User:ChildofMidnight/egomaniac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ChildofMidnight[edit]

Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/0/0); scheduled to end 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present ChildofMidnight for RfA. Since joining in November 2008, he's racked up over seventeen thousand edits. He's a proficient vandal fighter, making sure to leave warnings. This is a highly trustworthy user, who would be a positive force with the mop. DougsTech (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC):



Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you DougsTech for your nomination. Your selectivity and high standards are well known and respected, and I appreciate the confidence you have expressed in my judgement and good character with this nomination.

I am committed to improving Wikipedia and have worked in various areas to this end. I've done a lot of article editing, formatting and reorganization. I've made numerous content additions, including rescuing troubled articles and starting new ones on important but neglected subjects. I've done qutie a bit of work on new page patrol. I've participated in many AfD discussions and contributed to various notice boards.

Many editors will have noticed that I haven't shied away from controversial topics, and while I have certainly made some mistakes, I've tried to be accountable and reasonable in working through challenges as they arise. I always try to work in a collegial and collaborative way with my fellow editors, even as I've wrestled with some thorny issues and challenges. This has sometimes been challenging in subject areas where opinions and emotions are vigorous, but I think these experiences may make me a helpful aribtrator in understanding the dispute resolution process firsthand.

Thanks to everyone who has taken an itnerest in my nomination, and I'm sorry for the delay in accepting it. I know there's going to be an enormous rush to support but please take turns and try not to push ahead in line.


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
I would like to focus on areas where I have some expertise. These are mostly in the areas of article creation and deletion procedures. I will use my tools to assist in reviewing speedy deletions, moving deleted articles to userspace when appropriate, assisting in closing AfDs, deleting non-controversial pages for page moves and deleting leftover talk pages after AfDs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
I'm most proud of my efforts to help editors that are having trouble and the work I've done taking on difficult and contentious subjects. Certainly creating articles and collaborating with others on non-controversial content and making improvements is also satisfying, but that comes easier. And I think the many small fixes are also very important even though they don't receive the glory of DYK honors or article creator honors.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :) Can I just let the opposes speak for themselves? Seriously though, I've tried to make sure our article coverage is inclusive of content that represents notable viewpoints, including those in the minority. So, for example, I've been working on expanding the access to and inclusion of notable opposition and criticisms of Barack Obama. He's very popular and a lot of editors are protective of our content covering him, but I think it's important that contrary views and opinions also be represented. I've also been a party to disputes on other exciting subject areas like Ayn Rand, Barney Frank, and stick candy. I've also tried to lend a hand to editors who I felt were pushed into a corner (often by their own actions) but who I felt deserved a fair shake and an opportunity to become productive members of our community. I think diversity is important. And my candidacy is in some ways a test of whether editors who have opinions and who seek to resolve thorny issues can still be Admins. I don't pretend I've handled every situation perfectly, or even well. I've made some mistakes, but I've acted in good faith and in the interests of Wikipedia even where I understood it was going to be an uphill climb. I think that's valuable even though I think there will be legitimate concerns raised about whether I've been involved in too much drama.
Additional question from iridescent
4. Explain in your own words what's going on here (permalink in case it archives during this RFA; it's currently live on ANI)?
Barney Frank is a political lightning rod. He's a liberal Representative in the U.S. House and the leading Democrat on the Banking committee that oversees the financial sector including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I've been working to improve the introductory paragraphs to better reflect his life's work and the article contents. I've taken the same approach I use on every article I work on, but it's been very contentious. I like clear and concise introductions that cover all the bases. In this case there has been a lot of political passion and it remains unresolved, but we're working through it. Specifically, I think his career and major achievements need to be covered. There has been resistance to saying he's an advocate for gay rights and to mentioning his leading and controversial role in the financial sector. If one side of the partisan debate is included, I think it's important to provide our readers with the other side as well, not in equal portions, but so as not to biased or advocate one particular point of view. I've started an RfC and it's being mediated (it's the poor mediator's first time so he has his work cut out for him, but a second mediator has stepped in to assist). I'm always happy to compromise, and I think the consensus and middleground too often gets obscured by frustration and personal attacks that poison the discussion. That's where I think mediators and Admins can be helpful, although that's not where I will be working as an Admin since it's an area I'm involved.
Additional question from FlyingToaster
5. Given that DougsTech is arguably the most controversial user in recent RfA history, what led you to specifically ask for his nomination?
Essentially, I wanted to stand on my own two feet as a candidate. I appreciate the support I've received from other editors and administrators, but as much as teamwork and advocacy have their place, I'd like to be judged on my merits as an individual. I was curious what DougsTech would say if I asked him. I followed the controversy over the standardized wording of his opposition to RfA candidates, and I think both sides make good arguments. I do respect that he's willing to take some heat for a principle he thinks is important. I was also curious whether he would be willing to be a nom at all and how we would assess my candidacy in particular. Here's a link to our discussion:[1] I removed my initial response shortly after posting it and made this comment instead:[2]. I think my chances of passing an RfA are slim to none, and I'd be perfectly happy to have other good candidates succeed. DougsTech transcluded the nom right away. I would have preferred a bit more time to discuss and assess, but some good questions were asked and I think it's a worthwhile process so I'm going ahead with it. Some other issues arose at around the same time as the initial nom that were quite time consuming, so after being advised there was no time pressure I've waited until now to proceed. Although I have some concerns that my nom may be turned into a circus, I have no interest in promoting drama and I think it's reasonable for the community to have a chance to render a verdict on whether I'd make a good Admin. I'm confident I would, but obviously I've made some mistakes and I understand a reluctance to give the tools to someone who has been involved in disputes. As I said, I haven't always handled things perfectly, but having taken on some difficult challenges and taken a lot of heat, I think I've done a good job and demonstrated a committment to Wikipedia.
Additional questions from — Ched :  ? 
6. Given the link that Iridescent has posted, you've obviously attracted a following of dissenters in a short time. How would you be inclined to wield the admin. block powers should you become involved in a heated debate? Feel free to comment on both content debates and conversations on users talk pages.
I'm here to make the encyclopedia better. Any effort on my part to go after anyone who disagrees with me or to use my position to advance a particular POV wouldn't be helpful. I want to be an Admin for all editors, and I want everyone to feel that I'm on their side and pulling for them. I think it's very important that disruptions not interfere with the article building process, but it would be inappropriate to use my tools in any content area in which I'm personally involved. For the sake of appearances and perception, I would not use my tools in political arenas, even where there was a relatively clear cut issue. There are other admins who can handle those situations. I'm aware that my involvement as an Admin in political disputes could do more to cause drama than to eliminate it. I'm here to be constructive so that wouldn't be anything I'm interested in being part of. There are contentious areas where I hope to continue to work as an editor to improve the encyclopedia, but I will not use my tools in any conflicts that arise there. Impartiality and fairness are vital, and upholding high standards is important to me.
Additional questions from — rootology (C)(T)
7. What are your views on WP:BLP? Specifically, do you feel that the current usage of BLP to protect these articles is too strict, too lenient, or just right, and why?
We need to be vigilant to prevent character assasination and damaging content that violates our guidelines from being put into biographies. I think the guidelines are appropriate, but I understand there are major concerns about enforcement and supervision. My only personal experience with difficulty in reigning in edits that seem inappropriate is on Irfan Yusuf. So I guess I'm okay with our current usage, but bo system is perfect and I'm open to refinements and suggestions on how we can better prevent biographies from being abused to attack people. I'd be happy to help in that discussion if someone wants my involvement or input. :) At the same time I have no objection to fairly including notable controversies and well sourced statements on public figures, and I think our guidelines are clear and reasonable in delineating what content is appropriate. We certainly need to make sure we don't allow articles to be used maliciously for the purpose of targeting or tarnishing someone.
8. Do you support any form of controls on editing, such as Flagged Protection, Flagged Revisions, or any variant? Why, or why not?
I've followed the debate over flagged revisions, and I suppose it will come off as wishy washy when I say I'm just not sure who's right. I think some trial of flagged revisions might be worthwhile, but I share the concerns of those who don't want to overturn a culture of equal opportunity editing. There are a lot of anonymous editors who do great work, and I'd also be concerned about the time considerations and procedural issues involved in reviewing revisions made by anonymous editors. But I'm open to trying it on a limited basis.
9. What is the most valuable type of editor on Wikipedia?
I've been impressed with the diversity here. There are editors who do technical issues and a lot of clean up. There are people who work mostly on articles. There are those (especially administrators) who do the patrolling and maintenance. And there are those working to refine our policies and practices. My area of interest and expertise is mostly in article building. But it takes all types to build a great encyclopedia, and thank goodness we have people taking on the various tasks needed. It's sometimes a messy system, but we seem to get things right most of the time and there are processes in place to fix mistakes. I think the differing perspectives help make sure we keep content from reflecting any one perspective. It's great that there is international interest and involvement, and input from a lot of unique and interesting contributors.
10. If a user has a strong personal opinion or belief on something--politics, religion, anything--should you be able to detect any of that in the actual "Article" space edits of a user? Why, or why not?
No and yes. We're human. No two people write the same way. We strive to be neutral (or at least the overwhelming majority here does) and that helps make Wikipedia rigorous and useful. Collaboration and the wiki approach (constant improvement, at least ideally) also helps in that effort. But I don't think it's possible to strip the humanity out of the process all together. And I wouldn't want the article content written by robots. I'm committed to keeping bias out, but some color and character is part of all communication, and in some cases it can keep readers interested. There are judgement calls, word choices, and stylistic decisions. Whether we use color or colours and aubergine or eggplants, it's a melting pot and as long as we can keep the advocacy out, and make sure we don't let too much spice into any of the dishes, I think Wikipedia will live on without absolute uniformity.
11. Related to the preceding question, do you have any areas you have edited on this or any other Wikipedia username ever that you are especially passionate, fervent, or ideological about in real life? Will you be willing to list these here and publically vow to not use your admin tools in ANY capacity on these topics, and make that binding somehow, such as Administrator Recall?
Yes. Everything. I'm a passionate person. I love ideas. I love thinking about things, and wrestling with wording, trying to figure out how to organize and communicate information in the most coherent and well organized way possible. I've worked on contentious political subjects and I will not use my tools in disputes involving those subject areas. I can't think of anything else where perception or appearances of impartiality would make it problematic to use my tools, but I would certainly do my best to refrain from using my tools in areas where I'm personally involved in editing or in relation to subjects I'm actively interested in and working on. Frankly, except for vandals, I'm a very very cautious enforcer anyway. So I would try to use my tools only as a last resort where there isn't another way to help an editor or to resolve a situation so constructive collaboration can work. Protecting a page or polite requests and discussion or getting outside involvement can also be effective. Truly the thing I'm most passionate about is accuracy and making sure Wikipedia includes the variety of notable viewpoints that exists. So where there are strong political consideration and my aversion to censorship is strongest I've committed to not using my tools. Our policy is that Wikipedia is not censored, but sometimes it takes effort to keep it that way.
Followup question from roux
12. - in light of FlyingToaster's question, can you please explain this diff, specifically the fact that you are, quote, "counting on you and at least one or two of your meat puppets to support me", especially considering that user is currently banned? Please likewise explain this and this (particularly, quote, "and how I haven't been blocked yet is in fact a bit of a mystery truth be told").
ScienceApologist and I were involved in a disagreement over content. We eventually worked through it, and while our interests and opinions often differ, we have a respect for each other. I think Wikipedia should be fun. So even though he's blocked, I was posting a joke on SA's page.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^66

                                                          • Up to here...***********

Questions from GlassCobra

13. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xeno/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
With great powers comes great responsibility. Arguing with a friend or colleague is different than arguing with a cop. And arguing as a cop carries a special responsibility to make sure that editors don't feel threatened and intimidated unduly. CONTINUED...
14. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
I like the idea of accountability. Unfortunately sometimes well intentioned processes get abused. It seems that there are in place methods of weeding out the Admin gone awry. In the heat of dispute sometimes decisions are made hastily, but where there was appropriate deliberation and a reasonable request from well established editors I would certainly consider giving up the "bit".
15. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?
One of the areas where I've made well meaning efforts but soemtimes made mistakes is trying to help and stick up for editors in trouble. I certainly need to redouble my efforts to communicate in the most civil and respectful way, especially as an Administrator. Asking an editor to be patient so that any concerns can be discussed is reasonable. Encouraging an editor to take be patient after the initial block would have been better. It's important to step away when we're frustrated, doubly so as an Admin. There's no hurry to rush to judgement. Edits can always be reverted, so taking time to get impartial input and ensure that there has been appropriate discussion is important.

Questions from Grsz11

16. Under what circumstances would you block an editor on an article that you were involved with?
Basically never. Once I've taken a position and have a stake in something, I think it makes it difficult to be viewed as impartial and appearances are important. If my only involvement is in mediating a dispute, that's different. And even there I think caution and restraint are important. We all get frustrated, but that's a bad time to speak up and an even worse time to take administrative action. I think admins are most effective on subject they don't care about, so they can be totally impartial. Sometimes this creates a learning curve since they don't know the history or the content issues, but the rules for behavior and dispute resolution are clear no matter who is "right" or "wrong".
17. Under what circumstances would you protect a page that you have been involved with?
I wouldn't. I would request a neutral party be contacted to assess the situation, or let the parties know I was going to seek one out. Appearances matter and maintaining the highest standards of impartiality is important. Things don't always work out "right", especially not immediately, but we have to live with an imperfect world even on Wikipedia. :) "Knowing" the right answer isn't enough, and getting a second opinion is far better than leaving someone feeling slighted and abused. It sometimes takes time to work through a situation.

Question from Scjessey

18. Would you consider blocking an editor who accused another editor of homophobia? (diff)
I would ask them to refactor their statement and to refrain from making personal attacks. That was an unwise statement on my part, even though I did not directly accuse anyone of homophobia. My statement escalated the conflict and wasn't helpful. I was frustrated and I should have stepped away from the dispute.

Question from Wikidemon

19. You recently commented about a block, and the blocking administrator, on the page of a blocked user.[3][4] Do you stand behind those comments, and how would you handle the situation if you came upon it as an administrator?
No. I made a mistake. I had been following the situation and it frustrated me when an editor followed the advice of those disputing his edits and was then blocked for it. But I should have waited until I could discuss the issues more calmly and respectfully. My heart was in the right place, I was trying to stick up for someone and let them know that their contributions and efforts are valued. But I failed to take into account the effect my aggressive behavior had on the other editor, in this case the admin. Wikipedia should be fun, and while I will continue to try to help editors having a tough time, I am more aware that sticking up for someone having trouble must be done in a way that's civil and respectful of the other parties.

Question from Collect

20. Some have cast you as being partisan in political articles. Would there be any possibility that you would keep the administrator hat off when dealing with such articles, or at least refrain from using it in any conceivably partisan manner?
When you know someone's an administrator the perception of them is different. So the hat can never be totally taken off. That's why I think it's very important to be aware and sensitive to editors who feel attacked or intimidated. As I've said before, I wouldn't use the tools in any dispute or enforcement involving political content. I also think as an admin is "armed" in a way that other editors are not, that it's important to be especially sensitive and restrained in communicating when there are differences of opinion. I'm human. I'm not perfect, but I try to be accountable and to fix things where I've messed up and to learn for the next time. So some day in the future, admin or not, I will mess up again. But I will do my very best to maintain the utmost restrain and to refrain from using the tools any time I'm frustrated, and to fix any mistakes I make. I won't use my tools at all in relation to editors working on political subjects. I think that's only fair, even where there's a clear cut issue needing admin intervention, it's worth getting a second opinion from someone who is perceived as impartial so there won't be added drama.

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

21. Do you think we have enough admins?
I have worked with several editors who would make good administrators. I think it's helpful to have the work of admins shared among more editors. Occasionally there is a rift or a perception of a rift between admins and editors, so I think sharing the workload and easing the burden might be helpful in allowing admins the opportunity to do a bit more article editing and contributing without feeling that there's not enough time to do so, or that needed maintenance will sugger. Wikipedia is very communal, so I think it's good to share responsibility and prevent anyone from feeling they have to take on special responsibilities or deal disputes all the time.

General comments[edit]

Toaster, I don't mind the questions, if that makes a difference. They all seem like good ones so far. I'm a bit busy at the moment so won't get a chance to address them or proceed with the nom immediately, but I welcome anyone who wants to raise a question. I defer to your judgement, though, if you think allowing additional ones is inappropriate at this time. Cheers. And thanks to everyone for taking the time to drop in and take an interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification CoM - I didn't mean to speak for you, but was just worried that you might be getting a bit overwhelmed. But if you're good, so are we! :D FlyingToaster 00:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It is perfectly okay for any candidate running for any election on Wiki not to answer or ignore to given questions that s/he considers inappropriate, baiting, insulting, uncontructive etc.--Caspian blue 00:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ChildofMidnight before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]


Neutral[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ChildofMidnight/egomaniac&oldid=1088309534"