Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/AuFCL

2013-05 admin
MODCHK has been with us for a year, and amassed a significant 11k edits across all of our namespaces, including Module (beating me to that namespace). MODCHK has a fine eye to detail in their editing and the smarts that I want to see in administrator. They come to this task reluctantly and sometimes I see that as a strength in that they don't rush to tools as a means to solve matters, they are just part of a resolution. MODCHK also may have an coding inner self that we may be able to tempt out for bits and pieces. All in all, I think that MODCHK has passed all the challenges that we have thrown their way, and as is still with us means that it is time to staple gun their feet to the wiki. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that (somewhat violent!) introduction. I can only assume that my constant badgering of him―both on- and off- wiki―has had the effect of mildly unhinging Billinghurst, and I am frankly far too terrified to refuse such a gracious invitation. I shall be very careful to wear armoured boots (sabatons?) from now on, and will expect careful coaching whenever I transgress, as is fairly likely. Frankly, I thought I was doing quite enough damage as a normal user.
 * Former embedded coder, finance/petroleum terminals: guilty as charged (if the system is obsolete I've probably worked on or with it); contributor to Module? in truth not usefully so―maybe one day? MODCHK (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—I am delighted that MODCHK has at last agreed. I understand the reluctance and some of what it stems from, but I am also confident that MODCHK will continue to be a plus to the project. The willing support MODCHK has given to various members of the community over the past year with templates and tweaks are much appreciate. I also appreciate the fact that they persist at something until it looks good when transcluded and doesn't just stop at the Pages: point. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—Maury (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)The more qualified administrators we have here the better off we are.
 * Support— I can't seem to bulk-anything without his help as it is. :) George Orwell III (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support--Mpaa (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, Jeepday (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—Zyephyrus (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

''Appointed.[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AMODCHK] Hesperian 13:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

2013-08 resignation
Please remove my access. None of the conditions under which I accepted the position remain (or ever became) true. MODCHK (talk)
 * Absolutely no idea what is going on, but it sounds serious. Jeepday (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - I certainly won't do it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Judging by a brief email that I just received, MODCHK has taken offense at my "grouchy comment" of 12 August.[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource%3AScriptorium%2FHelp&diff=4546799&oldid=4545969]. That comment was intended to express frustration and annoyance at a circumstance that, indeed, I find frustrating and annoying. But it is frustration at a circumstance, not a person. I didn't mean to criticize anyone. I was just venting frustration at something that shits me. In fact, it was so non-personal, I wasn't even particularly aware of the 'author' of the circumstance I was criticising.

MODCHK, if you are still listening, I do most sincerely apologize for the way I spoke. I have no beef with you; I think you're a good editor and good community member, and I enjoy working with you. I shouldn't have vented my frustration the way I did. I am sorry.

Obviously I bear the bulk of the responsibility for this; I accept that and I am ashamed. But I must add, ungracious though it may sound: if a person feels offended by another person's comments, twelve days of brooding silence followed by resignation is not a constructive way to deal with that. This could have been sorted out. It still can.

Hesperian 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Decline Resignation. If MODCHK needs time away that is fine, This appears to be a minor misunderstanding.  MODCHK will either take a short vacation and come back, to the same tools they have now, or the extra tools will be lost through the natural course of confirmation. Jeepday (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not accept this resignation (and indeed, I doubt anyone else will). MODCHK is a good an excellent member of our community, and we need them! :D It's not such a big deal, for that matter. Criticism's a part of life, we just need to accept it and move on. No need to dwell on it. :) — Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * en.Wikisource does not need to exist so let all here just quit. We all had things to do before wikisource and after all, what good does wikisource serve? —Maury (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Decline the resignation and in fact, now it's the time to ask for that BIG raise and a corner office. — Ineuw talk 16:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . . . with his own coffee machine and 12 female secretaries but he has all of that here. My earlier statement above this one was tongue-in-cheek. I expect he is temporarily elsewhere for better enjoyment rather than any sulking. I would at least hope he is better than that and with a thicker skin. He is doing what he prefers to do and I wish him the best with it. —Maury (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @Bureaucrats. Please accept MODCHK's resignation and remove the rights. Stewards generally allow a 24 hour cooling off period, and this is now a week and should be accepted, with or without reluctance. To MODCHK my sincere thanks for your efforts here, you have been a valuable contributor; and being kept honest and focused is a gift. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested. [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=5763345&oldid=5762224] Hesperian 03:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=5763704&oldid=5763702] Hesperian 09:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

2014-12 withdrawn nomination

 * Please view this nomination in line with the previous administrative stint

Frankly I simply cannot conceive of a better time to self-nominate. Probably around 50% of the current pool of administrators hate my proverbial&hellip; and I hope I can trust them to vote this application into oblivion. I am not really sure that I want the position as I have demonstrated on several occasions now the supreme advantages of browbeating an existing sysop into performing necessary edits upon my behalf with the obvious added advantages of both on-the-spot change review and plausible deniability that an neophyte like myself could not have been expected to know any better (for the benefit of the humour-impaired: I am but only half-joking. Here is yet another reason to hate me just in case anybody feels they need another.) Several people have now recommended that I take this step including some parties who most likely wished they had retracted the offer before this. No need to guess names. I have very little interest in the political aspect of the task with the one huge proviso that I despise self-seeking aggrandisation. Not that I am suggesting anybody is so indulging (this application perhaps?) but even so I would appreciate they do it with a modicum of discretion. Why should I apply for this status when I clearly have no real expectation that it shall be granted? Several people have implied (without quite having the courage to actually outright state) that I have no right to express a public opinion on WikiSource policy without carrying the status of having subjected myself to the election process. Well suck on this guys: I win either way. I never promised to play entirely nicely. Not being any kind of a people-person I fully expect to be utterly useless at blocking and spam control, and would be just as happy to leave this to those better psychologically suited to the task. My interest is purely to provide any technical maintenance and/or assistance to those engaged in this area—pretty much as I have done so in the past. In fact I would consider it a minor triumph if I never needed to utilise the extended facilities at all; however with the gradual ongoing creep in locking more and more pages, and the equally insidious creep of badly-conceived and overly-complicated LUA back-ends being engineered into formerly more open templates I feel the time has come for me to offer what little service I may be able to provide. With regards my remaining background for those who do not already know it, I am a retired embedded applications programmer and have been involved in mediawiki operation in the corporate realm since 2006. That is to say my experience although wide is probably entirely at cross-purposes to those of existing enWS sysops, a diversity which I hope will have the benefit of widening the pool of possible solutions to any given problem. It also means that in all likelihood I shall require guidance as to why a given approach might not be acceptable in a given circumstance. Remember, I am a technician not a politician! I was also briefly a sysop here under the handle of MODCHK (2011–2013. Several people have been informed of this without objection.) AuFCL (~2008–) is the far older entity and I have no intention at all (indeed have forgotten the password) of rejuvenating the alternate account. Finally, as I cannot resist this paraphrase, as somebody who will remain nameless suggested to me recently, 'tis far far better to be inside the communal yurt micturating centrifugally rather than outside centripetally. If anybody figures that out and has a bad reaction to the concept then please, please do me the kindness of rejecting this application also. With any luck this ought to result in a simple, unanimous electoral result. AuFCL (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may, I would like to offer some comments as a junior user of this site. Ignoring the verbal jugglery of the "essay" above, we may concentrate on two aspects: the pros and the cons. First, the cons. AuFCL is akin to a "kicking" horse of otherwise very high caliber. If he is reconfirmed, in future also, he is likely to habitually "kick" the senior editors from time to time. Now the pros. Deleting a page or blocking a user: these may not require high grade technical expertise; but improving some template or application -- these things cannot be done by just anyone. And helping a newcomer for some difficult proofreading -- these require both expertise and a readily helping attitude, which AuFCL has, at least to the newbies. So the question comes down to this: whether the seniors can endure/overlook some degree of "kicking" and what degree of benefit/improvement is likely to accrue to the site as a whole if AuFCL is retained in the fold. Hrishikes (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not being held to account that may be the issue, that rigour while not always comfortable is always necessary. It is the current level of vitriol that the nominee expresses, and the aggressive stance to any opinion that seems to be different to their own. No fellow user or admin should be insulted or abused on this wiki, something which this nominee has themself expressed and to which they hold others to account; however, of late, it has not been their practice to manage their own expression, or accountability for what or how they say things. This community works better when it is cooperative and considerate. In short, no-one needs to be kicked, especially when other avenues of resolution exist. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you perchance think that I was commending any kicking? I was not. I was only pointing out the pros & cons, the point being that AuFCL's personality and abilities are not separable from each other and should be considered together. If the abilities are required, the personality (which Jimbo might have categorized as toxic) has to be endured. I found help in his abilities and helpful attitude, so I pointed it out. That's all. (Of course I got help from you too, but that's not relevant for this discussion.) Hrishikes (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "I am not really sure that I want the position"... Then why self-nominate at this time? You must, by now, know what the position entails and whether you are up to the task?  Perhaps I have missed something in the "translation" (I usually do).  I will abstain from giving a yes or no vote because I do not feel qualified to do so; although I am sure that you are more than qualified technically (people skills or no) for the tools...  I hope that no matter the outcome, you will remain, feel useful, gain a sense of enjoyment in the wiki, and know that your help is/has been appreciated.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. AuFCL is a genius who makes the rest of us look like 'mental defectives' who perform no better than 'damaged molluscs'.[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Orwell_III&curid=424777&diff=5112195&oldid=5111942] I am insecure about my intelligence and feel threatened by AuFCL's superior intellect. Hesperian 06:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's about time. It took you long enough. @Londonjackbooks, its not about being in doubt about one's abilities. It's a reluctance to commit. @Hesperian, I think we'll be able to handle AuFCL and his mental gymnastics.— Ineuw talk 06:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ineuw: In addition to the two mentioned above, rhetorical flourishes by AuFCL over the last year or so include 'deliberately provoking', 'inanity', 'stupidity', 'cowardice', 'deliberately lying for dramatic effect', 'craven abuse of the exalted abilities of your assigned role and willingness to abuse same towards your own ends', 'grandstanding', 'senility', 'unscrupulous scoundrel', 'inept attempt at entrapment', 'sycophants', 'fatuous', 'lack the courage to follow through your so-called convictions', 'I must regard you as functionally insane and your opinions therefore of diminishing (well, none whatsoever) significance', 'this comment represents my last remaining shred of respect for you', 'entirely deserving of my comprehensive disdain'.... Diffs on request. These are just the ones that I have noticed on my watchlist; no doubt there are many more. So, Ineuw, do you feel we are "handling AuFCL" at present? Do you feel that we as a community are succeeding in keeping AufCL's behaviour without the bounds of our cultural expectations of how we treat each other? If not, what makes you think that awarding him sysop status will change that? Hesperian 07:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the stream of AuFCL's invective. I don't know what brought it on — and I don't wish to know. It may surprise you to know that I understand your feelings, especially, in light of our initial interactions, disagreements and my unsupported allegations when I joined. So, I prefer to be neutral because I value you both for your contributions and as members of the community. It's less than funny what one imagines when working in front of a computer screen and alone, which I assume that most of us do. But, in spite of all that was said and alluded to, I still think that AuFCL can make a lot of valuable contributions, and the chance to be in a position of some authority and in a responsible manner.— Ineuw talk 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recall you and I did have several editorial disputes when you first joined the site. We became quite tense with each other, didn't we? But to our credit neither of us ever abused the other. Would things have gone better for you if, as an administrator, I had felt entitled and authorised to abuse you? Because if we vote into an administrative position someone who routinely deploys vitriolic abuse against other community members, that's the behaviour we normalise. Hesperian 01:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh puh-leeaase, I will not be judged by a craven piece of filth who bit the very hand which initially succoured it. Get your own house in order and then perhaps you might be worth paying attention to. AuFCL (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Quote from above: " I was also briefly a sysop here under the handle of MODCHK... " Well that tid-bit would have been useful to ol' Captain Oblivious here a bit sooner than now (and what a way to find out to boot). Thanks nevertheless; I think I'm finally going to be able to make sense of a few things at last. New Year's is not the best time to properly process such matters however. Highlighting what might not have been ready-knowledge for some will have to do for now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * - You never promised to play entirely nicely? Did any of the other sysops ever promise such a thing? They never did any wrong though, so may be you can be trusted too :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)