Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Gryllida

Closed as succesful (8 support 3 oppose 2 neutral 1 in-eligible support ) Bawolff ☺☻ 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

— adminship
I think the user deserves the mop, knows to remain civil and has dealt with situations very well. And I'm sure you think the same. --Diego Grez return fire 00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions and comments

 * Has the nominee been consulted? Acceptance of nomination generally precedes votes either way.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, xe accepted my proposal of nomination when I talked to them about it, and xe's going to comment here shortly. Diego Grez return fire 00:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Accepting. % Gryllida talk 00:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, the concept has been around at most Wikimedia projects for a long time and seems to have been working nicely. I think the current level of trust at Wikinews is fair enough when users can write and contribute but an uninvolved editor will review before the article is published. This system currently is balanced and assuming that people have good intentions can be important to keep them such. % Gryllida talk 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (all optional, but would help me considerably as I have little to no previous interaction with you on which to base a vote)
 * 1) Do you agree with the concept of Assume Good Faith? Why or why not?
 * Interesting. I don't agree that AGF has been good for the projects that use it, other than one factor that can't apply here:  it's over-the-top idealism, which can be a very good thing on a wiki since idealism is a good motivator for volunteer effort (but it doesn't apply here because that type of idealism is incompatible with the kinds of idealism that are our reason for existing as a project).  --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I agree with Gryllida in this regard. Knowing Gryllida from other projects, I have to say that he/she always treats people fairly. Although assuming good faith may be a more tiring approach to a project because it often requires more experienced contributes to step in, but if enough people are able and willing to put in the effort, why not? This is especially relevant on wikis because not doing so would make it much harder to bring in a new contributor base.

Absolutely. % Gryllida talk 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, I'm an administrator at a few other projects which require human judgment on my side while still being courteous and open-minded. I've been inactive here for a few months; it might take a while to find something to write but I've landed back again and keep reviewing. % Gryllida talk 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Do you agree to abide by the etiquette policy and encourage others to do the same?
 * 3) A look at your contributions shows you have only a handful of edits in the past half year. Do you feel you have enough experience and community interaction to be a good admin? Tempodivalse [talk]  01:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(Recovering, and commenting on, some text that somehow disappeared, attached to the first question prior to nominee's answer.)
 * You know, Tempo, there's something of entrapment about pushing relative newcomers to comment on one of the most toxic issues on Wikinews, with no warning of the hellscape they're been lured onto. --Pi zero (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gryllida doesn't strike me as a "newcomer", having participated for over a year with the project. However, I'll strike the question since mentioning AGF always launches pointless drama. An honest answer, however, would have given me a great insight into how the user will to work with others on the project and how the user views Wikinews. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant "newcomer" relative to Wikinews admin level, which does change one's perspective on things. --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears my comments about striking my question got lost in an edit conflict. But I don't believe the candidate was "trapped", Gryllida could have easily simply ignored the question and avoided getting involved. That's been done before. This is a largely unproductive line of discussion, though. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I made a comment about a problem I noted with an article you passed here and you deleted your page  rather than responding. I am wondering if this would be usual behavior for an admin.  Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the comment to 2011 archive of the talk page. I'm watching the article via watchlist now. % Gryllida talk 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that you answered my question. Great that you have watchlisted the article. However, I am wondering if it is your practice to remove a comment without giving a response to a valid concern. Do you understand the problem of using a press release (without templating it as such) as a major source for the content of an article on a pharmaceutical study, resulting in the article promoting a specific drug? And the problem of misquoting the press release to accent the emphasis on that particular drug even more? Have you read the superior sources that an IP provided that do not mention the specific drug and correctly explain the neurology involved in the study, unlike the article you published? I am wondering if you understand the problem in publishing such an article without editing the misquotes or checking the quality of the sources?   Mattisse (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So far the longest "Questions and comments" section I have seen on a Wikinews RfA :) Diego Grez return fire 22:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise the problem; scientific articles are rare at Wikinews - I hurried up when reviewing this one, and indeed didn't analyse the main source. No, I don't *remove* valid concerns, but indeed leaving some sort of response may have been better; I'm not reluctant to accept errors, make conclusions and move along, though I don't always leave a note. Probably I should? % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 05:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A few people ask me to work on the article.. However there isn't much I can do other than remove last two paragraphs which promote the drug, and it would still not be very accurate. Publishing it is my mistake, and I've not unpublished articles before; most sources I could find are severely similar to the press release or aren't substantial. That's why I don't participate in it this time. I'm once again sorry for that I failed to have a critical approach with this article, it seriously isn't something that I do regularly. % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One dodgy review is hardly something that would disqualify somebody from adminship. I would point out that Gryllida has shown an ability to be mature and take steps towards dispute resolution, keeping xyr head when we all lost ours, as was the case in this diff, as just one example. Reviewing articles is a reviewer thing. Maturity, sensibility, knowledge of policy, and dispute resolution are an admin's domain, and Gryllida has shown an aptitude for such things. DEN  DODGE  12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the problem Mattisse is highlighting is not that the review was dodgy, and rather that the comment left on Gryllida's talk page was not responded to, and instead hidden in the archives without a reply to what Mattisse thought was a substantial issue. Communication is key to an administrator's rôle; blanking a comment shows lack of it. — μ 12:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded, MC8. A question concerning something like that should be responded to.  Removing the question and failing to reply to it shows an absence of communication with a relatively new user, which is not a good thing for a potential admin to be doing.  The review wasn't dodgy by any means, the response from the user concerned after being questioned over it, most certainly was. Moving my vote to oppose. BarkingFish (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I read the comment as a "heads up", notifying the user of the issue. Archiving the comment implied that it was read and understood, but AFAIK there was no question to answer. It was just saying, "You messed up, be more careful in future." DEN  DODGE  12:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but looks like leaving the comment unattended makes it look like I'm reluctant to accept my own errors - but I don't, an open-minded response would have been helpful apparently. Once again, thanks to Matisse for clarifying that. % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise the concern. I didn't have enough information about the comment background to reslise that I should reply this time. I generally try to communicate with new people about the concerns I have (e.g. 1) and will try to pay more attention to responding to comments. % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 13:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned both with the apparently dismissive treatment of an expression of concern by another Wikinewsie about a very serious issue, and with the conveyed attitude of not taking that issue nearly as seriously as it should be taken. If something like that had happened to me, I'd have been all over it the moment I was aware.  Both the attitude conveyed, and its conveyance, argue against readiness for adminship.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All I can say about the question is that I didn't pay enough attention. It didn't have malicious or hideous intentions. I usually communicate with newcomers (at Wikipedia too). I'd bring thanks for clarifying that what I did wasn't really ok, and restored the comment. Cheers, % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 13:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC) It's okay for someone to close this request. Diego nominated me, but I probably shouldn't have accepted that due to my own inactivity (which causes lack of understanding of others about who I am). % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 14:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never suspected "malicious or hideous intentions". Rather, I suspected a lack of concern in maintaining reviewing standards, partly reflected in your failure "to have a critical approach" (as you say above), and partly in your unwillingness to engage in a discussion of the specific problems in the article on your talk page. Instead, you shut the discussion down by removing my concern about bias.  If you had responded to my concern on your talk page, I would have been able to bring up my specific concerns for discussion, some of which I outlined in my second question above. Would you be willing to address the specifics in my second question? You have not so far and I am not clear that you understand the major issues that you did not address in your article review.  Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what bias is. Like I said I normally have critical approach and this review was not accurate, because the article is on a topic which is rare at Wikinews and just its presence was making a positive impression, due to which I didn't keep reading all sources thoroughly enough. It wasn't an unwillingness to engage in the discussion at my talk page, I just didn't see a question to respond to and didn't realise that you want to bring some of the issues up on my talk page instead of my article talk page. I thought it's just a notification about the situation; please do not take that as a desire to shut up the conversation, I just didn't understand that it needs a response. Responding to each comment sounds like a good idea, I will try that. % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "I am wondering if you understand the problem in publishing such an article without editing the misquotes or checking the quality of the sources? Mattisse (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)" --- yes, I do. This review was (one of my first) fail reviews in more than 6 months. Please do realise that it's not something which happens regularly. % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As was mentioned before, one bad review is not a reason to deny a request. What really matters is if Gryllida now understands the proper reviewing procedure. He/She has noted that this is a mistake that was made in the past and that it has been learned from. Why is this being made into a bigger deal that in is? Unless you can find numerous bad reviews, there is no reason to deny the request. So, in short, Gryllida understands the mistake, has learned from it, and is a better contributor because of it. --Aj00200 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article will perhaps be replaced with a retraction notice per a deletion request. It can't be fixed now. Yes, it's based on a press release, inaccurate, and biased. I agree it was not a good idea to push that to public. I'm quite well aware of the reviewing policies; it's just a failure to work thoroughly at one point. % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Matisse pointed out an inaccurate review and lack of elaborate communication style on my side. While the first one is a one-time error, I accepted the second one as true and promised to pay more attention to talks. That does not mean my lack of knowledge about how to review, and that does not mean that I try to "shut up" conversations on purpose. That does mean I need to work on the talk style, which I promise to do (and can do, like I already pointed out by another example at 1). I do think that the situation is overestimated here. Thanks, % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes
* Should be fine. --Pi zero (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Diego Grez return fire 00:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm suspending my vote, pending further developments on Mattisse's question. The status of that article is now a right mess, and I really want to hear Gryllida's thoughts about it.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm outside my comfort zone on this (per my comment above). --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * , low edit count was initially a bit concerning, but no problems after a quick check, and after reading the replies to the questions. I think you'll do well in the sysop role. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Low activity and relatively low editcount overall; I see positives but don't feel I have enough edits on WN to assess this candidate as well as I'd like.  — fetch · comms  02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * —I see no reason not to, and that's good enough for me. DEN  DODGE  10:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per Fetchcomms. I would've like to have seen a bit more activity to assess the candidate, but I don't see any major areas for concern. Tyrol5 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is so confusing now I am frankly not fussed :) Supply the rights. BarkingFish (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They would do a great job. -- Nascar <font color=" #1234aa">1996  (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * user trusted to do job. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Knowing Gryllida from some other projects, I have no reason to oppose the request --Aj00200 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your vote is unclear, are you opposing or supporting this nomination? Diego Grez return fire 22:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Diego Grez return fire 23:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Gopher65talk 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; until nominee answers my question above with a relevant response. If failing to respond but rather removing a comment regarding bias in an article she cleared to publish I made  to her talk page, and/or if knowing the fundamentals of reviewing an article are irrelevant to being an admin, then please point that out to me and I will withdrawn my oppose.  Mattisse (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this user from other projects, she's very polite, always nice to the newcomers, and knows how to deal with difficult situations. (I generally don't edit on WMF wikis anymore, but I was lurking around and I saw this one) Pilif12p (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * — μ 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? Oppose votes without comments aren't particularly helpful to others, or to the closing bureaucrat. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)