Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eptalon

Eptalon

Hello, If I can, I would like to be granted admin status. I have been on this project since about late December '05, and I have cumulated a bit over 1600 edits on simple (usually about 20 a day, a bit over 2 edits per page).Editcount on Interiot"s tool. On de, en, and la I have also a few, but I really focused on this project.I currently have a job, and edits happen in my free moments. I am also interesed in quality edits, rather than quantity. I know that this must look pale compared to Freshstart , who's candidature I fully support. -- Eptalon 12:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (raying added -- 213.200.248.36)

• Support. Can I suggest some more interaction in other Users' talks? --M7 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say I was faultless. So far my interaction has limited itself mostly to putting tepmlate tags on the talk pages of supposed vandals. Probably can be reduced to like four tags. - 213.200.248.36 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It's supposed to be 3 months of activity, but your 3 month anniversary is in only 6 days, and I think you've already proven your responsibility and commitment to fighting vandals... I just hope I'm not doing too much, too fast by supporting two good candidates in one day! ;o) Blockinblox 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Would make a great administrator. Archer7 16:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. GFJ 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeStrong oppose (changing vote based on response and edits since the response) Torn between Neutral and Weak oppose. Good contributor and we can certainly use more multi-lingual editors, and I have no problem with the number of edits. But I am fairly concerned about the on-going, consistent number of typos/errors that seem to indicate a habitual lack of attention to detail; I think the best admins are going to be people who by nature habitually double-check their work. If it was limited to missing periods/full-stops and things like that, I wouldn't say anything--all of us make mistakes, and minor things like that can be hard to spot, short of pasting it into a program with a spellchecker. But the sheer quantity and severity, including broken links[1] [2] [3] [4] and broken iw links[5] (the iw ones in particular being easy to check [and even avoid by using cut&paste]) have to make me wonder if similar errors would be made with the admin tools. Freshstart 04:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim to be faultless. In the recent months I have tried to bring down the number of edits per page (exactly because of those 'broken links' issues,previewing also helps there). I started out at almost 3 edits per page, today I am slightly above 2. I am a professional computer scientist, and have done professional software development in several languages (eg. Java, C) as well as done things in "web-frontend" languages like PHP. Btw: Where those errors affect the syntax, I am sure there are tools that will tell me. -- Eptalon 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to be faultless. However, I do expect admins to be careful. The Wiki software will silently let you hang yourself, just as readily as C (at least in it's early days--hopefully with modern IDE's you'd at least get some sort of 'are you SURE you want to do that?' warning), at least in part because the problems will come from the data, not the syntax. An example in the MediaWiki world: IP blocking only checks that it is a valid IP address (or range). Transpose a couple digits or mistype a single character, and, instead of blocking the intended vandal in Timbuktu, you've blocked everyone using AOL or some other large ISP. And there will be no error message, and no one will know of the error, until people start complaining.

And this edit[6], made since I raised the concerns above and you responded, seems to indicate that even if you did get an error message (and it is probably my bias from 15+ years as a software tester, but I see counting on the software to catch your errors as a crutch; one that doesn't exist in the MediaWiki software), you would miss it, because you don't appear to look closely at the page after you click Save. (and now that I finally checked, did you realize your self-nom text above contains at least 3 or 4 typos and 1 usage that m-w.com says is correct, but any native English speaker would go "huh?" (cumulate--the common usage would be accumulate)?) And you don't even want to get me started on the difference of opinion about what is 'simple English'--"notorious"? (from the same 'Chernobyl' edit). Freshstart 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I also have no problem with the number of 'User talk' page edits--one of the first things to annoy me on EN when I was active there was the number of 'small talk' edits on my user page. Freshstart 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is prolific to get into usage patterns of English words. They vary according to socioeconomic background, geographic region, etc. The comment to that edit reads Something stubbable taken from en. Considered intelligible for simple users.. It was a copy-paste operation, the brace left out from the copying was the very first character of the copying. Two minutes later, Archer7 noticed. Three minutes later I was putting in the (supposedly Ukranian) alternate spelling as a redirect, as I had seen that Archer7 was faster. - Eptalon 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I hope that you realize that "I do not think it is prolific to get into usage patterns of English words." is a completely non-sensical statement to native English speakers--I have NO idea what you were trying to say.And exactly what percentage of partial English speakers do you think would understand words like "notorious"? 20?, 40? neither even close in my definition of 'Simple English'. And yes, it was a 'copy-paste operation' something which I and Netoholic have REGULARLY chastized you for, since that results in non-simple articles. You seem to believe that putting EN articles here overrides the 'simple' rules, and I believe the opposite, that SIMPLE Eng is the priority here. We can agree to disagree on that, but the enormous qty of typos you introduce/reproduce here has me very concerned, and your stated reliance on the software to catch your errors, even tho' it CAN'T, leaves me DEEPLY concerned. 165.121.26.170 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's keep it down to the facts. Freshstart thinks that based on the many typos I make, and the editing patterns he sees, that I am unfit to hold admin responsibility. He fears that I might mistype an IP address( 10.16.x.y instead of 10.61.x.y, for example). Also he thinks that relying on the computer in those areas that the computer is good at, is wrong. He also thinks that importing articles from English Wikipedia, before actually simplifying them is a wrong approach. Does that about sum it up? -- Eptalon 14:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those are all of Freshstart's concerns. --Cromwellt|talk 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Eptalon is a good contributor with a strong desire to help, always acting in good faith. Almost every error and problematic usage on Wikipedia can be corrected. I think the positive effects of having Eptalon as an admin far outweigh any negative ones. I think at least part of his typos, etc., can be explained by his self-nomination at the top: Eptalon edits in free minutes during work, so he/she does not have time to check over it for errors, and (realizing the nature of a wiki) knows that others will come and fix errors later. This is perfectly justifiable, IMO, and because of our appreciation of his/her interest in the project, we should be willing to accept a few minor errors which can later be corrected. I also believe that Eptalon will be more careful with administrative powers. Believe in people and you'll often be justified in that belief. --Cromwellt|talk 18:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, exactly where in

I do not claim to be faultless. In the recent months I have tried to bring down the number of edits per page (exactly because of those 'broken links' issues,previewing also helps there). I started out at almost 3 edits per page, today I am slightly above 2. I am a professional computer scientist, and have done professional software development in several languages (eg. Java, C) as well as done things in "web-frontend" languages like PHP. Btw: Where those errors affect the syntax, I am sure there are tools that will tell me."

did you find any indication that Eptalon intended to be more careful as an admin??? Any acknowledgement in that direction would have kept me from changing my vote, but I certainly didn't see it. As a software tester I have seen many attitudes from developers, and the 'oh, the software will catch my mistakes' is often associated with the developers I write the most bugs against. Software, by design, does what the programmer tells it--nothing more, nothing less; you only have to look at the failed (as in crash and burn--thousands, millions, or billions of dollars wasted) NASA projects to see how critical it is that developers check their own work, and not expect software to catch their errors, to see the problems with that approach. Look at the examples I cited, and see how many fixes were required beyond what I mentioned. 'Unapologetically sloppy' will always be 'unapologetically sloppy', in my experience, and Simple has too few editors to try and clean up after other admins' mistakes.165.121.26.170 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Freshstart, apparently not logged in for some reason.)

Comment. I agree that checking one's own work is a good idea, which Eptalon should follow when he/she can, but I still think that either way Eptalon would be a good administrator, and I continue my support. Errors are fixable. --Cromwellt|talk 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with typos, and I regret mentioning 'Simple issues' here as I believe this is not the best forum for such discussions. The unapogetic reponse from Eptalon still has me very concerned. Someone who does not habittualy 'check their work', to me is unhsuitable as admin. Freshstart 07:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Even after concerns about editting accuracy were expressed, Eptalon has continued to add, and not self-detect, link errors such as [7] an easily checkable iw link, and easily visible other links[8].

Typos are human, yes. To expect other editors (note that the Wikipedia software didn't complain about either broken link--it took the review of a human) seems like 'make-work' for other editors. I don't have a problem with 'typos'--we all make them. I DO have a problem with a consistent pattern of zero percent policing one's edits to avoid the most basic errors, creating extra work others. I have no idea where the "Also he thinks that relying on the computer in those areas that the computer is good at" comes from. The Wikipedia computer/software more than happily accepted Eptalon's broken links (check two versions before--it was only followup human editors (not just me) that detected and fixed Eptalon's errors. Computers will NEVER be as able to detect software errors as humans can.[9]--scroll to the bottom. Freshstart 07:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

While we are throwing around with links, here are a few of those zero percent policing one's edits examples as they are called by Freshstart (links provided are context diffs, newest ones first, oldest dates 17th of March): Seibersdorf (village near Vienna): [10]; Phobia: [11], [12]; Arachne: [13]; Grasshopper: [14]; Latex (the sap used to make rubber): [15]. -- Eptalon 09:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)