Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Sysop rights)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.


v • d • e
Requests for adminship sections
Administrators
Requests for adminship (edit · watch — talk: post · watch · archives) · Guide to RfA · Arguments to avoid · Successful RfAs (chronological) · Unsuccessful RfAs (alphabetical  · chronological)
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RFB
Bureaucrats
Nominate
Current admin count: 1,673 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 30 (list all)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

Contents

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this. For examples of what the community is looking for, read some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact that positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep", "no way" and "as per."
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so he/she can make proper adjustments and possibly fair better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic.
Note that the Requests for adminship process draws a variety of Wikipedians to express their opinions and help make these decisions. There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for a particular reason. Although the community currently endorses the right of any Wikipedian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, this more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is perceived by some as "trolling". Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nominating

Nominations can only be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 00:52:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Jerem43

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (18/7/5); Scheduled to end 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Jerem43 (talk · contribs) – I would consider it an honor to nominate Jerem43 for adminship on Wikipedia. I have collaborated with him on several topics and have found the user to always be helpful, fair, and sober-minded, even when we don't agree. He has also done some great work on templates (even receiving a barnstar for this work) and the project as a whole would greatly benefit from this user having a couple of extra buttons to help keep things tidy and orderly. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

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?
A: Primarily vandalism related details, RFPP and the like.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The templates that help establish Portals and WikiProjects. They simplify these tasks and make layout changes a lot easier. You can see examples of what I mean on the WP:Food, P:Food and P:Drink. I also have been working to make templates easier to use by updating the documentation so a general user can easily understand how to use them with out a degree in comp-sci. I am proud of the contributions I have made to articles, and a year ago would have probably boasted them here, but I have come to find that helping others in working on stuff has given me more satisfaction. The templates are just one aspect of that, making projects and portals look snappier and more professional as well as making them easier to contribute to is really what has been driving me lately.
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?
A: Yes, I have been in conflict with others. I have found that my attitudes have changed over time when confronted with problems with other users. First I try to step back and allow the situation to cool, and then later use the tools provide on WP to settle the situation. The trick is to think before you act and use the preview button before you add something that is improper. And yes, there are situations I should have handled better but all in all I try to work with angels and keep the demons at bay.
Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash
4. You are patrolling RFPP when you notice a new editor making large scale edits on page. All the edits have been reverted by two established users, who refer to a poll conducted three months ago as the 'consensus'. The page has been listed on RFPP by a third editor, who wishes to remain clear of the dispute. The new editor is becoming increasingly frustrated, and has begun to receive warnings about making personal attacks from the two established users. What administrative actions would you take, if any?
A: I would ask that all editors involved please take a step back, take some time to cool down and look at the overall picture. I would remind the first two editors that that consensus can change and that whole group might consider opening a discussion in order to see where consensus now stand. Based upon their responses and behaviors I would see what steps need to be taken from there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
5. I've been criticised for asking hypothetical XfD-related questions, so I'm using a real one. How would you have closed this CfD discussion? Please explain your thought processes in assessing the consensus in some detail.
A: Looking at that discussion, I think there was really no consensus on what to do, and would be hard pressed on the out come. I would have relisted to try to develop a better consensus as Black Falcon did for the original and based on its outcome I would have gone with a merge because of the oh so small merge tilt. I would also probably have read through the articles to see what at the center of the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Could you clarify so I don't misinterpret you question? WHat do you mean by rights? as a whole or on WP specifically?
Specifically with regard to Wikipedia. Groomtech (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from — Σxplicit
7. Is there an instance in when you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?
A: No, every user deserves a chance to redeem his or her self and you need to give them a chance to correct their behaviors. Indefinite blocks should only be handed out as last resort after other avenues have been exhausted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
8. An IP vandalizes a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that, the IP vandalizes your userpage. Summarizing, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalized after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?
A: I would warn the offending party about their behaviors and if they continued I would ask a disinterest party to step in. Using your Admin rights to solve a dispute you are involved in is a serious coi issue; If I was involved in such a situation I would behave as if I was a normal user and log a complaint on the appropriate discussion board. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from Ottawa4ever (talk)
9. This question is meant to be a AIV scenario; A newly created account (User A) posts an incidence of which is percieved as vandalism and is subsequently warned against doing so by a User B. User A subsequently removes the warning from his/her talk page. And another user, C (which is an IP with no edits until now) places the warning back. User A removes the warning again and C places it back. This repeats until User A has removed the warning a total of 3 times. User B (not C) subsequently reports User A for vandalsim on AIV. Being on AIV how would you handle this. If any thing is unclear i will gladly clarify. Thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
A:


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jerem43 before commenting.

Discussion

  • Comment – Just letting you know... the disambiguation template goes at the bottom of disambiguation pages, and usually you should put "[Disambig. article title] may refer to:" at the beginning of the article. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I decided that the actions displayed recently does suggest that should this user be made an administrator, it would be detrimental to Wikipedia overall. This mainly stems from the removal of comments and questions from the user's own talk page. It is not unusual for users to clean up their own talk pages. But the talk page for this user suggests that this is not a standard practice. Doing this without addressing the questions suggests that the user is attempting to hide their own history. Doing this before the discussion has concluded and during a WP:RFA strengths this position. In addition to this, I believe that anyone that could be an administrator of any site, let alone of one that has such influence on mainstream society, should be able to show that they uphold all the policies and guidelines of the site. When Jerem43 is in the right, and I'm happy to say he often is, he might be very detailed and amiable in his discussion. However, in the disagreements I have read, including the one to which I was a party (Master_franchise), Jerem43 has shown himself to be easily offendable. His responses have violated the Civility policies and behavior guidelines. Specifically, he uses course language (e.g. referring to opposing edits as "crap"), makes accusations without evidence (e.g. claiming that I was making legal threats), and not reading and understanding an opposing argument (opinion). I encourage anyone and everyone to feel free to read the history of that article with its discussion. Also carefully examine the history of the article and history of the discussion. I can accept that Jerem43 has the seeds of good administration. However, his recently style and behavior in the face of an opposing position shows that seed needs time to mature. I actually believe this to be possible, as the edits to his own comments show that he knows when he is inappropriate and corrected text is much more appropriate for an administrator. Doubts remain, though, as perhaps these corrected edits only come in light of the WP:RFA. Edit: After posting this, I find on the article I mentioned a comment from jerem43. "I would seriously step away from this." The idea of suggesting that a user no longer participate in a discussion is so contrary to the core of Wikipedia's reason for existance. Wikipedia, and it's administrators, should be encouraging contribution and productive discussion, not discouraging it. I think this is the worst offense of the bunch, and this attitude alone should be reason enough not to grant adminship-- 152.16.10.191 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you think you could provide diffs for Jerem's incivilitiy? Your claims are potentially very concerning, if true. Timmeh 17:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The discussion he is referring to involves an allegation by me that this user may be a sock puppet for a single purpose account Franchiseguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) for which I filed a a report here. The article in question, Master franchise, had a series of edits done by Franchiseguru that were based on information from a commercial site that provides professional franchise services to individual seeking to invest in a franchised business. There were some issues of copy and paste edits, which I corrected by verifying the information against the original article used in the creation of said article, and then copy editing and removing those problems.
Shortly after I had fixed the coi/copyright problems, I removed the citation link per WP:Spam. Almost immediately after I finished making the corrections, the IP user reverted all of the changes, restoring the problems and spam links. He did this repeatedly stating that he was going to enforce all copyright laws in regards to the issue, as stated on the article talk page. I warned him on his talk page using a standard level 1 boiler plate template ({{uw-advert1}}) about the repeated addition of links to a commercial site; his claim of a personal attack refers to that warning I gave him. His claim of incivility was based on me referring to the problematic additions as crap. The tone of his original post implied that he was accusing me of both lying and plagiarism by stating that the changes I made to the article after the copy editing were not taken from the Entrepreneur Magazine article but were directly copied from the commercial site. In my final post I stated that I believe this user to be responsible for the questionable additions and that I believe him to be a sock.
In regards to the complaint I filed, I stated on both the complaint page and the article talk page that based evidence of his quick response to my edits, the manner in which he edited the article and his repeated blanket reversion of all of my edits back to the problematic version of the article lead me to believe that he was possibly a sock puppet trying to keep the links to the commercial site within the article. Based on my belief, I filed the request that he be investigated as a possible sock puppet. I also warned him that I was possibly going file an ANI report because his extensive knowledge of policy, editing, behaviors and refusal to use a registered account lead me to believe he might be gaming the system in some manner.
I filed the investigation request in order to allow uninvolved, dispassionate individuals to look into the matter in order to confirm or disprove my beliefs. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support - first glance looks good: solid percentage of mainspace contribs, solid talkpage usage, etc. May change if horrible issues are brought up, but I see no problems yet. → ROUX ₪ 11:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. First look seems rather concerning (skimpy answers to questions being the first red flag) but further investigation shows that the user is on the whole a very constructive one. I was going to go neutral but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. (also a tad worried over age but nowadays who cares?)  GARDEN  says no to drama 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Age? What did I miss? → ROUX ₪ 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well, considering that Jeremy is a "25-year veteran of the [fast food] industry", I wouldn't think he'd be too young to be an admin... :) Jafeluv (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Woops. That's what you get for assuming, I guess. I figured the signs pointed to a preteen but evidently not. Apologies. (Then again, maybe I don't like older admins!)  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    And 'veteran' could mean just his career.. and since he wasn't a take-away dude when he was 1.. maybe he's even older? Who cares, anyway :) — DeontalkI'm BACK! 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Trustworthy editor with good contributions. Your brief answers to the questions and the fact that you've been around since 2006 and this is your first RfA indicate that you probably don't consider adminship to be such a big deal (do correct me if I'm wrong). I see you didn't even mention your GA contributions (Burger King and Burger King legal issues, at least) in your answer to Q2. This may be just plain modesty or a conscious omission based on how candidates' "audited contributions" have been handled in RfA recently, but in either case I like it. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support → prior interactions with this user have been both positive & productive. –xenotalk 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support His contributions to Wikipedia and its various projects has shown Jeremy to be an effective editor and overall contributor. The additional tools will only serve to help him to continue the quest to improve our space here.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support No problems that I can see.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support Unless I'm missing something flagrant. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support He looks like a good contributor to me. – DakPowers (Talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support Looks like a very solid editor. Thousands upon thousands of edits on a broad sample of topics. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support Definitely... Until It Sleeps Wake me 18:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support Why not?? America69 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support — this user is a bit tetchy, but he knows his stuff and can judge consensus intelligently.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support Good Track and user has been around since Sept 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  18. Moral support I've been working with Jeremy as a WP:FOOD member for years, and I can trust him as an admin in the desired areas he wants to contribute to with the bits.--Caspian blue 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
Oppose for now, see comment above; I think admins should know basic rules of how to create disambig. pages. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully submit that is incredibly nitpicky. Creating disambig pages has nothing to do with the admin skillset. Have you any reason to believe the user would not be capable with admin functions? → ROUX ₪ 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with roux. If putting a template in the wrong spot disqualifies one from adminship, I can think of a couple of places where arbcom could have stripped me. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Without making any judgment one way or the other, perhaps we can attribute this oppose to being a reaction to CrazyInSane's own RfA, closed just 4 days ago, in a similar vein as this comment.  Frank  |  talk  11:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Frank, I think that's a little below the belt. While I don't agree that one mistake in 30k edits is enough to oppose someone's adminship, people do have different standards. CIS is opposing based on the candidate's knowledge of the basics of editing, and has every right to do so. Assuming external motives without sufficient evidence isn't exactly assuming good faith in your part. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Further comment, to the degree any is necessary, on my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Why you would wikilink "attribute this oppose" to Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy is beyond me; it's quite ironic, actually. My oppose (as noted, "for now") is due to the candidate's apparent lack of knowledge in the general editing realm. Knowing the basics of introducing an article is a bare minimum prerequisite for adminship, I would think. Nonetheless, I am continuing to review his contributions and may change my vote if deemed necessary. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to say this as I assumed someone else would - but the {{disambiguation}} template is one of very few maintenance templates that go on the bottom of the article - most (80-90% most likely) go at the top.  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, but he also did not introduce the article, he just listed the articles needing disambiguation. I know it's not a big deal, but it's something an administrator should have read up on already. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how you can justify "apparent lack of knowledge in the general editing realm" when the user has over ten thousand edits to mainspace alone, and all but 389 of them manual (not automated) edits. You may wish to rethink this. → ROUX ₪ 13:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. Oppose for now. Jeremy, it looks like you have a habit of making careless mistakes and then not looking back to fix them. Yesterday you created an AfD with an odd edit summary (a mistake, I assume) which didn't mention that it was an AfD. And then you turned Ham Sandwich into a dab page without fixing 40+ links to it which had previously gone directly to the page about the rock band ... not to mention the fact that the dab template was out of place and the title of the dab page didn't follow WP:DAB policy (though, I mention that last because I think there should be exceptions for "likely typo" scenarios). Looking through your recent talkpage archives I'm a bit troubled by sections such as this and this and the edit history of Template talk:it icon. I won't comment on the issue being raised by 152.16.10.191 because I don't really know the whole story. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Being human I make mistakes, and I admit to them. The AfD summary was an accidental paste, I was moving some text and I forgot what was on my clipboard when I went to put the summary in. I went to hit the backspace key and hit the enter key instead. The Userbox issue was me trying to be bold based upon a misinterpretation of the policy regarding userboxes, as you can see in the linked discussion (a little hard to read as we were bouncing back between talk pages, the full conversation is here), Xeno informed me of my error and I now understand what goes where. I honestly hate dealing with disambiguation pages because I haven't done enough of them and do not know enough about them. You will find I have created very few of them and when I have I screwed them up. I didn't fix the links because I was in the middle of a 40 hours in three shifts week and did not have time to sit down for a good length of time; I was going to get to them today after a much needed nap. You will find that that my normal course of action is to fix said links, please take look at the Portion Control (band) move I did a while back to confirm this. The {{it}} template edit was due to a confusion on my part, there are several similar templates that did different things, I was trying to figure out how they were different and accidentally blanked it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I have to agree with Soap above. When you created the dab page without cleaning up after yourself, it shows that you are not as thorough as you should be as an administrator. Admins must be thorough when deleting pages (switching links and checking redirects to the deleted page which are bothe things similar to what you skipped out on the dab creation), investigating vandalism reports, investigating page histories at WP:RFPP, and during dispute resolution. Also, I agree with Floquenbeam about your demeanor at User talk:Jerem43#Re: Message regarding Natick Collection, and your lack of dispute resolution with the IP you were in an argument with. If you receive the tools it will not be a terrible thing for Wikipedia, but I hope that my oppose will help you remember to be thorough in your work and to have a professional demeanor. Malinaccier (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I analyzed your edits. You've some nice edits, but I've to oppose per Soap and Malinaccier. AdjustShift (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The above opposes really don't bother me all that much. However, I've taken a more thorough look over the master franchise situation which was mentioned in the discussion section. First, your labeling of the IP's edits as vandalism was inappropriate. His view was definitely valid, and he wasn't intentionally causing disruption. In fact, he was discussing the issue with you on the talk page. Although he may not be aware of what a reliable source is, he was making the edits in good faith, and the text added using that source didn't look all that non-neutral. The warning on his talk page was also inappropriate, as the added material wasn't promotional. Even if it were, the addition of it would not be vandalism. Based on the above evidence, I get the feeling you would be a bit block happy, especially when you become engaged in an edit war with an editor you don't agree with. In addition, the vague answer to Q1 doesn't give me the specifics on where you plan to work as an admin. I'd like to see the specific areas so that I can evaluate whether or not you have sufficient experience in those areas. Please note that I would be willing to support a future RFA if, during the next few months, you consistently show that you've learned from your mistakes. Timmeh 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose - Overall the candidate's contributions look to be solid but I'm not finding much to help me judge his fitness as an administrator. Normally that'd not be enough to bother me but the answers to the questions presented thus far are not very confidence inspiring; they seem a bit on the shallow side. They also appear to be attempts at staking out a "safe" stance - if the answer to Q8 is any indication, it looks like the candidate would be the type of administrator who defers to process for its own sake, even when the end result is obvious. Administrators should not be afraid to make common-sense decisiosn even when process dictates otherwise. I am open to reconsidering my !vote based upon further review of the candidate's edits and answers to subsequent questions but for now I just don't have the confidence level I'm looking for. Shereth 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Plastikspork's diffs. The sudden jumps in warnings make me feel that he will be too block-happy if he gets the tools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Moving to oppose because of incorrect answers to questions 7 and 8, and problematic answers to questions 4 and 5. These indicate a lack of sufficient policy understanding at this time. I don't see any outstanding conduct or personality problems, so I would probably be prepared to support once Jerem43 gained more familiarity with how admins do things. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose for the time being. If you can come back in 6 months with improvements and no major issues, then you'll have my vote. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. Neutral for the time being. Given the response to my oppose vote, I've realized that basing my vote solely on one aspect of knowledge in mainspace editing may have been misguided. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. I see lots of barnstars and thank you's on your talk page, and the following concern is not enough, in itself, to oppose over anyway, and I can't spend the time to review enough contributions to see if this is a one-off problem or not. So, I'll stick this down here in the Neutral section, as a data point for people to consider. I'm somewhat concerned by the situation at Natick Collection and Talk:Natick Collection. It appears that you are having a long-running content dispute with an IP editor, but have never attempted to pursue any of the options available to you at WP:DR, and are instead just reverting each other and talking past each other on various talk pages. I'm concerned about both the dismissive attitude at User talk:Jerem43#Re: Message regarding Natick Collection ("I will defer to their knowledge of the English language over that of a WPI college student."), and the fact that a couple of days ago, after an admittedly vandalistic edit to make a point by the IP editor (worthy of perhaps a warning) you reported the IP editor you're in dispute with to WP:AIV. I'm curious why no other attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. The IP editor's edits to Shoppers World (Framingham, Massachusetts) can be considered vandalism, but all of his other edits are in good faith, yet you're calling them all vandalism when you revert them. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute, but I'd welcome some comment by you as to how you plan on approaching this situation if it continues, and how you would have handled that request at AIV if you were an uninvolved admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    You're right, I have been flouting the vandalism thing with him a bit too much. My frustration with the situation goes back to his insistence on changing the article to reflect corporate adspeak from General Growth Properties website: He originally changed the article based on how they named the facility in their advertising materials, against the common name policy. Every few months he would come back with a different reason why he was changing the grammar of the article, ignoring my counter arguments and insisting the grammar has to be the way he says it need to be. I should have handled it better with a dispute resolution request. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Neutral for now. Your response to Q1 is slightly vague (perhaps consider elaborating on what exactly you would like to do); also, waiting on the other questions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    See above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Neutral while I figure out what's going on with the IP in the comments section. It seems to me that the IP made a statement about possible violation of copyright laws and about enforcing those laws (admittedly rather earnestly) which you seem to have interpreted as a personal attack, as an accusation of plagiarism, and as a legal threat. I don't see anything like that in the IP's comment. Hopefully this is a one-off thing but I'm going to watch from here for now. ([1], [2]) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Neutral for now. Not great answers to the questions and along with civility issues raised by the IP, and by Soap, makes me slightly unsure. AtheWeatherman 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Neutral for the moment. I'm not sure why this required a jump from level 1 to level 3, or a uw-vandalism4 here. I will have to think about it some more. Plastikspork (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Another jump to 3 here and from 1.5 to 4 here and a 1 to 4 jump here. Also, an IP clearing his/her talk page doesn't necessarily need to be reverted as it is confirmation that the warning was read? Plastikspork (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Neutral I'm not quite ready to oppose, but I hate the answer to question 4. When a single editor demands to reopen an issue that was definitively settled in the recent past, admins need to make it clear that such behavior is disruptive and won't be tolerated. Having to repeatedly re-argue topics at endless length is one of the strongest forces driving good editors away, so wimpyness in this respect is very harmful. Looie496 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tedder

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (51/3/2); Scheduled to end 00:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

Tedder (talk · contribs) – I have gotten to know Tedder through our mutual involvement with WikiProject Oregon. Tedder has consistently found a number of different ways to contribute to the development of high-quality content about our state. He has published photographs which inspire others to write; made small but significant edits; initiated and contributed to various collaborative efforts. He's even blogged about his approach to improving Wikipedia!

Through all of this, I have come to know a guy who is welcoming to new contributors, who responds well to criticism and to new ideas, and who incorporates his Wikipedia passion into his life in a healthy and productive way. In discussing the possibility of an RfA, Tedder has gone out of his way to point me toward incidents where he has not displayed the greatest judgment; but the transgressions struck me as minor, and more importantly, he found effective ways to smooth over conflicts and move forward after the fact.

Tedder is also active on several noticeboards, and has sought out areas where he can put his background as a computer programmer to good use for the project.

In short, I believe Tedder possesses the right demeanor for an administrator -- which I happen to believe is the most important qualification -- and has also worked hard to amass the kind of experience that will help him quickly become a productive wielder of the mop. With great pride and admiration, I present to you Tedder, candidate for Administrator on the English Wikipedia. Pete (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks Pete!
I've been on en.wikipedia since April 2005, though at a low velocity for a large amount of that time. I fell in love with Wikipedia while I spent 6 months traveling through Latin America by motorbike; I would cache about 100-200 pages, read them offline, then have another 100-200 pages queued up for the next time I found internet access (and power for the laptop!). In fact, I made a few dozen edits during this time period, and added some photos too.
I've spent some of my time working on antivandalism. However, I've done much more than hit the "vandalism" button: I also spend time cleaning up articles, adding infoboxes, and finding and verifying information.
When I'm bored or not tackling larger edits, I have spent time in the NewPages backlog. I made some early mistakes, but feel I have a decent handle on what is covered under the various speedy guidelines. I've learned to do more than simply mark for speedy or mark as patrolled: depending on how the article fits into Wikipedia, I'll tag the article for improvements, welcome the editor with Friendly, and (most importantly) add at least one WikiProject to the talk page. For instance, I proposed an article for deletion, added it to a project, and let the project know in case they were interested.
Thanks for your consideration.

Questions for the candidate

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?
A: My intent is to help with antivandal and article-building efforts through areas like AIV, RPP, and AFD. I have some experience in those areas as a user. I'd also like to get involved with the EditFilters, which is harder to do without having access to the EditFilter bits.
There are certainly admin backlogs I could contribute to, such as RPP. I've seen articles come across my watchlist or EAR that could use some quick page protection to facilitate discussion and consensus.
Finally, being able to review deleted content will help in me cases where an article has been recreated and I'm trying to investigate its history.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've started a few articles. I'm proud of the article on Black Rage (book); it's something I knew little about, yet I was able to research it and immediately have an impressive (if short) article. I've also created articles for Oak Grove Hydroelectric Project, Cash4Gold.com, Friends of Coal (done while motorcycling and camping across the US, which explains the speedy nomination), Ladd Tower (and the great photos on that page), First Regiment Armory Annex (plus its main photo), as well as few small articles for the barely-alive WikiProject Motorcycling, and the start of a page on the ARC TF Juan Ricardo Oyola Vera (check it out- very unique vessel!).
I also have a talent for "lateral editing". For instance, I've cleaned up every existing high school entry in Oregon, plus some additional communities well outside of Oregon (like this and this). Now that I finished the cleanup, I've been creating redlinked high schools in Oregon- in the above list, it's pretty clear where I've left off. (Lane County, in case it isn't obvious)
This lateral editing is part of the reason I want to wield the mop- to do things like noncontroversial speedy deletes for moves. I'm also proud that I got my first DYK for Clatskanie Middle/High School. I'm not a FA/GA creator, but I feel that I can make up for it with incremental improvements.
Finally, I'm happy with my "non-article" work, such as summarizing a longterm sock: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse.
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?
A: Oh, certainly. I created a RFC/UC not long ago, and I should have represented myself better in the situation. There are also ongoing articles, like AGV Sports Group, which still isn't fully resolved. However, I've been able to deal with all of them in stride, never being blocked, nor losing my temper and getting pointy. I'll continue to deal with it as I have in the past- follow policies, contact the other user(s), then ask for a third opinion from another editor, a WikiProject, or a noticeboard as necessary.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
4. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: Hi ThaddeusB. In my opinion, I like the razor (adage) of notability. It's a convenient shortcut in AFD discussions so we don't have to reinvent the wheel by applying full rationale of the five pillars to every article discussed.
I think that some sort of third-party coverage should be found for every article, and some (many) should require much more. For instance, proving that a large college exists might be enough, while an offhand mention of a Myspace band in a local gig sheet wouldn't be enough. So the bar for inclusion on bands would be higher than a large college, for instance.
Again, this is my opinion, as you (Thaddeus) asked. I'm not saying I'll apply the razor according to my personal stance- I love having and following established policy.
4a. What I was trying to get out is what do you personally consider a legitimate claim to inclusion. Is meeting the "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable" test always enough for inclusion? Or are there some things that might non be worthy of inclusion (in you opinion) even with said coverage. You seem to being saying some things are worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable (e.g. colleges). Can you explain why you feel this way?
A: There are reasons that "coverage in multiple" is not enough- both WP:BLP1E and WP:SBST give some examples. Otherwise, it's coming back to my feelings on the subject, rather than the established guidelines, and I'm decidedly not in either camp.
5. I see that you have practiced answering RfA questions. I personally don't think anyone should hold that against you since you could have just as easily done it off wiki & no one would have known. However, some might view this as evidence of being "power hungry" - how would you respond to such a claim?
A: Yes, I practiced it on wiki. I'd hope that my past actions show that I'm not being "power hungry"- I don't spend a lot of time getting involved with drama, and certainly don't troll or do other evil things. I feel I'm weak in the writing skills that would lead to a FA, so I wanted to begin practicing typical answers to RfA questions. In reality, the most helpful part was having it up so I could refine my statement and initial questions. To summarize, I'd hope it shows I'm taking this seriously, not that I have evil intentions.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: I knew this question would be coming, and it's a fairly abstract question I've given some thought to. Ultimately, User:Roux has identified and enumerated these rights in an interesting manner at User:Roux/Constitution/Rights. My job, as editor and/or mop-wielder, is to apply the policies behind the 5 pillars that have been established as fairly and honestly as possible.
Going down the abstract path, the rights associated with Wikipedia are different than what might be in the big blue room.
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
7. Scenario: An article at AfD is ready to be closed. It's a subject with which you're not personally familiar (say, "burial rituals in aboriginal cultures"). For you to consider are the nomination, which reads "Non-notable subject; I haven't found any sources", and six !votes: One from a new editor, saying "Delete per nom"; one from an IP address, saying "Keep and expand--this is well-covered in Frazer's Golden Bough"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Speedy delete as an attack page because the content is highly offensive to aborigines"; one from an administrator, saying "Merge and redirect to 'burial ritual' because there's not enough content to make a stand-alone article"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Keep per IP address"; and one from a new user, saying "Merge and redirect to 'aboriginal cultures'".

As a prospective AfD closer, please give your assessment of the consensus at this debate.

A: Thanks for the question, S Marshall. My first reaction would be to wait to see if a more confident admin wants to deal with it, since I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue. However, that's a copout for an RfA discussion, as I assume you want to know how I'd handle it if necessary.
Per the deletion guidelines, this is a case where there is no clear consensus to delete. I'd investigate the "highly offensive" comment: does the article appear to be offensive? Can I find anything while searching online to indicate this? Since it isn't a BLP article, the standards are slightly lower in terms of that comment, though it is still important for the article to have a neutral point of view.
AfD is not a vote, and the weights of each good-faith vote need to be considered. The nomination doesn't indicate they tried to find sources, and an IP implies that it can be verified in a source. I've discussed the "offensive to" comment. The admin (who is just a user in this discussion) says to merge, but "not enough content" is a surmountable problem if sources can be found. Finally, the last two votes show there's still no consensus, but it is leaning away from "delete".
Ultimately, assuming there's no way I can personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth (via searching and/or finding "Frazer's Golden Bough"), the best option would likely be to extend the discussion for another deletion period to see if consensus can be reached. I'd also make sure the AfD was delsorted correctly, to ensure interested parties can find the AfD. Sources have a way of being found if it is legitimate and the "keep" camp expends some effort.
  • 7a: Wikipedia's article on The Golden Bough may help you. Would this affect your decision to relist rather than closing, and if so, how?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A The Golden Bough gives some context, but ultimately Wikipedia isn't a reference for Wikipedia. Our theoretical article still needs reliable sources. Knowing that ultimately this referenced article doesn't help decide our AfD, I think I'd extend the debate and (especially) ask for clarification on the AfD from the "Keep and expand" and the "offensive" !votes.
I'm going to get some exercise from jumping to conclusions here. I expect you'll ask me to make an actual decision- for instance, the extend AfD happens a few times and nothing promising happens. In that case, I'd merge the article without prejudice for recreation, keeping the edit history intact. No reliable sources have been established, and I wasn't able to find one with a cursory glance. There's nothing wrong with the article being recreated, but unless even a basic source can be found, it's an essay. Any valid content can move to our theoretical 'burial ritual', and a redirect placed. tedder (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
8. In Q1, you state that you wish to close AfDs. I have looked through about 30 of your most recent AfDs and all but a couple you were the nominator. Is it correct that most the AfDs you have participated in were started by you or was this unrepresentative sample?
A: I try not to contribute to AfDs that I don't have domain knowledge in. Most of the AfDs I contribute to are either created by me, or are related to areas I'm interested in- motorcycling, Oregon, or schools (it's simply an accident that I've been involved with school articles on Wikipedia).
I'd say it's atypical; if you'd like, I'll go through and pick out some examples, it's probably good talk page fodder.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is that I try to be very careful when jumping into new areas. I'd rather watch how a process works than jump in blindly and start working. That's pretty clear from my edit history by time, and it's also true in how I've done content creation and participated in areas across Wikipedia.
9. I see that on at least two occasions you suggested a page be salted after it was recreated 1 time. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Shaabie you suggested salting because it was recreated (under a different spelling) after an A7 delete, while in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trail Blazers Street Jam that was recreated after a G11 delete. Do you believe it is appropriate to preemptively protect against recreation after being recreated one time? If not, how many recreations would justify this action? What if it is different content each time?
A. The recommendation for salting on Shaabie was based on the variations. If the three spellings are combined, it was the *fifth* creation of the article. So salting didn't seem premature.
Trail Blazers Street Jam was recreated several times by SPAs- but it started out under different capitalization- IIRC, it was "trail blazers street jam". The text was precisely the same, so after the third creation it seemed appropriate to request salting. Note that my request for salting was more of a suggestion, because I didn't know how many times it had been deleted. As it turns out, it was the third deletion between the two spellings.
Certainly salting shouldn't be used preemptively, as WP:SALT indicates.


10. An article is sent to AfD at 8am on August 1st. Assuming it is not a WP:SNOWBALL or speedy delete candidate and the debate is proceeding orderly when would be the earliest you would consider closing it?
A. If the AfD is run normally, it should stand 7 days. August 1 at 1pm (UTC, naturally) is a Saturday, so it'll run to August 8 at 1pm. In other words, 7 days is not to August 8 at midnight, or August 7 at 1pm.
Your answer is 100% correct, however current practice is that a majority of AfDs are closed sometime between 6d12h and 6d20h. If you are approved, I urge you to fight the temptation to close AfDs early. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, and I've seen that. "At least seven days" means 7 days, not 6.9. Not everyone spends all day online, which is part of why I assume that's important.
11a. Hypothetical AfD 1: Nominated as "not notable company," two commentators said "per nom" and a third said "doesn't seem notable to me." After 6.5 days a fourth opinion is offered which reads "Keep - clearly notable per coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are over 100 GNews hits for this company; of course a few are PRs or trivial, but there are plenty of good sources too. For example, The Guardian New York Times The Washington Post and many more." How would you proceed?
A. The amount of time doesn't matter- if the fourth opinion is correct that there are many sources with sufficient depth, the company will be kept. Hopefully the opinion was given with links that back this up. If not, that level of coverage means it shouldn't be hard to prove.
11b. Hypothetical AfD 2: Nominated as "seems spammy and probably non-notable," four commentators point out that the subject is notable & provide sources. A fifth opinion is offered that says "speedy delete - notable or not this a clear copyright violation" but offers no proof. How would you proceed?
A. This one will be very hard without more specific details. However, I'll try to generalize. "seems spammy" is different than "the entire article is spam". The former implies cleanup is a possibility. The same goes for the "probably non-notable".
Supposing the AfD closed with just the first five comments, it appears to be a clear case for keep. Sources were given to fix the notability, and poorly written articles can be cleaned up.
Once the copyvio argument is made, there is a new, more pressing concern. It's a serious concern, and should be assumed it was given in good faith. Generally blatant copyvio from online sources is easy to find with a quick search or two.


Additional optional question from Dwr12
12. Please interpret this question as you see fit, but as an administrator will you place more emphasis on doing what is right or doing what is ethical, and why?
A. Thanks for allowing interpretation. I'd hope there is no difference between personal ethics, overall ethics, and "doing what is right." If the issue is a conflict between my personal ethics and doing what is right for Wikipedia, I'll gladly recuse myself.

Optional Qs from [flaminglawyer]

13. This will require a bit of creativity. I'm going to give you a word/phrase, and I want you to give me the first thing that should pop into a perfect admin's head when s/he hears that word/phrase (a Wikipedia concept, an administrative duty, anything that'll show me you know what you're doing). I won't ask you what the first thing that comes into your head is, because I know you're not a perfect admin (yet?), but I do want to make sure you're able to think you're thinking like one.
A. harvest
B. bite
C. Latin America
D. fourteen
E. Russian reversal
A. Obviously you are looking for more than a Rorschach test answer. In terms of Wikipedia policy and administration, I'll answer how I can.
A. harvest = I don't know. I'm curious what you were headed towards here.
B. bite = WP:BITE. Do not bite the newcomers.
C. Latin America = I don't know. I'm curious what you were headed towards here.
D. fourteen = 14, per MOS
E. Russian reversal = I don't know in the context of Wikipedia administration what you are after, except it's a common online meme. I do see Talk:Yakov Smirnoff#Russian reversal generator mentions "rule 14", were you connecting words D and E?
Optional question from Risker
14. Please select an instance brought to the community via any of the noticeboards where you have helped to resolve a situation discussed in a thread (not just commented, but actually helped to resolve the situation), and describe what you did that helped to resolve the situation. Thanks.
A. Probably the best example of resolving a situation was the creation of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse to handle a long-term sock/vandal/troublemaker. This issue had existed in scattered places, but the combination of documenting the history and situation, and the edit filter specifically directed towards the editor's dozens of sockpuppets, has allowed the indefinite full-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square to be lifted after literally years of protection and work.
Tedder, I think you meant "...allowed the indefinite full-protection...to be lifted..." - right? To all, I agree, that really was an excellent, creative, technical solution to a very long-term, irritating problem. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, and I've fixed it above.


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nom. -Pete (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support excellent user with experience in many areas, and has the right demeanor. Triplestop x3 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support Yay!! Never been third to support before :D But anyways, Tedder is a good user, good contribs, I've seen this user's edits around, should do fine. Good Luck!!! -FASTILY (TALK) 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support I looked through his contribs and saw no issues, barring a huge reason not to trust him, I'll be in support here Alexfusco5 00:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support. I looked over some of his edits -- he seems reasonable, kind, and experienced, and he seems to have contributed a lot of good content. (I'll be sad to see his article contributions dwindle as he's swamped with admin tasks, which is what often happens to new admins, but that is no reason to oppose!) rspεεr (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Looking over his questions and contributions, I am confident that you will use the tools correctly. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Hard working, great contributions, civil, trustworthy, the whole bit. Will be a great admin. Good luck! :) LittleMountain5 02:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Weak support You make me a little bit nervous and I've found the Oregon project to be insular and bitey. But hopefully you'll be responsible, tolerant and show restraint as an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support; can't admit to having seen him around before, but I'll support pending any major concerns. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support. Yes. Tavix |  Talk  04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support. I can only recall working with the candidate on a few occasions (nothing big), but seeing him all over WikiProject Oregon pages and not having to worry about his contributions matters alot. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support Tedder has been a model Wikipedian for many months: tirelessly doing heavy lifting—like working on all the Oregon High School articles, traveled hundreds of miles with camera, photographed, and uploaded a zillion photos and added them to the appropriate articles, and demonstrated great judgment in dealing with fellow Wikipedians. —EncMstr (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support. I'm with Julian, I can see no real problems here, and no reason why they should not have the tools. Andy (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support. No reason to believe you'd misuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. The oppose thing is a little concerning but seems only a small blemish on an otherwise very good record. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. Not going to delete the main page or blow up Wikipedia, so support.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support Excellent candidate, can definitely be trusted with the tools. Aditya α ß 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support. I don't see any problems here (except the first oppose, but I trust you have learned from it). Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support - haven't noted anything from a contributions review that suggests anything but a sensible and well-intentioned editor who knows what he's doing. While the PROD mentioned by opposers was clearly a mistake, I see no pattern of such mistakes and I feel the candidate handled the aftermath of it fairly well. No concerns here. ~ mazca talk 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support per Zab's diff; shows civility and willingness to work with others. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support I do not see a reason for opposing. — Aitias // discussion 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support Sensible answers, enough content contribs to make me feel comfortable supporting. Wikiproject doesn't concern me, if it is that offensive, list it at MFD, if that is where you would.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support No qualms here. Seems trustworthy. hmwithτ 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support. I'll expand on the reasons when I have more time, but I think that Tedder would use a the couple extra functions in a very positive manner. — Ched :  ?  02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  27. Does not have significant audited contributions, but is a longtime and committed member who I believe makes comparable effort in other areas. No immediate red flags, and opposes as of yet do not sway me. Per Hegvald, though, be careful with the newbs :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  28. I see no oppose-worthy problems. Just don't rush through AFD closures when you do them, and make sure you're absolutely sure about your verdicts. Timmeh 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  29. Support. User is an excellent editor, and opposes are not enough to sway me, particularly when two of them come from editors who normally auto-oppose over particular issues. Ironholds (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  30. Support - I have interacted with you at WikiProject Schools and I have got a good impression of you there. Your interactions at AfD seem to be good; I was impressed about how you handled a disruptive user at Corona del Sol High School. You remained civil despite the user not doing so and went to WP:AN3RR rather than edit war yourself. You also dealt with this attack okay [3]. By the way I have nothing against you keeping a record of this on your user page though over users might do. I don't think you did any worthy of note wrong with the PRODing or by being a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism. Overall, you look to me like a good candidate for adminship. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  31. Support. No reason not to. Users should remember that this is a discussion of whether Tedder, if elected, will use the admin tools properly. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  32. Support clean block log, haven't encountered the candidate before but everything I've seen here looks OK. Also its quite possible to be a member of a project without being deemed to support everything said by any member of that project. ϢereSpielChequers 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  33. Support I don't see why not. You could definitely use the tools. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  34. Support Per nom statement. America69 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  35. Support, looks good. Tan | 39 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  36. Support Has been around since 2005 and see that giving the tools to the user will only benefit the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  37. Support:User has a clue.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  38. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  39. Support - No problems for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  40. Support Dug around for a while, searched for some muck to be raked, but found nothing. No worries! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  41. Support Tedder has shown a commitment to Wikipedia through regular editing over an extended period and handled himself well in a variety of situations. I would have like to see more thoughtful answers to some of the earlier questions, but the answers to 11a & 11b were excellent and won me over, as they show a proper weighing of arguments as opposed to vote counting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  42. Support See my previous neutral vote below though, please. However I realized if I had to break a tie or make the decision alone it would be a definite yes without hesitation. The large number of support votes shouldn't give me the luxury of being neutral just because I have a problem with the fact that you answered a particular question. Drawn Some (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  43. Support A long time editor with no problems that I can see. If userboxes were a reason to deny adminship then there might be a few existing admins who lose the mop too.    7   talk | Δ |   03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I am sorry to hear that. I am disgusted by the idea of administrators having hateful userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    So all the editors that have userboxes professing their various religious faiths: those are also hate messages, then? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  44. Support. Looks fine to me. Dekimasuよ! 06:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  45. Support. Solid user. Looks unlikely to do any harm with the mop. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  46. Support - perfectly fine editor and vandal-fighter, sure to be a good admin. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  47. Support Man, this new crop of admin candidates makes me feel small. :) Excellent editor. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  48. Support. Lookin' good with great answers. Valley2city‽ 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  49. Support I work with Tedder quite a bit at WikiProject Oregon, but he also edits in many other areas, which is a great quality in an admin, as is his mix of involvement, including article creation, routine maintenance, vandal fighting, and talk page discussion. His dedication to Wikipedia is evident in his stick-to-itiveness, especially regarding his work with Oregon high schools, an area that can be thankless and/or aggravating. Though we have sometimes had to agree to disagree on the finer points of layout, wordsmithing, etc., since we both have strong opinions about these things, he readily concedes when he may be wrong, and I don't mind conceding a point to him as he is consistently thoughtful, civil, and willing to discuss and compromise. Katr67 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  50. Support, seems an excellent candidate who knows their way around. --candle•wicke 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  51. Support We need more atheist admins. No, seriously, his answers seem perfectly reasonable -- and he gets brownie points from me for having maintained his civil demeanor even at question 13. What the heck was that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose. Hate to spoil the party, but I am disturbed by the way Tedder, in early May, proposed two articles by a new user for deletion ([4][5]), claiming in one case that the article was "Missing reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual", when this was clearly false. Both articles had references to entries on these individuals in the American National Biography (a reference work published by the Oxford University Press). Tedder's explanation to me was not satisfactory. Tedder seems to miss the point that not only is an entry in a major national dictionary of biography like this one a reliable source, but being selected for inclusion in such a work in the first place is also clear evidence of the person's notability. An additional point: the newbie "welcomed" through these deletion proposals has not (so far) returned to Wikipedia. --Hegvald (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I feel that his response (more specific diff than above) demonstrates an ability to be reasonable and communicative. A lesser candidate would have, rather than ask for an explanation, just submitted it to afd with "contested prod" as part the rationale. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 10:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator. As I have stated countless times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being an atheist, but when you see userboxes like "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" and "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself", we're talking about something a lot different than that. We're talking about people who enjoy patting themselves on the back about just how smart and enlightened they must be, and people who take pleasure in belittling others' beliefs. No thanks. Keepscases (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Note: Discussion of this oppose moved to the talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. No. Unless there was a compelling reason for the PROD, but I haven't seen one. I have been a victim of this myself. If the subject or the article is obviously notable then don't PROD it. If you are unable to determine this for yourself, don't even consider becoming an admin. Edit: the remarks above about The Golden Bough were truly disturbing. Peter Damian (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I don't really think it was disturbing in any way, i know I've had few ify PROD's, and if he did prod it then either it was a mistake, or tedder did not think it was notable. Furthermore, this was a while ago now so hopefully he has learnt from his mistakes, and for me, the response that Zab provided, shows he did. We all make silly errors, adn I don't feel you should oppose over a couple of them, from 2 months ago. Regards. AtheWeatherman 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    No, No,NoWork with AFD is terribile. I've done better. And i also don't like his membership with a certain Wikiproject. --TheWave (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Indenting !vote by indefinitely blocked user. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Per Keepscases. Pzrmd (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I misunderstood something. Pzrmd (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. Per Q7. I was looking for "Keep" or "Merge"; I'd have settled for "No consensus". "Relist" isn't intolerable, but I'm more than a little concerned by the candidate's desire to "personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth". To me, these imply the candidate is assessing the article rather than the consensus.

    Another worrying remark for me was "I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue". That's why we have an AfD: the debaters track down sources. What's the purpose of having a debate if the closer is just going to decide for themself anyway?

    Another legitimate concern being unearthed could tip me over into "oppose".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    S. Marshall, I personally don't see a lot of value in a contrived example like this. As an administrator, Tedder would be responsible for making judgments involving actual articles and debates. In this case, the scenario does not permit Tedder to look at the article itself, merely to take your description of it at face value.
    Tedder correctly identified that there is no clear consensus.
    Taking a detailed look at the article is not, as you suggest, a problem. When looking at such a discussion, there is a decision to be made, as administrators do not give up their role as Wikipedia editors; "Will I close this discussion, or will I participate in the discussion and try to move toward consensus, leaving the final closure to another admin? Or will I simply walk away?" You seem to be expecting Tedder to take the closure route, which strikes me as contrived. Tedder seems to take that expectation at face value, but I'm not sure he needs to.
    What compels an admin, looking at a clear case of "no consensus," to close the discussion in ANY way? I would say, absolutely nothing. There may be a desire to clear a backlog, but there's never an obligation to do so. A discussion isn't done just because a certain amount of time has passed, or a certain number of people have weighed in. -Pete (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for your reply.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    S Marshall: I take no position on the hypothetical AfD above, as I haven't read it (nor have I read most of this RfA). Feel free to stay neutral, I don't care and I am not !voting in this RfA. But some things to consider with consensus and AfDs. First, an Admin must look at the article and make judgments, that's what they are "paid" for if you will. They are supposed to posses the judgment and experience to analyze an article and the debate and then judge against policies and guidelines. In case you have not been involved in the following types of AfDs, let me describe a common situation I have dealt with in AfDs: Stub article with no sources is nominated as lacking notability (often without the nominator actually looking for sources as they are required to do so by the deletion policy, but that is a side point) and several people come along and concur with the delete; then another editor comes along and adds say ten RS that have significant coverage and are independent, thus demonstrating notability; then those original people never come back and comment on the current state of the article; based on that alone the consensus could show that a deletion was in order, where in fact the article does now pass the standard. This is where an admin comes in and judges the consensus, but also judges the content, which leads into point 2 about consensus. First, in any AfD there is actually two consensus to consider: the AfD's and the overriding community consensus. That is to say, an AfD cannot override existing community-wide consensuses. For instance 10 editors cannot team up and get the George Washington article deleted, as though there might be consensus in the AfD (I know unlikely for that article, but very possible for lesser known figures in history that pass WP:BIO's auto-inclusion criteria) this does not override the community's existing consensus about notability for biographies (see WP:CONEXCEPT and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators). So the closing admin needs to look at the article to be able to tell what arguments made in the AfD are valid based not only on existing guidelines/polices, but also based on what the article looks like. This can include checking the sources personally, as I have had arguments at AfD for deletion saying the sources were not substantial enough of coverage (of course they usually forget that if a source is not substantial/extensive then you just need multiple sources, but another side point and pet peeve) to show notability, even though they admit they have not seen the article (in general, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (2nd nomination) as my classic example of many editors not knowing what the rules are and where you need an admin to distill the invalid from the valid, as well as other problems with understanding consensus and the WP:CONEXCEPT portion of that). So in the end, an Admin must judge the article too. Now, they are not free to ignore proper consensus based on guidelines/policies, say because they personally have heard of the topic and think the topic is notable or are a friend of the article's main author. Or in instances where there are valid arguments for an exception (such as completing the historical record) that the AfD has come to a consensus about, but under the usual existing guidelines/policies the article should be deleted. In other words, consensus can be wrong, which I see you also agree with. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your reply.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, leaning support Um... regarding my question, I was looking for a Rorschach test-style answer. I didn't actually have anything planned out for any of them other than bite, so I was looking for some creativity there... You've still got time to answer the remaining letters, but that's completely optional. Aside from the question: I see good things, but nothing really standing out. [flaminglawyer] 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    If you don't mind me asking, what information about the candidate did you hope to learn through word associations? Did you anticipate your vote being influenced by what the candidate spontaneously thought of regarding harvests and the number 14? Dwr12 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    It takes a lot of gumption, I think, for editors to go through this process and get the kind of grilling they now receive, often on every edit they've ever done or comment they ever made. So it behooves us as questioners to show a little more respect, and frankly, I think, a little less self-indulgence, when it comes to concocting our own little psych. tests such as question 13. If you want to play, use the sandbox, not an RFA, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Neutral (Change to support see above.) I don't think I've ever bumped into you, Tedder. but I was really impressed with your answers to the questions until I got down to #13. You should have just ignored it or perhaps politely declined to answer it because it seems quite inappropriate. I think you'll be a great administrator but please learn when to just say "no, thank you" either under your breath or out loud in a polite, calm manner. I hope to see you around AfD because your thinking makes sense to me, very thoughtful. Good luck as an admin. Drawn Some (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GrooveDog

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (8/29/17); Scheduled to end 21:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

GrooveDog (talk · contribs) – My fellow copyeditors, article creators, debaters, vandal fighters, editors:
I present myself as GrooveDog for your consideration as Administrator. Like everyone, I've been editing and reading Wikipedia for a quite a few years now, under an anonymous IP address for a while and under the name GrooveDog for the past two years. I've made over 3500 edits across a variety of namespaces. In my two years here I've fought vandals, participted in Deletion and other process discussions, founded the Articles for Creation Backlog Drive (A team of editors and I reviewed over 4700 articles in a backlog at WP:AFC, creating more then 200 new articles in a month), done workat WP:AFC, determined and moved articles per consensus at requested moves, was a clerk at checkuser requests, and have participated in many other wiki activities. I am truly a metapedianist; I am very interested in the "Project" side of Wikipedia. I've seen disputes, reverted extensive amounts of vandalism using Twinkle, reported usernames at WP:UAA, created WikiProject Manitoba and much much more.

I believe I could use the administrator tools very effectively in clearing backlogs which require administrator help, but don't get much attention. I would also use the flag around Sockpuppet investigations, where I have re-applied as a clerk and could use blocks to help eliminate sockpuppets. I look forward to support and constructive criticism from the community. :-) GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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?
A: I would most likely help out in clearing backlogs, such as Speedy Deletion and clearing duplicate images. WP:SPI is in need of clerks with a sysop flag to assist in blocking or investigating confirmed socks, so I would also use the extra tools there. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've made many, many contributions to the project space and less to the article space. I created the AFC backlog drive which took quite a lot of organizational effort and time. I revert a lot of vandalism, so I believe that I could consider some of my best work to simply "defending" the wiki. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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?
A: I haven't had any conflicts over editing that have caused me real stress, I am usually able to remain |cool as a cucumber. Wikipedia has an excellent dispute resolution process, if I was ever in an editing conflict I would absolutely use one of those methods. I appreciate the work of the mediation cabal, I imagine they would be the first people whom I would contact with a request to resolve a dispute. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Question from Ched Davis
4. I noticed that your "Wikipedia" edits in your contributions contain a fair number of edits to "Requests_for_checkuser". Could you give us some background on those edits? — Ched :  ?  23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A Certainly! I was a "Clerk" at Requests for checkuser, which is now Sockpuppet Investigations. It was a volunteer position in which I performed generally administrative duties (cleaning up cases, informing affected users of the RFCU cases) as assistance to the Checkusers, all the while learning about identifying sockpuppets. This is one of the tasks I would be working on if I became an admin: blocking and helping identify sockpuppets at SPI. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Question from rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
5a. You say in your statement that you have edited under IP addresses. Can you disclose those addresses so people can get a better idea of your contribution history (since right now there is not much to go on)?
A As much as I dislike declining a question, I would prefer to not disclose my earlier IP addresses. Sorry! :-( GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5b. Were you editing from an IP during your account's two years of inactivity? And if not, why the long gap?
A. While I was making the odd edit here and there I was not editing much. The long gap...really unexplainable in a sort. Wikipedia was getting a little bit of an...overly major part of my life, in that I was missing real life commitments and problems because I was editing Wikipedia instead. That said, I'd like to continue to be editing Wikipedia no less then I was previously, but I feel as though I've learned quite a bit of decent time management that will allow me to contribute effectively according to my personal schedule. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5c. (piggyback question from →ROUX ₪). Would you be willing to disclose the IP addresses to a Checkuser who can then let us know about the general activity level and any concerns with the edits?
A.As much as I hate to appear as though I'm "sidestepping" the answer, my main computer's ISP has changed before I registered this account, that address had a few edits from it. I would be willing to disclose my previous ISP to a checkuser, perhaps they can use this to find an IP range I may have edited from, I'm not really sure to be honest (not so great with IP address stuff), :-( GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Question from ϢereSpielChequers
5d No problem with your keeping your IP address private, but can you tell us if you have ever been blocked or warned as an IP?
A.I can personally guarantee you that I have never been blocked or warned as an IP address. Although this is probably not verifiable as I appear to be "untrusted" based on the Opposes, I can give you a...."GrooveDog guarantee" that I have not vandalised Wikipedia. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Optional question from Keepscases
6. Please explain an interpretive dance routine that you would enjoy performing.
A:To be perfectly honest, and I may get quite a few "opposes" for this answer, I do enjoy interpretive dances which focus on the seasons. I imagine that with a bit of practice and a good partner however, I would learn to enjoy other types of dances as well. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
7. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A:I define "wikipedians" as anyone who's contributed, either positively or negatively, to this encyclopedia. Whether they be IP or a registered account, I believe that everyone does have few, but some rights. Wikipedians deserve to be treated fairly: Absolutely no one deserves to be discriminated against, or treated differently because of their race, age, sex, or any other human characteristic. Upholding this is not clearly defined in any policy, except for no personal attacks, however I would issue a block to anyone who is acting in a discriminatory way. Some would call this "a punishment block", however they would be disrupting the project by creating "harmonious" editing difficult, making a block justified in my mind. Another right that all Wikipedians deserve is anonymity. While IP users do not accept this right, as anyone is able to do a WHOIS search to trace them easily, registered users deserve the ability to be anonymous. Yes, there are exceptions to this, which the Privacy Policy covers: CheckUsers and certain WMF personnel for security reasons, but I strongly believe that many editors register an account for one sole reason: anonymity. Protecting this right myself as an admin would be difficult, CheckUsers are under very strict instructions to not release any IP addresses that they check. If I found an issue with a CheckUser (which I doubt, as a clerk at requests for checkuser I had only the most confidence in them), I would immediately report it to the Ombudsmen Commission via their mailing list.


I believe Wikipedians have only one other real right, the right to vanish. All Wikimedians (that is, anyone across any language and project) deserve to be able to disappear from the project, having information removed forever. This can be done via oversighting/revision hiding and should be available to all registered users. For some people, Wikipedia is "more then a hobby" if that makes sense. When the stress that unfortunately comes along occasionally "gets to them", they deserve to be able to leave, hiding all memories of them on this website and other WMF projects. While many users decide to simply leave and put {{retired}} on their userpage, others would rather have more "privacy" as it were, by having any memory of them erased from records. This is important to me and to other users, I believe it should be upheld, and if challenged would defend it to the best of my ability. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Question from Ktr101
8a. I know that you have had prior experience before you came back to editing. The Wikipedia that you were editing under in 2007 is vastly different in many ways from the one that exists today. You have also only had 6 days to edit under this "modern" Wikipedia. What makes you think that you will be able to counter some of the threats that exist on this site today? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A:I'll be perfectly honest, (and this is my opinion, of course you can disagree/agree about whatever you want. :-P) most threats that continue to exist today are pretty similar to what we had in 07. Of course as the general technological ability of the people increases, so do the threats, but after fighting what I would consider an "adequate" amount of vandalism to judge this over the past few days, and reading over WP:SPI, where I formerly clerked, I believe I would be efficient and able to identify threats and/or sockpuppets.
8b.You also have only 16% of your edits on the mainspace. Do you think that this number is enough considering most administrators have over 50% of their edits here?
A.It's like I mentioned in my nom statement: I am very truly a metapedianist. I understand that we're all trying to build an encyclopedia here, however to be honest I am much more interested in the project side: policies, vandal fighting, page patrolling. You could call it "defending the wiki", although I'm just one out of many.
Question from Plastikspork
9. Are you aware of recent changes in Wikipedia's licensing? Is material licensed under GDFL 1.2 compatible with this licensing? Plastikspork (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A.I'm aware that the GFDL has been updated to version 1.3 (from 1.2). The main change in this version is essentially the permission to migrate content to CC-BY-SA 3.0. Your question intrigues me, I'll be honest when I say I' not really sure what to answer. What first comes to mind is that material under 1.2 is indeed "compatible" with the license, however the writer of the content during 1.2 (when the clicked the 'submit' button) officially licensed it under just that, 1.2, which does not explicitly allow migration to Creative Commons. As inconvenient as this sounds, it sounds as though articles with 1.2 contributions would need to be re-written under 1.3 to allow migration to CC. Might not be an answer you're looking for, to be perfectly honest, my knowledge of licensing on Wikipedia has never been my forté. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


General comments

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

Discussion

  • Editing stats on talk page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Statement by candidate: I appreciate of course, all statements any users may bring. In the most civil way of saying this, I believe that I am able to be trusted with the tools. I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines: when I am unfamiliar with something the first thing I do is check the policy/guide. All users are of course entitled to their opinion, and I mean this in no form of bad faith. In addition to this, I would like to request that this request is not closed before the 7 days are up, I realise that these are occasionally closed per WP:SNOW, but I do appreciate all the constructive criticism from editors and would rather receive it all. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :-)
  • Another statement by candidate: Hi everyone.
A few editors have expressed concern to me that I should probably close this now, based on the rather large pile of opposes. If any editor does feel that this is getting out of hand, I invite them to close it; this is a wiki after all. Know that I don't need it to be closed, to be honest with you I understand that none of these comments are "personal" in that they aren't a specific attack on me, myself. I haven't really been "morally damaged" in any way by this and probably won't be at all emotionally affected by this RfA. That said, anyone is of course welcome to close it at any time if they feel as though I'm trying to make a point (I'm not intending that, btw). Once again, I thank all editors for remaining civil and their criticism on this matter. :-D GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
See also WP:BN#GrooveDog's RfA

Support
  1. (Moral) support, if for no other reason than to ensure you don't feel as unwanted as me :(, since it's unlikely you'll succeed, unfortunately. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support I believe based on their edits that this editor has indeed edited between the two year gap as they claim. They seem perfectly proficient at fighting vandalism. Triplestop x3 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Ouch, I misread that. Either way, this user still seems to be a proficient user and I am sure he will succeed next time.
    Where did they claim this? And if so, was it as an IP or an alternate account? → ROUX ₪ 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support there's something about this editor that I like. I never usually participate in these RFA's but I stumbled across this one today. I looked over his edits, and I believe he would make a fine administrator. The gap does not concern me because I believe wikipedia operated better in 2007. I can't really put my finger on why, but I feel it was easier to edit back then, and it would be nice if just a hint of that was brought back. I think that having this editor as an administrator would be a breath of fresh air for the project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    So somebody who worked fine as a regular editor back in "easy" Wikipedia should be allowed to do a "harder" job in "hard" Wikipedia after 2 years of no practice? I'm not seeing the logic. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Don't twist my words. I feel the project was better in 2007. I would like to see an administrator with a mindset from that time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Umm.. From popups it says you've only edited since May 2008, so how do you know what wiki was like in 07? It may be wrong though. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    First edit with this account was May 20, 2008. Perhaps he had another account previously. → ROUX ₪ 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well hopefully that is the case, all the best, Aaroncrick (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support Keepscases (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Moral support - You've done good work in the past, seem to have a good knowledge of how things work around here and have been civil in the face of many, many opposes. I have no reason to believe you'd misuse the tools, so I think you should come back in a few months with a bit more experience so I can support you again, without it being in vain! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Looks alright to me. The only question is the quick rfa after the long gap (will you be around 6 months from now sort of thing) but not a biggie. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Orderinchaos 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Pzrmd (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Prior to five days ago, you had not edited since 21 September 2007. → ROUX ₪ 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. For the same reason as Roux. Wikipedia's changed a lot in 2 years. I'm afraid that you don't know all the differences, and can make mistakes. However, keep editing, and you'll get my support next time. (X! · talk)  · @968  ·  22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, 22 month hiatus is pretty long. Please come back in a few months when you've had more time around the 2009 Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Reluctant oppose due to the 2-year gap. Be active for a few more months, and I'll support you then. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Also reluctantly. I really hate opposing anybody, but a lot has changed over the past two years (hell, things have changed over the past few hours!). You seem like a decent Wikipedian who generally knows what he's doing, but the fact that you've only been editing for a few days since your two-year break is too significant to overlook. On the other hand, as I said, you're definitely a promising candidate; I'd be happy to support or even nominate you in two or three months. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Right now, I can't support your request, as I don't have enough recent contributions to look over to determine whether or not you'll use the tools correctly. However, you seem like a good editor, and if you continue actively contributing to the encyclopedia for a few (at least 3) more months, it looks like everyone who commented in this column would gladly support another RFA. Timmeh 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above. Please continue to actively contribute and come back in a few months if you are still interested. Thank you for your contributions. Plastikspork (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, too big a time gap for my tastes. Wizardman 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above. You are certainly a seasoned editor but the two year wikibreak and very few edits since that date are a cause for concern. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Long time away, hard to know if you will stay now with or without adminship, and how you would use the tools. Give it two months and show the same effort as before and I would change to support.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose - I rarely oppose anybody but I unfortunately will have to this time. You've only contributed 517 edits (15.97%) to articles. Manitoba your most edited article, has only 32 edits by you, which in my books isn't enough, even though I regard quality above quantity. You have also barely contributed since September 2007. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Oppose: Per above. Recent inactivity. Come back in a few months and it will most likely be a support.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. I waited until seeing an answer to my questions before opposing.... but I see no strong reason for inactivity, and no good response to the point Roux raised (that WP has changed in the past 2 years). Furthermore, the mainspace contributions (517 edits--not a lot at all, even if you consider them to be "good"/"major" edits, and since the user says he spends a lot of time vandal-fighting I bet many of the edits were not major) are not much. I think all admins need to have a strong understanding of content areas and the article-building and article-maintaining process, because ultimately that is what we're here for. All policy questions ultimately boil down to the question of "will X help us write good articles?" rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: Unfortunately I have to oppose for your inactivity, draggy, idle and ossified lack of edits. South Bay (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. I don't believe that the Wikipedia of 2007 - that you are likely used to - is the same kettle of fish as in 2009, and thus, with only a toe in the pond of today's Wikipedia I can't trust you to make accurate judgements where you'll have to. weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support Per Roux. Thats a long period of inactivity. America69 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Umm do you mean oppose? Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    I took that as a moral support. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    I did mean moral support but oppose. I should have made that clear. Sorry.America69 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. Oppose for reasons stated by Roux and similarly by other editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose per lack of information about user. I understand that not disclosing your IP protects your privacy and using multiple IPs makes it difficult to compile. But the valid concern is that between October 2007 and this month your account has no edits. And since then your account has only 200+ edits. There are too many questions I have and no true way to know how you will use your tools properly without further indication on the types of edits you have made in the gap of time. My only suggestion is to edit under your account over the next few months and build a record under your username. Alot has changed since 2007. Then I will have no problems with considering you, happy editing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Mooving to neutral
  18. Oppose Like Roux said. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Just so it doesn't look like this is all about the wikibreak, I would like to say that even if this RfA were taking place in late 2007 I would have to be really skeptical. You only have 500 mainspace edits, spread out over only 4 months. That is really much too little for me to be able to make any kind of judgment based on what I think you'd be like as an administrator. So basically, I agree with Rjanag. Also, I know you want this to stay open for 7 days, but I doubt that much else is going to happen from here on. If you are interested in getting more constructive criticism I would recommend coming back to full time editing for a few months so that people will have an idea of where your strengths and weaknesses lie. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Per Roux. JPG-GR (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per lack of not enough WP:DGAF. I looked at almost every diff between August 2007 and today. Candidate started admin coaching back in August 2007 (support page deleted recently so I can't read further) but was inactive within a couple weeks. Candidate returns and almost right away self-nom RFA. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  22. Oppose on the ground of trying to become an WP:SPI clerk to win votes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Do you have any diffs for that? I'm not seeing that in anything that I reviewed, and it seems unfair to say that he tried to become a clerk just to pass RfA without supplying any diffs to support it. Thanks. Acalamari 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not really a fan of arguing with !votes, the user's opinion is the user's opinion. I'd like to make a civil statement, I applied to SPI as a clerk because clerking at WP:RFCU was interesting to me. I was able to assist with an important process while learning about fighting sockpuppets. I would encourage all editors to completely ignore my statement about applying for clerkship if they think I'm using it to win !votes. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per the two year gap and the low amount of mainspace edits, and per Soap. Sorry, LittleMountain5 18:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Hi, GrooveDog. At WP:BN, I mentioned that one benefit of leaving known failing RfX's open is to get as much constructive criticism/advice as possible, so it would be downright rude of me not to practice what I preach, so here goes . One of the things that are most important to me when I consider whether or not I would trust a candidates judgment is how they interact with other editors. In a project the size of English wikiepdia, with the diversity of its editors and their backgrounds and cultures, I consider it very important for a sysop to have demonstrated a clear track record of courtesy and respect. Looking at your editing history, I see many WP:Wikignome type edits such as grouping, categorizing, tagging, etc. These are important, and without them the project would function much less smoothly. However, as part of being an administrator is policy enforcement, the "flamethrower" part of the mop-and-flamethrower™ as it were, I look for someone who, over time and not while "on display", has demonstrated the courtesy and respect that one person must have for another, and realizes that the text on the screen was not generated by a bot, but by a living, thinking person with feelings and emotions. Your prior editing (2007 etc.) does not demonstrate enough of that to me, and thus the note of opposition. I understand your statement about being a "metapedia," and as someone who engages in wikignoming, I appreciate your work, but we don't split the mop from the flamethrower. My advice to you, for what it is worth, would be to engage fellow wikipedians in discourse beyond Twinkle/Huggle. Edit an article or two, get involved with other editors. You may find yourself becoming frustrated easily; if so, perhaps being an admin is not the best thing for you. An admin who gets frustrated and applies an improper user block, for example, is dealt with more harshly than a regular editor (I forget which ArbCom rulings say that, but there is more than one). If you are able to handle it with aplomb, it wil serve you well on your next RfA, whenever it is. Good luck! -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  25. You have a clean block log and I like the way you answered my question and others. Also I'm not overly concerned about the long gap; partly because the way we currently run things someone who passed RFA three years ago and then went on wikibreak could come back now with out even a refresher course, whilst you have at least promised to proceed with caution. Also in part because while the users change I don't see things like blocking changing that much. However I'm not sure that you were quite ready for adminship before your Wiki break, your comments re Meatball:DefendEachOther on your admin coaching page in my view indicate a lack of experience of conflict. Whilst the now deleted August 2007 User:GrooveDog/CQCQ about conquering other people's user pages is a tad myspacey and is less than 2 months ago in your wikitime. I do think you are on the right path, and if you come back in three months with a bit more experience I hope to be able to support you then. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  26. Per Roux. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  27. I was going to say per Roux, but I like Soap's rationale better. [flaminglawyer] 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Significant period of inactivity. Could use some more recent experience. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  29. Great prior work with mediation cabal, NPP, welcoming / warning, etc... However this is too soon after a 2 year hiatus.    7   talk | Δ |   04:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. I think it's most likely that you will get quite a few opposes, due the fact you have only been active for about one week, since you edited in late 2007. That said, I'm not going to oppose you over it, due to the fact I think you're a fine candidate, apart from the gap in editing. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. It appears that we have a fine potential admin here. Given the long stretch of inactivity however, I rather see you spend a couple months getting back into the swing of things before I support. Perhaps even bump up some of the mainspace edits. I won't pile-on oppose, but I think a bit of time reviewing the changes would be best at this time. You may want to have a look at WP:UPDATE for a quick "get up to speed" bit of reading. — Ched :  ?  23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I don't want to do a pile-on oppose, but I can't support you either. Your edits are good, but the 2-year gap just kills it, because Wikipedia has changed considerably since then. Until It Sleeps Wake me 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Neutral To avoid to pile on but that gap just isn't good. Come back in 6-12 months and I'll think about supporting. In the time between now and then keep contributing and I know you'll succeed.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Observation I too was an active contributor who left in mid-2007 and have only recently considered returning. Even if your memory is better than mine - and even though the new bickering looks a lot like the old bickering - there's an awful lot to catch up on. I wouldn't take any non-trivial admin actions now, and would need a month or two to get back into things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    The bickering never changes, but the interpretation of it does ;) Oh wait, that's depressing. Crap. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I disappeared for a long time, too, so I know what that's like. When I came back, Wikipedia was an entirely different place. Its taken me a while to learn the ropes again, and i'm just now starting to assert myself with regards to important things. I know i'm not ready for adminship, nor will I be for a while. I didn't see any abuse in your edit history, so I have no reason to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support just yet. If you try again in, say, 6 months and demonstrate familiarity with our policies and culture as it is now, I would give an enthusiastic support. Firestorm Talk 03:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Neutral The only thing you need is more experience and more time. Give it some more time and edits. -download ׀ sign! 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Neutral with moral support to continue productive Wikipedian activities, gain a bit more experience in article space, and perhaps a successful nom next year. — Athaenara ✉ 09:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I will support a second RfA in a few months if you continue to edit and become more familiar with Wikipedia. Good luck, and enjoy yourself in the meantime. hmwithτ 14:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Neutral As said by Steve Crossin:

    I think it's most likely that you will get quite a few opposes, due the fact you have only been active for about one week, since you edited in late 2007. That said, I'm not going to oppose you over it, due to the fact I think you're a fine candidate, apart from the gap in editing.

    Maybe in a couple months. See you around! Airplaneman (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Neutral per lack of information about user. I understand that not disclosing your IP protects your privacy and using multiple IPs makes it difficult to compile. But the valid concern is that between October 2007 and this month your account has no edits. And since then your account has only 200+ edits. There are too many questions I have and no true way to know how you will use your tools properly without further indication on the types of edits you have made in the gap of time. My only suggestion is to edit under your account over the next few months and build a record under your username. Alot has changed since 2007. Then I will have no problems with considering you, happy editing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009
  12. Neutral. Hmm, tough one this one. I do like the candidate, with his variety of edits, over a lot of the wiki, but I disappeared for a couple of months, and I'm still catching up after the week Ive been here! Come back in a couple of months, and I will gladly support. Andy (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Neutral Overall, you are a great editor, and you had superb answers to some of the questions. I would like to see you try a bit more editing in the mainspace. In 6 months to a year, you will be a better editor, barring any gaps in editing. I would suggest when the time comes, and only you can tell, that you get an administrator like Balloonman and Xeno to help you. They have provided me with many useful tips on how to succeed in this, and I think that you will greatly benefit from them. You have wonderful intentions, and frankly, you remind me of me last year when I last did an RFA. I am afraid that you might possibly be temporarily discouraged should your nomination fail, and I know that you will probably run again in the future. I think that if you could find an IP address or two by looking over the pages that you edited and searching for IP addresses around the time that you last edited, you might be able to find a few of them, and help to win over those who believe that you are not good material because you are "hiding" them. I too thought that you were until I read another answer, and I agree that it is nearly impossible to track down all the edits that you have made with IP addresses. Looking at all the opposes, it seems like you have the chance to get the administratorship in a few months, as they are correct in saying that the site has changed. Sadly, people have gotten ruder over the years and this has shown on some of the editors. In the end, it comes down to your break and mainspace edits. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I wish you the best of luck, and you have my unconditional support for your next RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Neutral A tough one. I'd like to support based on the quality of your edits but the Oppose arguments have me too undecided. -- Ϫ 23:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Neutral aka Moral Support: Please come back after 6 months of "serious activity" at wikipedia. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. Neutral, sorry. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. Neutral, as you really seem like a suitable candidate but I am a bit discouraged by the complete absence of recent editing issue. Perhaps when that is resolved... in a few months maybe? --candle•wicke 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests.
Shortcut:
WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats, users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is 90%, those below 85% will fail and the rest are within the bureaucrat's discretion. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below this line.


Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship"
Personal tools