Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/PMG

< Wikidata:Requests for permissions | Administrator
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as successful (27/0/0 | 100%) -- Bene* talk 04:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PMG

edit

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 23 June 2014 19:54 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate PMG for adminship on Wikidata. PMG made >327.000 edits in all projects WM and he is an administrator on the Polish Wikpedia. He merges items and he have a lot of RfD requests in Wikidata, currently have about 1.500 deleted edits. PMG is in TOP 10 in merge Wikidata Game. He is a technically competent user and I think he would be useful for this project. Rzuwig► 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby I accept this nomination. Besides Wikidata Game I created for example Wikidata:Basketball task force, and added details about basketball players (thats why here such positions dominate so much). On pl.wiki I am admin from 2007. My main area of work is technical stuff, thats why I am on 1st position if it comes to number of edit on pl.wiki. In private life I am Software Test Engineer. PMG (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  1.  Support, as nominator. Rzuwig► 19:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support Extremely high edit count + rollbacker + sysop on other projects + many RfDs + no active blocks anywhere = Of course! --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support A dedicated Wikimedia contributor with long and outstanding history. Grzegorz Dąbrowski (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support - active, trusted - Taketa (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support - Yep, high edit count & great experience so far. :) - sZakOOu (talk)
  6.  Support ofc, trusted etc. Attention: he acts like a bot, not like a human being. I've seen it many times ;) Tar Lócesilion|queta! 21:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Earned my trust. Good luck! Boston9 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support--Çalak talk 22:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Bacus15 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support Wow. I wonder who's next. :D Jianhui67 talk★contribs 03:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support easy vote :) Ajraddatz (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Awersowy (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support Lymantria (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support In the previous RfA I asked who were next. Maybe you... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support --Epìdosis 14:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support --CLI (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Are votes from "users with one edit" counting here? gangLeri לערי ריינהארט (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @לערי ריינהארט: AFAIK they count. I have looked into these accounts, they look like they're active editors/sysops on plwiki, thus ruling out socking. (Not that I was suspecting socking) --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureacrats are free to discount votes in case off-wiki canvassing is too obvious, like in this case. Though, unless there is any opposition by locally active users, there should be absolutely no need to do so. Vogone (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Vogone, do you have any proof of this? (I know it looks like it, but I would still like to have rock solid proof if possible.) Chrumps, you're from plwiki and don't usually comment on RfAs, were you brought here via off-wiki canvassing? If not, do you see canvassing going on at plwiki otherwise? --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not notice any canvassing, either at plwiki or off-wiki. Chrumps ► 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have any but as long as there isn't any opposition at all I don't believe it is a real issue and we should assume good faith. Though, we previously had some cases where Wikidata community members used canvassing by users other than the the candidate himself as an oppose reason. Vogone (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Tomasz Raburski (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support--Wiher (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support--DangSunM (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support -- Very active and trusted user. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support-- Impressive editing skills, long existence on Wikimedia, great personality Akifumii (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support active and trusted. Chrumps ► 13:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support Tomasz Wachowski (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support Openbk (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support. Ralgis (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support experienced and trusted user --Alan ffm (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Czy wikidane powinny być projektem anglojęzycznym czy wielojęzycznym? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ciężko jest mi odpowiedzieć jednoznacznie a lub b bo mam na to pogląd informatyka. Na pewno cała platforma powinna być przygotowana zgodnie z regułami i18n i L10n. Dlatego na przykład bardzo dobrze ominięto problem na Wikidata przez zastosowanie wpisów alfanumerycznych. Można się przyczepić że nie zapewnia to pełnej g11n, ale nie widzę sposobu żeby pogodzić zapisy chińskie, rosyjskie, tamilskie i polskie. Więc jezeli chodzi o stronę użytkownika to z całą pewnością platforma powinna być przygotowana w taki sposób zeby dało się z niej korzystać w kazdym języku (po tym jak zostaną przetłumaczone komunikaty systemu). Z drugiej jednak strony jako informatyk wiem że wszystkie standardy w informatyce sa napisane w jezyku angielskim (np. polskie standardy z tego co wiem są tłumaczeniami anglojęzycznych), a mi samemu bardzo ciężko (a czasem wręcz jest to niemożliwe) prowadzi się w języku polskim rozmowy o informatyce. W testowaniu wręcz nie ma słów po polsku (nie ma oficjalnie zatwierdzonych słowników) więc wszyscy używają terminów angielskich. Dlatego bardzo ciężko jest mi sobie wyobrazić rozmowy o standardach na wikidanych prowadzone oddzielnie w każdym języku. Podsumowując uważam że Wikidane jako projekt powinn być przygotowane do używania przez edytora polskiego, ale dyskusje o losie projektu (jak pokazało zycie) będą toczone w języku angielskim. PMG (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/PMG&oldid=144776197"