual troublemaker" because I am only an editor and not an admin (sarcasm intended). Reguyla (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Nyttend&oldid=169092020"