Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
Add Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elkman and taking a deep breath. |
User neglected ot complete the nom process by adding name here, so I have done so. |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top. --> |
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top. --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tiptoety}} |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elkman}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elkman}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 16:37, 31 August 2007
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access 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, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). 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, or 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.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which 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 the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 05:32:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Tiptoety
Ended (1/9/3); 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Tiptoety (talk · contribs) - Self Nomination Tiptoety 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I will primarily take part if fighting vandalism, and blocking abusers of Wikipedia. In tha past i have used various tools such as Vandal Proof and Twinkle to report users to administrators but now i hope to be able to stop them in their tracks. I hope to be able to help new editors create articles and better understand wikipedia policy by a friendly one on one approach. I belive that being friendly is one of the most important aspects of wikipedia.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue. this was the first article i ever created and i belive i did an outstanding job, within only a few weeks the article had pictures, references (cited in the text), and enough context to give the reader a good understanding of the subject. Also all of my vandal fighting, i believe it has made wikipedia a better place.
- 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: The only conflicts i have had over editing recently were with vandals who were upset about the warning i had given them. There were some users that have caused me stress, I deal with them the same way i deal with everyone else, Respect. I am polite and inform them that their actions were wrong, i give them the appropriate warning, and report them if they continue, when it comes to conflicts i try to not get to involved or worked up over the situation.
General comments
- See Tiptoety's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Tiptoety: Tiptoety (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tiptoety before commenting.
Discussion
- Suggest withdrawl. Politics rule 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Moral Support I don't think your ready yet but I will give my support. You might want to rack up some more mainspace edits and try again in a few more months. In the meantime you might want to try the User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom. It could help you a lot--Pheonix15 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Myriad problems. User has 2275 edits, over half of which are to talk pages, and just under four months experience on WP. Despite being part of various cleanup and anti-vandalism groups, the namespace edit count doesn't show a high level of activity. User also does not understand policy and procedure - user filed an RFCU based on what a username "possibly implied" (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Masterofpuppets792). MoP had a total of 4 vandal edits to four different pages at the time. The article the user created could be considered COI (though it was written carefully), as the user works either for or closely with the SAR group (as noted by image uploads). This user has neither the experience nor the understanding to be an admin at this point in time. He also didn't follow the instructions to file this RfA properly, and I have completed that for him. MSJapan 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't add nominations of users that aren't either yourself, or someone you are nominating. This user may have not been planning to request for a while. Majorly (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, did you communicate this with Tiptoety before transcluding the RfA? —AldeBaer 17:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that Tiptoety's edit at 6:02 indicates that MSJapan's transclusion 10 hours later is probably appropriate. An explanatory message, however, would have been a good idea. — Scientizzle 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The candidate doesn't have enough article-building experience. Majoreditor 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose More article writing in a variety of articles are needed. -Lemonflash(do something) 17:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - 4 months of activity? I really appreciate that you want to serve the community, but that's a little too short. Try again in a few more months, with some work in the Wikipedia: space. --Hirohisat Kiwi 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Suggest Withdrawing You're a valuable contributor. But as per the concerns raised above, and the fact that I can't see any good reason you require the admin tools, I'm going to have to oppose the RfA. You make good efforts in Vandalism Reversion, and you shouldn't be discouraged by this RfA - your efforts are appreciated. Check out some of the info at the top of this page, apply that to your activities on Wikipedia, and retry in a few months. Pursey 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not ready yet. Insufficient breadth of experience for my tastes; please contribute more article writing and in the project space beyond WP:AIV. I see some recent deficiency in knowledge of the AfD process: malformed nom, error in transclusion(?), improper transclusion, removal of AfD header prior to close, & a questionable nom. Also, in any future RfA (not to mention everywhere else), please make an effort to improve your spelling and grammar—it makes a difference in how what you may write will be perceived. Keep up the good work, perhaps I'll support in a few months. — Scientizzle 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not enough time here to know what an Admins job is. Politics rule 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Along with the concerns above, 60% of edits are to User Talk and definitely not enough experience with AfDs and other similar areas of Wikipedia. I don't know if this RfA will become WP:SNOW, but it's a possibility. I recommend spending some more time getting experience in several various facets of Wikipedia and applying for RfA in another couple of months. Useight 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You show insufficient paricipation in Wiki-space, in Wiki-talk and in Mainspace. We need to be able to assess your ability in admin-related
articlesedits (slip of the mind), and vast numbers of edits in user-talk do not give enough indication. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral to avoid pile-on; in light of the fact that you've no mainspace edits I can see other than the one article you mention and a heap of minor reverts, this has no chance of passing, I suggest you withdraw — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral also to avoid pile-on. I would like to see some more WP and WT space experience. J-stan TalkContribs 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral To avoid pile on also. ~ Wikihermit 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Elkman
Final: (61/2/1); ended 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Elkman (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you Elkman as an adminship candidate. This fellow Minnesota editor, from nearby Bloomington, Minnesota, is an avid contributor to our encyclopedia, with just north of 13000 edits, two years of solid contributions, and, incidentally, perfect edit summary usage (as in, no edits without an edit summary since he joined.)
Elkman is a prolific article contributor, with two Featured Articles, a Good Article and about a dozen articles featured on Did You Know. (His work on bridge articles included beginning an article on a certain local bridge that became, well, somewhat important.) He is also a regular enforcer of policies and guidelines in article space, an active newpage patroller, and also posesses an encyclopedic knowledge of policy and good judgement in his many intelligent comments at AfD and elsewhere in Wiki-space.
The only possible downside to Elkman is that he has had a couple of bad days on Wikipedia. However, the last, and most notable of these, occurred in 2006. Elkman has also had minor squabbles with a couple other editors in the past, but nothing I believe would detract from his suitability for the admin tools. I hope you will consider supporting this knowledgeable and responsible editor for adminship. Grandmasterka 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: There's a continuing backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, so that's where I'm most interested in helping out. I check out new pages fairly often, and I notice that there's a fair number of new pages that aren't encyclopedic. On average, every time I pull the last 50 new pages, at least three of them meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, such as non-notable bios, attack pages, or companies using Wikipedia for advertising.
- Another few examples: This guy was cruising for a block yesterday, having created some inappropriate pages and vandalizing a user page. Also, I had to ask at WP:AN for a redirect to a nonexistent page that had to be deleted, but the redirect was protected, and also for the closure of a stale AFD.
- I'd also like to note that if I get the admin tools, I don't plan to stop contributing articles to Wikipedia. Having admin tools would certainly be useful, but an encyclopedia is not built by deletions, administrative rollback, username blocks, and vandalism reversion. Instead, it's built with hard work, a lot of research, and collaboration with other editors.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I've participated in three featured articles:
- Glacier National Park (U.S.), collaborating with MONGO
- Minnesota, a team effort with Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota
- History of Minnesota, where I did the lion's share of the work but collaborated with other editors
- I've also brought History of Minneapolis, Minnesota to good article status.
- As Grandmasterka pointed out, I started the article on the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, which I didn't think was a big deal at the time. It became quite significant on the evening of August 1, tragically.
- Here are a couple more articles I like:
- Peavey-Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator -- the world's first reinforced concrete grain elevator. A lot of people drive by it on Minnesota State Highway 100, thinking it's just a sign for Nordic Ware, without realizing it's a National Historic Landmark.
- Seventh Street Improvement Arches -- a really unique piece of engineering just east of downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota that few people see, because it's all but invisible when driving over it on Seventh Street.
- Thomas Wilson (shipwreck) -- my newest DYK article. I enjoyed getting the underwater photographs for this.
- Besides work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota, I've also put a fair amount of effort into Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, and I've sort of become a contributing editor to WP:CHICOTW despite not officially being a member of that project.
- A: I've participated in three featured articles:
- 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: In July of last year, I got involved in the highway naming dispute, mainly in regard to Minnesota state highways. Things came to a head in late July when I created an article under an intentionally wrong title (mainly to relieve some stress, and with the intention of moving it to the correct title later on). That gave SPUI more ammunition to resume his page moves, so that clearly wasn't a good idea. I eventually decided to leave the state highways project, as I pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways)/Archive 1#Minnesota_Controversy after realizing that the dispute over highway names was getting in the way of creating useful articles. Also, I was starting to think more seriously about writing articles for properties on the National Register of Historic Places, since there's only so much you can write about a highway.
- Also, last November, I got involved in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1. I got too personally involved in it, mainly from the standpoint of whether we needed Esperanza's goal of hope. I also found myself rather tweaked by Elaragirl's comments and her deletionist attitudes, and her parody of the Esperanza green "e" with her orange "a" in her signature. I recklessly proposed her orange "a" subpage for deletion, then reversed my decision about 10 hours later. I self-reported my own vandalism to WP:AIV, bringing predictable results. That was basically the low point of my editing here. As a result, I learned the hard way that I should try not to take contentious subjects personally and to not get too emotionally involved in deletion debates and policy discussions.
Optional Questions from Rocksanddirt:
- 4. - How much time (percentage or hours) do you anticipate spending on admin tasks v. editing/article tasks? --Rocksanddirt 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I still plan to spend a good 80 to 90% of my time on article editing tasks. I'm not planning to let the tools go to waste, but at the same time, Hesper (shipwreck) isn't going to write itself, either. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from VanTucky:
- 5. In consideration of your 46 edits to ANI, which is in your top three project space contributions by edit count, could you please elaborate as to your involvement with cases there?
- A: Many of those edits were in regard to User:SPUI and the whole highway article naming debate from about a year ago. I think that was a rather regrettable episode for everyone involved, although it did spur my interest in writing articles about subjects I considered more meaningful than highways. A few of those edits were in regard to Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who got community banned and then established a number of sockpuppets. I also asked there if a comment I made at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Selket was disruptive, as another editor had asserted. I've also used WP:AN/I to ask about an article that I wasn't sure was nonsense but was definitely a shock page with no redeeming content, an editor who was creating inappropriate pages and making rather racist contributions, an editor who was continuously making personal attacks, and about Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets, who were repeatedly vandalizing John Goodsall and Brand X with allegations that John Goodsall's real name was "Ian Hart-Stein" and that Phil Collins maintained absolute creative control over the band. Finally, I think my one-line response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#CSD overload again wasn't necessarily the most enlightening, but I think it was funny.
Optional Question from Xiner:
- 6. How do you feel about Esperanza now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Some of the ideas were good, such as finding a way to relieve editors' stress and providing an atmosphere of support and community. The initial idea of Esperanza was a very noble concept. The problem was that it got weighed down with elections and officers, and a lot of editors started using it as a social club (e.g. the coffee lounge) instead of as an adjunct to building an encyclopedia. I don't know if the charges of elitism and exemption from policies really held water. The first MFD for Esperanza turned out to be a really divisive exercise with no real concrete result, and reading it just made me rather cynical about the Wikipedia community for a while.
- I think we're generally better off without organizations that have elected leadership and bureaucratic mechanisms that create subparts of Wikipedia's membership. As far as community goes, if I want a community these days, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota or Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I don't look to either as a chat room or as a place to socialize, but as a place to talk with other editors in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. Also, it's interesting to visit these projects and to learn new things. (I haven't been as active in the trains, bridges, or cycling WikiProjects lately, but they shouldn't be slighted.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Elkman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Elkman: Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Elkman before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Freebie nominator support. Grandmasterka 06:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I had initial reservations about your block from 9 months back, but that seems to be largely over and learnt-from. Everything else looks fine here - Alison ☺ 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support. Elkman has contributed significantly in creating new articles, expanding/wikifying existing articles, and contributing photographs. When I have worked with him (which has been on numerous occasions), he has always been cooperative and open-minded. We also met in person at a meetup. --Appraiser 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Would definitely be an asset as an admin.--MONGO 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The editor's ability to take accountability for some admittedly serious mistakes indicate a sense of responsibility, and humility which I personally like to see in any admin. Beyond that, your overall history considerably outweighs your self-described low points, and your performance since then (a period of time longer than some editors with successful RfA's have even been here) tell me that you have addressed any concerns that might be raised. Your answers to the questions were also strong, and demonstrate a need for the tools. Best of luck. Hiberniantears 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support WOW! This has to be the biggest "RfA cliche" moment for me in more than a year! I would have wagered good money that Elkman had been a sysop for ages now. Incredibly qualified... his not having been nominated before now verges on the obscene! ;) Xoloz 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A significant contributor who demonstrates a lot of maturity and valuable edits -- what's not to like? I think he'd be a great asset to the community. --Bfigura (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After reviewing some of his contribs, I was unable to find a reason to oppose this editor. He'll be a valuable asset. I hope he doesn't forget to leave an edit summary one of these days and ruin his perfect record! Useight 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure I must have forgotten an edit summary somewhere. I can't believe Grandmasterka would have checked through 13,000 contributions to make sure I always used an edit summary. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent Contributor, would make good use of the admin tools. The 'bad days' mentioned don't seem to be too recent, and your record other than this is clean. I'd suggest a 'bad day' would be less likely to occur considering the consequences of doing so whilst an Admin. Pursey 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate has a good history of contributions and appears to be a good member of the Wiki community. He should make a solid admin. Majoreditor 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- —AldeBaer 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support A great editor. You'll be fine with the mop. -Lemonflash(do something) 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He admits his mistakes and learns from them, and there aren't any reasons to oppose that I can see, though he did forget an edit summary once. WODUP 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is actually an RfA I've been waiting for for some time. Acalamari 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm more than willing to forgive a small blemish on an otherwise impressive record - once. You're making great contributions to the 'pedia, and I'm willing to take a chance on you. - Philippe | Talk 19:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support FORGIVEN! Politics rule 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems to be an excellent mainspace contributor. Should be quite good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Awesome editor! --Hirohisat Kiwi 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very impressive. Jmlk17 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Model candidate. Daniel 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks great! jj137Talk 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor. An asset to this project as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Fine editor with many fine contributions, all of my interactions with Elkman have been nothing but positive. Will be an asset with mop and broom. IvoShandor 05:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like they'll suit the grubby, worn and neglected mop handle perfectly --Benspeak 06:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Extremely helpful and knowledgeable. Very trustworthy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support wholeheartedly. Add a credit not mentioned yet, Minneapolis reaching FA, from my point of view thanks to him noticing it was unreferenced. -Susanlesch 09:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support contribs are impressive. Melsaran (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor. Elkman even welomed me! P.Haney 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very trustworthy, edits like a bandit. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 02:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully Support The times I have worked with you, you have been great to work with. I fully support you for admin.--Kranar drogin 05:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor with 13000 edits with 8400 mainspace ones.Harlowraman 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A tireless contributor to main space; civil and cooperative. EdJohnston 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Our paths have crossed in a few Minnesota articles. This editor has will do fine with the tools and I like the attitude of learning from some of the less productive situations. ✤ JonHarder talk 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor's contributions most certainly do not keep the tent wher it is, and therefore I support the proposal. (Trust me, it's far too complicated to explain the reference; however, I expect Elkman will get it.) DS 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sensible bloke - I remember the Elara thing, it was pretty uncomfortable for all concerned, and not through any fault of Elkman's. Not worried about anything here. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. All-round contributions to the encyclopedia and discussion pages are the most solid I have seen for ages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Some are born Wikipedians; others become Wikipedians through the school of hard knocks. To a fellow graduate of this school, I offer my support. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a great contributor with an all-inclusive scope of editing. Keep up the good work. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - there's nothing wrong at all with this user. A very good candidate. :-) Lradrama 08:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good people sometimes have a bad day. Everything else looks fine. --Shirahadasha 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support What's not to like? He is a great contributor. Wikipediarules2221 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Has more than made up for problems in the distant past. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Do not believe will abuse the tools, any issues are from a long time ago. Davewild 07:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see any reason not to... —DarkFalls talk 10:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. I like his answers a lot, and in particular, his explanation of mistakes he made last year. Lots of contribs across many namespaces and perfect edit summary usage certainly doesn't hurt. -- Kicking222 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support first thing I check when someone wants to whittle down the CSD backlog is their deleted edits (there ought to be a lot of them - tagging speedies so they can be deleted), and lo and behold this editor has the goods! Carlossuarez46 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Knowledgeable, helpful, modest, and committed. Kablammo 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answer to my question. Xiner (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As a fellow participant on the Minnesota project, I've observed his edits for quite some time. I've interacted with him several times on wiki and once in person at a meetup. I'm confident he'll be a good admin. Jonathunder 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. ♫ Cricket02 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i Support this editor to become an admin. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- --Kbdank71 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (this user welcomed me when I was still vishwin60) A user who admits their mistakes is someone who has a sense of good responsibility, and that is a quality that I'd like to see in an admin candidate. I was going to oppose because of some SRNC business, but returned to my senses that it was about a year ago, and that if we give him time he probably will come back around. Elkman has come a long way back around, and has also explained this low-point in his editing career. I don't even care about the block because of this, where some uninformed users would. Good users sometimes have bad days once in a while; I know I did, and so has Elkman. However, the main focal point to this support is because of the way he handled it. No doubt this user will make a great admin. (→O - RLY?) 00:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, easy call. Even if this was a big deal (which it isn't) I'd still support Elkman because he has the intellectual flexibility required to reassess his own position. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think Elkman is a good condidate. Should do well with extra buttons and I can't see any problems coming out of his promotion. James086Talk | Email 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Huge contributer to WP:WPMN. I'm sure the tools will get put to good use. -Ravedave 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Valued contributor, seems reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I would've nominated him before this myself if I'd realized that he wasn't an admin. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- A little concerned about the blocks, and vandilism he did. Also, I'm not sure he has a whole lot of experience. --bobsmith319 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure he has a whole lot of experience? Please explain. Grandmasterka 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 13170 edits over a period of two years? That's a LOT of experience! I'm sure people don't look into candidate's RfAs properly before giving a vote. :-( Lradrama 09:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure he has a whole lot of experience? Please explain. Grandmasterka 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A little concerned about the whole SRNC debacle. Note the end of [1] and has also posted vandal warnings on his own talk (can't find the diff, but circa mid-2006). SRNC was a stressful time for all of us, but some of what this user did concerns me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your concerns and don't want to argue them, and my memory agrees with yours on what occurred. I make this post only to point out that while Elkman did take the dispute personally, he did not make it personal with others; he did not resort to personal attacks but instead withdrew. (Those interested can review Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(U.S._state_highways)/Archive_1#Minnesota_Controversy, which Elkman also linked above in answer to question 3.) And as you noted then, "Elkman was a good editor. I believe he still is. He just got frustrated with the whole thing and took his anger out on the articles. If we give him time he probably will come back around." We have, and he did. Kablammo 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You proably mean these vandal warnings. —AldeBaer 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral I can't decide over the disruption at AIV, but he is a pretty good editor...I just can't decide...so I'm saying neutral. Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Pupster21
Final (0/7/1); Closed per WP:SNOW 18:09 Friday 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Pupster21 (talk · contribs) - I have been inactive as of late, but this time I have come back with more experience and a more mature personality. Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A:I am more leaning to be a support admin this time. I would say that I would probably try to end backlogs and try to keep a sharp eye on images and articles for copyright violations. I have thought since my last Rfa and now I know what an admin needs to do.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A:Once again, my best contributions are through many WikiProjects and are very subtle. Yes, I know that I have made many controversial edits but I think that my overall contribs can make up. Unlike last time, now the articles that I work on I try to cite properly. I still maintain from my last Rfa, that my best contribution is WP:YANKS.
- 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:Now I have been involved in an edit war truly and I see that negotiations come first, blocking comes second.
General comments
- See Pupster21's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Pupster21: Pupster21 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pupster21 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
- Oppose Your comments in the last three AfDs you participated in were "Delete, have no clue what the heck it is", "Keep An OK article that deserves to stay until he is signed to a pro team" and "Keep, a funny article that covers a concept". Although, ironically, the consensus went with you on each occasion (albeit for different reasons), this seems to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of policy in what's probably the most important admin area. Also, you seem very inactive - aside from this RfA, you only have one Wikipedia-space edit since the beginning of June — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and suggest withdrawl this will probably not pass, you're borderline experience wise, but not even touching on your extremely weak chance of passing RFA by your comments and actions alone, you've had practically no time to improve since your last RFA, especially considering you've barely edited in the past three months, you've definitely not come far enough since your last RFA to be here again --lucid 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Three months complete inactivity followed by filing your 2nd RfA 30 minutes after returning does not sit well with me. Very weak answers to RfA questions, which was a frequent criticism in your previous RfA, but you made no effort to improve your responses here. Maralia 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppoose and ask for withdrawl I'm sorry - normally I would like to offer at least a moral support but by doing nothing for months on the project and then requesting Adminship the moment you start editing again is, frankly, disrespectful to the nature of RFA and to other editors. I'm sorry. Pedro | Chat 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm quite worried about the answers to the questions, and the recent incidents at WP:AfD don't help very much either. It is unlikely this will pass, it seems like WP:SNOW to me. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No experience. This should be withdrawn per WP:SNOW. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Not to just pile it on, but while this editor definitely had a couple of good months, only 45 edits in the last three months is not good at all. I was able to find another comment on an AFD about it being interesting. Shows to me that policy pages should be read over a few more times. Here's a good link: List of Policies. I'd look over those and keep editing, trying for a few hundred edits each month. Meanwhile, this RFA could possibly be closed under WP:SNOW. Useight 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. While I like the good job at WP:YANKS, there is not much there, or anywhere in WP to show you need the mop. However, it doesn't appear he'll abuse the mop, either. Come back in a couple of months, after more work on Yankees articles and WP:PM or WP:AFD. Bearian 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
TonyTheTiger
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final (39/40/8); Ended Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:04:00 UTC
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) - Self Nomination: I have twice run for administratorship: 1, 2.
Questions for the candidate
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I recently got my 2nd assist at WP:AIV with block nomination for this edit on Britney Spears, which resulted in an indefinite block. I may help here at times. However, I have been spending so much time on WP:CHICAGO related things I can't promise. I have reduced my role at WP:XFD where I use to regularly comment and voice opinions for my first 15-20,000 edits. Now, my most likely traditional administrative roles would be at WP:DYK and possibly helping close WP:PR where automated reviews now seem to be special treatment. There are also occasional times where I could better administer WP:CHICAGO (especially resolved discussions) if I were an admin. However, despite my recent hiatus from XFD, I still see myself getting involved in WP:AFD.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contribution is first resuscitating WP:CHICOTW to the point where it regularly produces respected content and then bringing more life to an impotent WP:CHICAGO (interest can most easily be seen by the modest success of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 2 and interest in selecting Top articles). I probably would have given up on this effort to bring the project to life if it wasn't for the hard work of Speciate who constantly finds things that make the effort seem worthwhile while going about his role of Chicago-related mopmeister. However, I have had editorial success at all levels ranging from WP:HEY & WP:DYK to WP:GA, WP:FA and WP:FL.
- Both of my most recent HEY successes have been greatly assisted (1700 East 56th Street and power pitcher/control pitcher). However, my HEY contribution to the latter came mostly immediately before reaching WP:AFD while restoring a redirect, creating a template to better incorporate the article into the project, and beefing the article enough to stand a chance at WP:AFD. I have accumulated 23 DYK credits (many due in part to the work of my WP:CHICOTW colleagues). These are constantly changing and can be found here. I overlooked the DYK feature until after I had already created dozens of interesting articles. I believe I could have 50 if I had understood the feature earlier in my WP career.
- If you are interested in particular pages you can see the results of my work on my user page. My current credits as the leading editor (or in a few cases 2nd leading) are: Campbell's Soup Cans, Chicago Board of Trade Building, List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, All-Star Final Vote, List of Chicago Landmarks. My current credits (also mostly as the leading editor) are: Seymour H. Knox I, The French Connection (hockey), Joffrey Tower, Wigwam (Chicago), Rock N Roll McDonald's, Marquette Building (Chicago), Gilbert Perreault, Chris Young (pitcher), 108 North State Street, Washington Square Park, Chicago, Blackstone Library, Paul Cornell (lawyer), Chicago Theatre, Hull House, Rookery Building, Crown Fountain, Timothy Blackstone, Burnham Park (Chicago), Washington Park (Chicago park), Near South Side, Chicago, Union Stock Yards, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, AT&T Corporate Center, Douglas Park (Chicago), Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Arts Club of Chicago, William W. Powers State Recreation Area. I would like to emphasize my primary role in almost every one of these credits that you can confirm with this tool. This does not count articles like Tiger Woods where they are GAs in spite of my minimal efforts:-). Using this tool you can also see I am the leading editor at Barry Bonds and Donald Trump, which are two of the eleven articles I monitor for vandalism. I am also the leading editor at several other pages such as Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). I hope to see success in my recent WP:FAC nomination of Chris Young (baseball pitcher). When I last ran for administrator, I had earned my first successful WP:FA and WP:FL. Since then, I have been able to shepherd Chicago Board of Trade Building and List of Chicago Landmarks to FA and FL status successfully on behalf of WP:CHICAGO. I should probably at this time note that the edit count tool above may mislead you into overestimating my contribution to Chicago Board of Trade Building because User:LurkingInChicago was formerly User:ChicagoPimp and the counts do not aggregate properly. I have on behalf of WP:MLB shepherded All-Star Final Vote to FL status and Chris Young (pitcher) to GA status as well as served as the leading editor of Barry Bonds and Héctor López in addition to creating the Category:World Series championship templates and three of the first seven templates in it (1955 Brooklyn Dodgers, 1981 Los Angeles Dodgers, 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers). I hope these contributions somewhat offset WP:GA/Ring New York Yankees (Truly not GA/Red out of Dodger-Yankee rivalry) and WP:FARing Ted Radcliffe and Steve Dalkowski. I believe I have been a good contributor to the project. I am also pleased to have passed my first GA as a reviewer (Manu Ginóbili).
- 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: As I approach 25,000 edits I have had a few significant controversies. One you will see in my signature. Some would say I have overdone it a bit keeping this in my sig for so long, but it may remain there. Personally, I have been in a few disagreements and I believe it is proper to acknowledge what the misunderstanding is so that all involved can gain an understanding. Something like this is appropriate when you are the at fault party. I imagine my signature will remain in its somewhat ostentatious form as long as I remain unsure whether the point has been taken.
- Basically, we WP:CHICAGO tag all articles bearing any of these categories. In some cases, the connection to Chicago is less strong than one might want. However, we have in the course of following this procedure chanced upon several articles we were able to help. We have guided some toward WP:GA (Hillary Clinton born and raised in Cook County, Illinois). We have delisted some GAs such as Bertrand Russell. We have also placed some articles at WP:FAR such as Pioneer Zephyr. In addition, we have taken to adding {{ArticleHistory}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}} to articles like Bobby Fischer. I have attempted to track down a shepherd for a Stephen Colbert WP:FAC. I have sent very few articles to WP:AFD, but I probably should have sent a few more through the process. We are another set of eyes on even low importance and loosely affiliated articles. There is no harm to an article to have our tag with an importance=low parameter. There is benefit to additional oversight on an article. Sometimes the oversight does not amount to much more than reverting edits like this. It is not an attempt to hijack articles or even their talk pages. Tagging articles is important to the monitoring of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content. As uncontroversial as these goals are, this topic almost went to WP:DR over Jon Corzine (debate here, here and here), which was the only hotly contested subject of our domain.
- This brings me to a much larger controversy arising from my role as Director of WP:WPChi. Again I think there is a problem on the acknowledgment of resolution of the issue. However, it has evolved as follows. Of the nearly 12,000 articles that have Cook County related categories and thus have been tagged by our project a few lead editors have contested the propriety of adding {{ChicagoWikiProject}} to the talk page. Our general policy has been that if the contesting parties believe that Cook County related category is important enough that it should be in the article, then our tag should be on their talk page. The most hotly contested of these articles was Jon Corzine, which as stated before nearly went to WP:DR. I am satisfied that Corzine's page has become stable, but this is the second instance where the counterparty refuses to state clearly a resolution on a dispute with me.
- Another hotly contested debate was the Chris Young (pitcher). The main contestant was Ksy92003. However, once things got rolling Bjewiki, Nishkid64, Epeefleche, Hornberry, Sanfranman59, and Basar all got involved. I participate in many internet era sports WP:FAC debates. I have a philosophy of requesting box scores or game recaps of any internet era game that was notable enough to be specifically mentioned in an article. I believe in heavily citing articles when possible because of the reputation wikipedia has among the general citizenry for often getting facts wrong. This rubs many the wrong way. I am a firm believer in WP:ATT, WP:RS, and WP:V. This is exhibited in my history of sending WP:CHICAGO and WP:MLB articles to WP:GA/R and WP:FAR mostly for substandard referencing. Thus far every article I have sent has either had to be significantly revised or delisted. With respect to Chris Young there was extensive debate on whether the article was both over cited and whether it contained too much minutia. The debate occurred in many places, but is summarized at the current FAC.
- At DYK, I have rubbed many the wrong way by using {{CUR-CHICOTW}} in article space the template has been toned down significantly from earlier (more controversial) versions as a result of the discussions regarding its propriety as a substitute for {{underconstruction}} in light of WP:ASR. I think the series of modifications to the template has finally made it palatable.
- I have on two particular articles been accused of WP:OWN. Gilbert Perreault is currently open for discussion. The aformentioned Chris Young (pitcher) is currently at WP:FAC. I think there is a difference between owning an article and trying to defend interesting editorial content.
Optional question from Arkyan
- 4. Much of the opposition to your previous request for adminship was centered on the fallout from a "practical joke" that you interpreted as vandalism and your reaction to it. Based on your experiences from that incident, I pose the following question. As an administrator, how would you handle a situation in which you encountered unconstructive edits that might be interpreted as vandalism from well-established editors?
- A: Direct contact at the user's talk page would be my first pass at resolving the conflict. Outside intervention would follow, if I was unsatisfied with the response and subsequent dialogue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Húsönd
- 5. Under what circumstances would you decline and remove a request at WP:AIV without blocking the reported user?
- A: It has been my experience that if a vandal is not active (vandalized in the last 3 hours) a request should be declined. In almost all cases where the vandal has not received a proper set of warnings it would be inappropriate to block. Thus, unless he has received sush warnings and has been reported for vandalism occuring after a recent last warning it would generally be inappropriate to block.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Coppertwig
- 6.How would you use admin tools at WP:CHICAGO? In what situations would you refrain from using admin tools? Why do you have many more edits in Wikipedia namespace than Wikipedia talk? --Coppertwig 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (Note - I've moved this to the correct location from the end of the article) - Iridescent[reply]
- I'm not the one running here, but FWIW I don't understand this question at all - my Wikipedia-space edits are ten times my Wikipedia talk edits — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Wikipedia works in a manner that things get done when people get around to them. It works better when things get done faster. There are several types of actions that are only appropriate for an admin to take and that if I were an admin I could take on behalf of WP:CHICAGO, especially as it relates to discussions. Two come to mind quickly. The recent WP:FPO promotion of Portal:Illinois did not seem to be closed properly because the discussion was not closed like most WP:FC discussions which are closed by various administrators. Since the article appears to have been promoted as indicated by the {{featured portal}} {{featuredportal}} tags, it would be appropriate to close out discussion. In general the WP:FPO administrators should do this. However, in this case, if I were an adminisitrator, I would feel comfortable cleaning up such a closure (since it is more than a week overdue for the 2007-08-22 promotion). Also, in the past WP:RM discussions have had to wait for an administrator to come around and close debate. There are probably other types of administrative actions that I could take, but those are the first two that come to mind. I have compiled a number of namespace edits administering WP:CHICAGO and especially WP:CHICOTW. Most things are laid out so that action takes place in namespace. Things could be laid out differently, but they are not. Look at this tool and you will see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Of course, I could also help with all Chicago related WP:XFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from IvoShandor
- 7. Okay, here is the question I promised in my comment under the "neutral" section. I am concerned about your ability to judge sources according to WP:RS and WP:V (one guideline, one policy), so I am going to pose this as a mutli-part question. You are free to not answer, of course, but it may sway my opinion.
- How do you interpret WP:V? What is a reliable source in your opinion?
- Based on the merits of the following sources, would you consider them reliable for the types of articles listed:
- Emporis: for articles related to architecture
- Old Lead Regional Historical Society: for articles on northern Illinois history
- Quincynet: for articles on Chicago related topics
- Movieweb: for an article on the film Apollo 13
- The Enterprise mission: for determining the scientific veracity of the debate about the "face on Mars."
- Thanks for your time on this question. If anyone has their own assessment to compare with Tony's please wait until Tony is finished answering to post it. Thanks, hope this question isn't out of line for an RfA, I don't participate in many unless I know the editor. :IvoShandor 07:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I'll get to it within the next hour or two. It will take a bit to put a complete answer together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A. (cont'd) WP:V is a standard at wikipedia, which places a responsibility upon an author to add content that a reader can confirm the validity of. Content that does not achieve this standard should not be in article space. It is a standard of validity and not veracity. I.e., one only need be able to check that a WP:RS said it (thus making it a valid claim) and not that it was true. The second paragraph at WP:RS explains it best "WP:V says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material."
- Reliable source are those that are trusted authorities on a given subject. Publications that are known for fact-checking and editorial oversight are primary examples. Authors renowned and recognized as having expertise are also reliable sources.
- I am only familiar with the first two of the cites you mentioned above and I do not believe that either has a structure for fact checking, but I am not sure emporis, which is a wiki, as I have been told, does not. I know emporis allows users and companies to participate in information generation. I am not familiar with their fact checking, but I presume such fact checking is modest. However, I have used it a lot and it seems to be fairly accurate, thus there must be something about the typo of user contributing to it that makes it tend to be fairly reliable. They are not as reliable as an architectural journal. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate it a 4 or a 5. I am fairly certain geocities is not much more than a web host with no fact checking. It is a 1 on the scale. Quincynet has earned many web content awards. I am not familiar with it having any open platform, and I am not sure what its awards mean for fact checking. It is certainly not as reliable as Encyclopedia of Chicago. On a scale of 1 to 10 it is probably about a 6. Movie web seems to combine content from places like the New York Times and its users. I would classify it as about a 4 or a 5. Enterprise is clearly an open platform. I would call it a 3 or a 4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from James086
- 8. If mediating or closing a discussion would another admin's view hold more weight than a relatively new user? For example in an XfD, content dispute, on talk pages or in other discussions?
- A. Debates come down to merits for the most part regardless of title. However, in addition to merit there are people who by interactive experience have been able to demonstrate that they seem to have a better understanding of the wiki way. Thus, I would place greater weight on certain arguments by certain persons. For example, User:ProveIt really seems to know what is going on at WP:CFD. I would be slightly more inclined to place a greater weight on his argument on any CFD. I do not know if he is an admin, but he probably is, but I would tend to listen to him more because he knows the deal at CFD than because of any title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Xiner
- 9. Why do you find it important to call yourself a director of a WikiProject? You can simply state that you're by far the most active participant there? Some call it an issue of semantics, but I fear that it points to a deeper issue of ownership. After all, your being "director" isn't the real reason, and even if true wouldn't require that, you go around tagging articles.
- A: I find it relevant for people to know who to ask questions about the project. Some questions people don't want to post to the project talk page log. Additionally, many people do not know about WP:CHICAGO and wonder why their page has a {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag on it. When I tell them I am answering as the leader of the project they seem to feel they are getting a credible answer. Since we are finally achieving a critical mass of activity as seen at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment/Voting, I am moving to open the preject up for open elections. The format of the project is up for discussion. Offices and appropriate titles are also up for discussion. In the near future, I expect some consensus on who has what responsibilities and what titles. I believe that I currently do the most work for the project (although Speciate may have a case) and that I have done most of the reformating of the project. I seem to be the guy who makes most of the administrative decisions for the project. One can see by the pages, templates and categories created at User:TonyTheTiger/creations that I do many of the important things for the project. Any ownership of the project issues will be resolved in the near future with project wide open elections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Black Falcon
- 10. One of the issues that seems to figure prominently in the disagreement over the placement of project tags is "whether consensus applies to talk pages" (quoted from this diff). I have a feeling that the phrase is being used in a specific context, which I'm not seeing at the moment. Would you please clarify?
- A: The debate with User:Pmanderson centers on whether a project such as WP:CHICAGO can add a tag such as {{ChicagoWikiProject}} to a talk page such as Talk:Jon Corzine over the objections of the consensus of the main editors of that talk page. It is my argument that a project should be able to place its tag on pages that are relevant as determined by the project participants not by the page editors. The Chicago project has been tagging all articles that include any of the following categories. Corzine's article includes Category:University of Chicago alumni. Thus, he falls within the domain of articles we claim an interest in. The main editors of this talk page claim it is disruptive for me to insist on having such a tag on his talk page when his affiliation with the University is so trivial as to not warrant the tagging relationship with the city project. They believe that they have reached a WP:CON regarding the undesirability and unsuitability of such a tag on the talk page. They also claim that even appointing myself as some sort self-proclaimed puffed up director is misleading with respect to this act and a valid bone of contention with regard to posting the tag. There were some contentions about whether our parameterization of our template with things such as importance=low might have violated POV as well. We clearly stated out importance rating system. Eventually, after much back and forth I believe that I came to an understanding that the lone real point of contention was whether CON applies to talk pages. I encourage you to review my attempt at User_talk:Pmanderson#DR_summary to distill their arguments. If WP:CON does apply to talk pages then editors that are not a part of a project can in essence hijack, remove or reparameterize templates regardless of the interests of the project members attempting to properly use the tag for oversight of the page. Thus, fans of any page could change importance=low to importance=top regardless of the project's interests. We at Chicago consider our top-importance rating to be a serious issue. We don't want someone to say it is vandalism unless we claim their page is top or high importance in our tag. If WP:CON does not apply however, then a project can add its tag to an article without fear of the uninvolved changing its tag and base it on the projects own determination of proper inclusion and parameterization.
- Our project is using a policy whereby an article that has our category gets our tag and thus an article should remove our categories in order to rightly remove our tag. Good examples of articles we have stumbled upon via a bot and explained ourself without contentious debate are seen in the following links Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_music, User_talk:TommyBoy#Jody_Wagner, our contribution, and Talk:Deval_Patrick#WP:CHICAGO. Admittedly, many articles that you see at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content or elsewhere in the project are loosely affiliated with Chicago and others are very much at the core of the project. That is why we use the importance tag. It is my belief that if Corzine's editors feels his affiliation with the University is unimportant the category should be removed. However, if it is important we want to monitor his article. The CON argument is the core argument of whether Chicago can place a tag on an article like Corzines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a much better way to do that; bots can follow the categories directly. Talk to User:Jitse Niesen, whose bot searches a much larger range of cats for Wikiproject Mathematics. If you want A and B articles, confine that to articles the project is actively involved with, please; or the project can keep a list in its own space.
- Our project is using a policy whereby an article that has our category gets our tag and thus an article should remove our categories in order to rightly remove our tag. Good examples of articles we have stumbled upon via a bot and explained ourself without contentious debate are seen in the following links Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_music, User_talk:TommyBoy#Jody_Wagner, our contribution, and Talk:Deval_Patrick#WP:CHICAGO. Admittedly, many articles that you see at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content or elsewhere in the project are loosely affiliated with Chicago and others are very much at the core of the project. That is why we use the importance tag. It is my belief that if Corzine's editors feels his affiliation with the University is unimportant the category should be removed. However, if it is important we want to monitor his article. The CON argument is the core argument of whether Chicago can place a tag on an article like Corzines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More importantly, this is the assertion that one project can overrule consensus anywhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone else agree with this?
- In short, Tony, you just don't get it; and I don't trust you with a real mop until you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not listening.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- this edit is precisely what I mean. There is no way we can manage the project if people outside of the project are running around behind us making their own determinations of the projects assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to explain how this attitude is compatible with WP:OWN? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- this edit is precisely what I mean. There is no way we can manage the project if people outside of the project are running around behind us making their own determinations of the projects assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional follow-up question from AldeBaer
- 10 (b) The earliest mention of consensus in association with the WP:CHICAGO tag I found on Talk:Jon Corzine is here. Do you remember any earlier mention of the process within that debate, maybe on another talk page?
- A: I am on dial up the rest of the night. I will check tomorrow morning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a really good diff because if you read down at the bottom you will see most of our arguments leading up to the point where it was claimed that using {{ChicagoWikiProject}} is disruptive behavior. I do not see any diffs before that and most debate occurred on Talk:Jon Corzine, User talk:Pmanderson and the other pages I have pointed you to. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question by Septentrionalis:
- 11: This discussion with RGTraynor depnds on the interpretation of the carefully crafted language in WP:V that statements must be sourced if they are challenged or likely to be challenged. Admins should understand our policies; what is your understanding of the meaning of that phrase? How does its presence affect the policy?
- A: I am a very strong advocate for citing claims. In fact, I attribute most of my WP:GA, WP:FA and WP:FL success to well-cited articles because I am not a very good writer. I think many people are a little leary of the reliability of WP. People would like to be able to say I found this fact on WP and I know it is true because WP says so. However, we are truly a tertiary resource. Thus, everything we print should be something that someone else (hopefully a WP:RS) said. It is best if those someones are verifiable to the reader. Thus, I feel most interesting claims that a reader would want to state as a fact should be cited. The reader should be able to say I found this claim on WP and they say that so and so said it. If we do not properly cite interesting facts and err on the side of overciting this is not likely to happen.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 11ATony, this would have been a perfectly adequate response to "What do you think of WP:V?" In fact, I agree with it; but I would like a response to the question I asked. Would removing challenged or likely to be challenged from the policy change the meaning of the policy, and, if so, how? If you think the phrase has no more meaning than a watermark, feel free to say so; if you haven't thought about it, do say that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: That phrase in particular in the abstract is undefined. Challenged or likely to be challenged . . . by whom? I guess it might be reasonable to add by a reasonable person, but then we have to ask did the reasonable person have an understanding of the topic on the page or was he coming to WP to learn about the topic? Are we suppose to write the encyclopedia for an audience that might be learning and thus doubtful of any extraordinary claim? Do we expect the reader to be experts? A debate I am having on Gilbert Perreault is revolving around the fact that as hockey fans many things would not be challenged. However, maybe a biography researcher or a History of Buffalo researcher might challenge a fact in the article. I tend to err on the side that a fact that is interesting enough for a WP:DYK hook should be cited. In fact, I tend to cite any fact I think is even remotely interesting as a tertiary resource editor/author. I do not know if I am right, but I do know despite my poor writing I am able to get a lot of thing promoted up the quality scale with that approach.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum To be more clear, as a tertiary source, anything I write, I try to write as if it will not be believed unless cited. Everything on WP is suppose to be something we say someone else said. In fact, everything on this tertiary resource is suppose to be something a reliable secondary source said. Regardless, of the fact, it is suppose to be something someone else said. In my highest quality efforts I attempt to cite my articles as if anything I don't cite is unverified. That is my standard of challenged or likely to be challenged and what has gotten me several WP:FC credits and dozens of WP:GA credits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: That phrase in particular in the abstract is undefined. Challenged or likely to be challenged . . . by whom? I guess it might be reasonable to add by a reasonable person, but then we have to ask did the reasonable person have an understanding of the topic on the page or was he coming to WP to learn about the topic? Are we suppose to write the encyclopedia for an audience that might be learning and thus doubtful of any extraordinary claim? Do we expect the reader to be experts? A debate I am having on Gilbert Perreault is revolving around the fact that as hockey fans many things would not be challenged. However, maybe a biography researcher or a History of Buffalo researcher might challenge a fact in the article. I tend to err on the side that a fact that is interesting enough for a WP:DYK hook should be cited. In fact, I tend to cite any fact I think is even remotely interesting as a tertiary resource editor/author. I do not know if I am right, but I do know despite my poor writing I am able to get a lot of thing promoted up the quality scale with that approach.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question by Betacommand:
- 12: Why should you not be granted administrator rights?
- A: I believe I should. However, the best arguments seem to be based on WP:OWN, yet I have not been in a WP:3RR debate, have freely debated changes to pages I actively edit, and have relented on many issues. There is some debate about the editing of Gilbert Perreault by persons who don't know much about WP:GA production (see Q11 above), but persons who understand the editing side and what it means to be a tertiary resource understand what is going on. Please cite a debate where this has not occurred. Other arguments seem to be based on my understanding of the role of an admin, which I do understand and which is very similar to my leadership/followership role at WP:CHICAGO. That is my brief reply. I will extend this answer later today or tomorrow. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: (contd) I have a problem with opposition votes based on failure to walk away. Basically, this says that if someone want to impede a RFA they can pick a fight over an issue where they are wrong, but can feign lack of understanding. E.g., analyze WP:V, my answer to Q11 above and analyze all WP:OWN opposition votes and the issue at Gilbert Perreault that is now at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Gilbert_Perreault. I don't think there planting such opposition should be deemed reasonable. Other OWN issues involve a debate over what the scope of a project is. Is it really sensible for people outside a project to tell the WP:CHICAGO that it is not within their scope to review articles of Category:University of Chicago alumni regardless of the ongoing relationship with the city. If our project decides we want to review such articles it does not seem that non-project members should be saying Chicago editors can not be interested in University of Chicago alumni unless they dedicate their lives to the city in a way that makes them notable upon graduation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quote of mine that I've recycled more than once is pertinent here: "The concept of consensus includes that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side of debate, and that when you are, you need to accept the fact graciously and move on." There is nothing sinister about disagreeing with you, nor prima facie disruptive about daring to object to your actions, nor unreasonable about believing your reaction to the same bears heavily on your fitness for the mop. If you really do believe that people are deliberately baiting you over issues against their better judgment, let's add WP:AGF to the tally here. It isn't that we don't understand. We just don't agree. RGTraynor 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been on the losing side of several debates. I am sort of seeing that when I am on the winning side everyone goes mute, which is sort of disappointing. I have tried two talk boards (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Gilbert_Perreault and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Gilbert_Perreault) about our Perreault debate. I still don't view it as a win or a loss because no one has stepped in to intermediate. I just hope everyone does not remain mute on this issue. I am hoping not to have to take it to WP:PR and WP:BIOPR for a third attempt. I have not thought about where the 4th option would be if no responses come in there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quote of mine that I've recycled more than once is pertinent here: "The concept of consensus includes that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side of debate, and that when you are, you need to accept the fact graciously and move on." There is nothing sinister about disagreeing with you, nor prima facie disruptive about daring to object to your actions, nor unreasonable about believing your reaction to the same bears heavily on your fitness for the mop. If you really do believe that people are deliberately baiting you over issues against their better judgment, let's add WP:AGF to the tally here. It isn't that we don't understand. We just don't agree. RGTraynor 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- Comment There seems to be some uncertainty on my understanding of an admin role. I believe an admin should work for the whole of wikipedia as I have done for WP:CHICAGO. I run around closing merger discussions, posting notices, and making discussions readily available for those who want to partake. I make new promotions of content readily available for those who like that aspect of the project. I perform many other mundane tasks for WP:CHICAGO. I make sure that every article that anyone shows enough interest in to increase its quality rating rating gets an importance rating. The unofficial Chicago mop that I wield also has me making edits to every newly created page posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages. There also seems to be some debate about whether this is a power quest. At WP:CHICAGO, I have not exerted any titular pressure. As director (or whatever you think they guy who makes the project run should be called), I merely do what it seems I am asked to do. I have merged things I don't think should be merged because the debates carried that way. I have lopped text off of pages such as WP:CHICOTW because that it what people wanted. I run Chicago like someone who wants to be an admin should.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See TonyTheTiger's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for TonyTheTiger: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger before commenting.
Discussion
- As a supporter, I would like to comment on the harrassement of the people opposing. If this continue's by supporters, I will switch to oppose via. the comment I just posted. Every Wikipedian has a right to express there opioions on RFA's. Thank you! Politics rule 13:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you still support the candidate but because of harrasment to opposers, you decided to oppose? Garion96 (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
I would like to point out something about this 'Directorship' business. A project having a leader - almost necessarily self-appointed in a volunteer project where voting is anathema - is not 'un-wiki'. (Unless it's being done in a divisive, authoritarian way of which there is no suggestion here). Team success is often the fruit of effective leadership; and WP:CHICAGO has a very healthy number of FAs, GAs and the like to its collective name. If the WikiProject were less motivated and less well-organised for not having someone giving it leadership and impetus, it's reasonable to imagine that the output of the project would be diminished. To go further and suggest, as some among the opposers explicitly do, that offering to provide and maintain such editorial momentum makes the volunteer a person they, and I quote, "don't trust" seems misguided at best.
Those opposing the adminship of the coordinator of a successful WikiProject just because of the semantic difference of "director" over "plantpot" or whatever would be 'more-wiki' should consider the damage they may inflict both to WP:CHICAGO and to WikiProjects more generally if they are socio-politically deprived of effective, motivated leadership. Splash - tk 10:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I believe that the semantics issue here reveals a deeper problem, which is WP:OWN. I am also very uncomfortable with this language of "socio-politically deprived of effective, motivated leadership". That sounds like a veiled appeal for a specific population, unnecessarily injecting
POVreal-world politics and worse into what should be an administrative procedure of RfA. Xiner (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- There is no veil and no trace of a reference to the world beyond Wikipedia: if the Wikipedia-specific socio-politics of RfA result in putative admins deciding against offering their leadership services to WikiProjects, then those internal wiki-socio-politics have deprived Wikipedia of a much-needed service. There was no need to strike out your entirely un-veiled accusations of POV-pushing (I don't know how you could know my real-world political views); you added the entire comment in one go and either you meant it or you didn't. The fact of the matter is that the prevailing views of those who frequent RfA spill over into the editorial conduct of the Wikipedia community at large. That much is obvious. Splash - tk 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way: if you view that the candidate has problems collaborating because of what you see as a tendency to wish to control the editorial process (I presume that's what you're sort-of getting at with the acronym), then I would agree this is a good reason to oppose an adminship. However, it is related only indirectly and not in general to the concept at large of volunteering to provide leadership and motivation to a WikiProject which, below, has in isolation been branded a bad thing. Splash - tk 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly is a difficult issue, Splash, and one that users should think about when commenting. On the one hand, adminship is not a big deal and can be given to editors who prove trustworthy. On the other hand, adminship is not a reward for leadership or hard work since it is to not be a big deal. So these support/oppose reasonings are relative and mutually exclusive. The bottom line is do I trust this user, and do I think that s/he will use the tools well and contribute to the encyclopedia with them. Let's keep a level head. This message was brought to you from a NPOV. My opinion on support, opposition or neutral will take a few days after my participation in Tony's last RfA. Keegantalk 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "socio-political" statement prompted my post. Xiner (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the topic of directorship, I still don't see anything inherently wrong with his position of Director. WikiProjects are independent voluntary organisations; they have the right to choose their own structure and officials, or to have none at all if they prefer. Clearly, Tony has been accepted by the members of WP:CHICAGO as the project's director. As long as he understands that this is not a position of formal Wikipedia authority, and that it doesn't give him authority over all Chicago-related articles (which belong to Wikipedia as a whole, not his WikiProject), then there's nothing wrong with him serving as Director. It would only be inappropriate IMO if he was calling himself something like "administrator" or "steward" of the project, or anything else that indicated impersonation of a formal Wikipedia office. WaltonOne 13:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Walton, I respect your opinion, but the insistence on titles (being confused over what to call himself?) is viewed skeptically by some here as insistence on bureaucracy. I do not see any reason why the excellent editor cannot do any of his jobs without a title, or one of less rigid nature. As for calling himself "admin" or "steward", if we can't live with "director"...I think we're on common ground there. Xiner (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, but as I see it, the WikiProject, as a private group, is entitled to choose its own officers. Within the project, he's clearly accepted as Director. I agree, personally, that the role of Director of a project seems unnecessary; however, as I'm not a member of WP:CHICAGO (or particularly active in any WikiProject), I'm inclined to defer to CHICAGO members' decision to select him as Director. Like I said, it certainly isn't a position of formal authority outside the WikiProject, and he certainly doesn't WP:OWN Chicago-related articles; but I see no indication that he's tried to usurp authority beyond the WikiProject itself. WaltonOne 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Walton, I respect your opinion, but the insistence on titles (being confused over what to call himself?) is viewed skeptically by some here as insistence on bureaucracy. I do not see any reason why the excellent editor cannot do any of his jobs without a title, or one of less rigid nature. As for calling himself "admin" or "steward", if we can't live with "director"...I think we're on common ground there. Xiner (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support - Seems to be an excellent editor. Has a lot of contributions to GA, FA, and DYK. I see this editor often on Afds, and I can trust him that he won't abuse the mop. --Hirohisat Kiwi 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cooperation is key on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Answer to Q4 shows an understanding of this concept. Previous concerns about the candidate's percieved ownership of certain pages or projects seem to have been alleviated as of late, and his contributions are substantial and good. Candidate looks ready for the mop now. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user has good judgement. T Rex | talk 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems like a consistent editor. Lots of mainspace edits. A decent amount of user talk. Doesn't neglects edit summaries which some careless editors do. Overall, candidate is a very active editor who will benefit wikipedia with the mop. -ScotchMB 16:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Hirohisat just about covered it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good work as director of the Chicago project, and clearly an experienced editor with contribs in a variety of fields. Btw, I don't see what's wrong with calling yourself "director" - lots of WikiProjects have a "co-ordinator", and "director" seems an appropriate title for the de facto leader of a large project. WaltonOne 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 24,000 edits is way to many to not be an admin. Heck yes! Politics rule 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC).. To oppose[reply]
- Support, no reason for him not to be an admin. Wizardman 20:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, changed from neutral. see below. Politics rule said it best: "24,000 edits is way to many to not be an admin". J-stan TalkContribs 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of those 24,000 edits, have you looked at any? If not, why are you voting? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, minor issues, but overall deserving. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although the signature is a bit long. GDonato (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very active editor with lot's of edits (good mainspace and projectspace, as well as several GAs and FAs). Seems experienced enough for adminship. ♠TomasBat 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I supported in the previous RfA and I think there is even more cause for support now that the main concerns of the opposers are four months ago. Captain panda 22:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Daniel 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I was planning to nominate him, (I could still can if you ask) and last asked about a month ago saying that he needed more experience, I'm not convinced about Boricaeddie oppose, where did he said that AFD is a vote, also it doesn't matter if he's director of an wikiproject or not, with that criteria Ral315 (signpost), Krill Loshkin (military wikiproject), and several other trustworthy admins should be desyropped. Jaranda wat's sup 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Too much concerns for me to support, prior experience with Tony won't oppose nither, no vote now Jaranda wat's sup 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pretty hefty list of GA's, FA's, and the like there, and he sounds like a pretty good candidate to me. Homestarmy 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some merit in Boricuaeddie's concerns below, but when I'm in doubt only a little and there aren't any serious deal-breakers, I usually support as long as I see no reason to assume the candidate would misuse the tools inadvertently or purposefully. —AldeBaer 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Much as I hate to do this, I'm changing to abstention (opposing is unnecessary and would be a mere pile-on by now). JodyB perfectly summed up my thoughts below. I was hesitating to do this, but although you're a very good editor and appear to be a friendly guy, I developed doubts over that CHICAGO tag situation as to your ability to walk away and simply forgive and forget (doubts regarding not only or even just particularly your ability to do that, mind you). Work a bit on keeping your cool, no matter if the other side does the same and you should be perfectly fine. —AldeBaer 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is some merit in Boricuaeddie's concerns below, but when I'm in doubt only a little and there aren't any serious deal-breakers, I usually support as long as I see no reason to assume the candidate would misuse the tools inadvertently or purposefully. —AldeBaer 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support, the FA and GA lists were just startling. @pple 02:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While the editor may have been a bit quick with the Afds and did not thoroughly check if the schools were notable, I think that this user has an adequate understanding of policy and the afd was a mistake from which he has learned from. The most important thing is that he would not misuse the tools and is trustworthy. Adminship is not a big deal. --Hdt83 Chat 06:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nothing particularly moves me to think he would not be capable enough. Oakshade's opposal, in particular, seems ungracious ("oppose because he dared to nominate a school for deletion and then had the temerity to politely and civilly withdraw his nomination"). Seems like he could be trusted with the tools. I want to work in some kind of "He's G-R-R-R-R-REAT!" pun here, but don't have the strength. Neil ム 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this user has a wealth of experience, and seems to know what he is doing. Good candidate. ;-) Lradrama 10:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although the opposers bring up some points I don't feel any of them are too big to be overcome. I have no big issue with the "director" thing (I'm a company director off wiki so heck!) as the output from the project has resulted in excellent work. I also see a user who is prepared ot change their mind and discuss things, which are prime admin traits. 24000 or 2400 edits is academic - I just see evidence from the contributions of a commited editor who I trust to know policy and apply the tools carefully. Best Wishes.Pedro | Chat 12:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I don't believe he's likely to misuse admin tools. Chaz Beckett 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Tony's a responsible guy who understands the purpose of the project, and works productively to improve it. I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Concerns about how to describe his position within the Chicago wikiproject seem overblown. Tom Harrison Talk 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per many ideas above. 24 thousand edits, work on AfD, project "director", learned lessons from past failed RFAs, are all reasons to give him the mop. Bearian 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - oppose votes aren't convincing. I'm not sold on the idea that if anybody suggests the RfA or AfD process is analagous to a vote s/he must be terrible editor and won't be a competent admin. Also, his nominations of articles that appeared to lack notability don't, in my humble opinion, represent meaningful grounds to believe that he wouldn't use the admin tools responsibly. Addhoc 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The candidate's questionable use of the term director doesn't negate his strong contributions, teamwork and skills. Majoreditor 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support fine user; there is nothing to suggest that TonyTheTiger will be abusive. Acalamari 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm a little worried about the ownership concerns as mentioned in the oppose votes, but I support per the fantastic work the nom has done at WikiProject Chicago, and the project in general. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. Melsaran (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Support. While I've concerns (outlined here and on my talk page) about the whole "director" thing, I don't think it's enough not to support as I think you're replied to the insanely heavy barrage of questions very well. I don't get the "He wants to be an admin" opposes at all, either - what would he be doing submitting an RfA if he didn't? — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your understanding of role of administrators has improved since the previous rfa, and I think the possibility for misuse of the tools is low. Nevertheless, concerns remain, so please be open to suggestions for improvement if this request for adminship succeeds. Picaroon (t) 00:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Tony is well intentioned and I trust that he would be sufficiently cautious not to create a big mess as an admin. I'm hesitant, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and supporting. James086Talk | Email 14:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't like Wikiprojects tagging talk pages and I agree with the removal of that one in question. But I have no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor, don't see him as potentially abusing the tools. --Strothra 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why is there no edit tab at the top of this section? KP Botany 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatting reasons, but is that your support rationale? —AldeBaer 23:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be a very active user in the Wikipedia community. Has a lot of experience and sounds to me like he knows exactly what he wants to do as an admin. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong editor and well ready. Dfrg.msc 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - high time this editor got the bit. Reasons for opposing amount to IDONTLIKEHIM - mostly that he participates in actually writing the encyclopedia. I truly doubt this editor will try to own any pages, and use his bit as a baseball bat. The Evil Spartan 05:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very experienced user and knows a lot abouut Wikipedia. He has 25,000 edits which I find to be very impresive. Good luck! --bobsmith319 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I've disagreed quite strongly with Tony about Chicago's use of a WP:ASR template in the article space. But he's dealt with me politely and in good faith. What's more important is the stunningly high quality of Tony's work. Military History and the Featured Article projects both have directors—while in general, I agree, I'm not a fan of the titles—it's very obvious that they shouldn't be universally banned, and Tony's opinion on the matter doesn't represent any sort of failure to understand Wikipedia. --JayHenry 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong oppose, for several reasons. 1.) Edit count alone is never a good reason to support. Instead of just checking the candidate's edit count, participants in RfA discussions should evaluate the quality of individual edits. 2.) I don't trust people who fancy themselves "directors" of a WikiProject. Projects are groups that organize themselves in order to focus on improving articles within a specific topic. They should not have "directors" or "leaders", as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm sure many people have helped the project just as much as you have. 3.)
From your answer to question 1, I can see that you believe adminship = power, as you mention that you want administrator rights in order to "win" discussions just because you have more "power". This is certainly not what adminship is for.4.) Also in question one, you say you wish to participate at AIV, yet I don't see much active participation in vandal-fighting or reports to the noticeboard. Also, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, you don't need admin rights to participate in WP:PR. 5.) AFD is not a vote. If you believe this, then you certainly can't be trusted with the ability to close them. I'm sorry, but you're not ready for adminship. --Boricuaeddie 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- 1) True, I don't base my application on edit count. Do you believe that is the emphasis of my argument?; 2)One person has done a lot. He is noted in my essay and I have barnstarred and cookied him. I would do so more often if it were appropriate; 3)I don't follow; 4)Somewhat true. I have gotten only two people blocked and probably posted a half dozen notices; 5)In my first 20000 edits I developed as high an understanding of various XFD as most. I use the term vote loosely above, but understand very well the importance of weighing arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.) That was directed at the users who are supporting your RfA. 2.) No comment. 3.) This means that you think that you can use admin rights to "win" arguments, which is wrong. 4.) Exactly- if you have only gotten two blocked and many incorrect reports, then you do not have the experience necessary to work in that area. 5.) You have not demonstrated that. --Boricuaeddie 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3)I never said that and I don't believe it. 4.) I have experience at CAT:RFU and have as much AIV experience as many a successful RFA candidate. 5.)For months and months I attended XFDs almost daily. I am very intimate with the prevailing philosophy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.) That was directed at the users who are supporting your RfA. 2.) No comment. 3.) This means that you think that you can use admin rights to "win" arguments, which is wrong. 4.) Exactly- if you have only gotten two blocked and many incorrect reports, then you do not have the experience necessary to work in that area. 5.) You have not demonstrated that. --Boricuaeddie 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you mean by putting "win" and "power" in quotes? I'd be interested in how you arrived at your conclusion in point #3. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Not sure I remember where I read it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now... --Boricuaeddie 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) True, I don't base my application on edit count. Do you believe that is the emphasis of my argument?; 2)One person has done a lot. He is noted in my essay and I have barnstarred and cookied him. I would do so more often if it were appropriate; 3)I don't follow; 4)Somewhat true. I have gotten only two people blocked and probably posted a half dozen notices; 5)In my first 20000 edits I developed as high an understanding of various XFD as most. I use the term vote loosely above, but understand very well the importance of weighing arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose per Boricuaeddie. -Lemonflash(do something) 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree with Boricuaeddie in a few points. Firstly, AfD is not a vote in any way. It's much easier and better to say discussion and comments. I'm also quite opposed with a users who appoints themself a "director" — we're not a bureaucracy. Also, I've noticed him in disputes, including one that leaked over a bit on the WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page. The above just makes me not trust the candidate with the tools. Maxim(talk) 23:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not believe AfD is a vote, I have more experience at XFD than most RFA candidates and understand very well how it works. At over 24000 edits, I have never been involved in either end of a WP:3RR, WP:DR (although close), any sort of arbitration. I have resolved every dispute, mano-a-mano without need for outside intervention. I have had editorial tussles, but nothing has ever gotten to a level of taking anything to a higher level than a talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: the candidate's comments leave me generally uncomfortable and unsure about their understanding of the sysop's role. A good contributor, for sure, but I'm not convinced the candidate will make a good admin.--cj | talk 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: The nom is engaged in an edit conflict with me at the present time, but the basis for our disagreement isn't the reason I oppose. Unfortunately, I've gotten a strong whiff of WP:OWN from his comments on my talk page, all the more jarring when this is an article on which his first edits have been within the last few months. I don't foresee him being any less proprietary over admin work and decisions. Obviously he is a diligent and active editor, but the qualities required to rack a giant edit count or to count GA coup have little to do with the mop. RGTraynor 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I am concerned at the nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Park High School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School. We don't delete for lack of sources; we tag and improve. We delete when notability cannot be established after a search for sources. Undoundtedly poor articles but reseach shows numerous sources from which the articles can be expanded. I would expect an admin candidate to do this research first. I am comcerned at how the user would close AfDs. TerriersFan 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that the user (he is not the only one) disagrees with your approach to AFD's, or your opinion on the notability of schools is not a legitimate reason to believe they would abuse the sysop tools. Being an ardent Inclusionist is not a test for adminship. VanTucky (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actually, I happen to agree with all you say but that's not the issue :-) I am not suggesting that he would abuse the tools but I am suggesting that he might lack the understanding of policy to use them correctly. I have closed many AfDs and the policy approach that I apply, across the board, is to make a distinction between articles that harm Wikipedia (corporate spam, vanity articles etc.) and those for which notability cannot be demonstrated on the one hand and those for which, after research, notability can be established but which need improving on the other hand. TerriersFan 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and extending oppose reasons. My initial position was as a result of a relatively narrow issue. However, in the light of subsequent discussions, I have become increasingly concerned about the attitudes of the candidate. For example in response to one comment he said "I must commend you for finding the only semi-valid reason to object to my candidacy". This shows a lack of regard for the views of other editors. As an admin you are given tools to be used on behalf of the Community; admins have no particular status with regard to other editors and should give equal weight to the views of all editors. TerriersFan 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose like CJ, the candidate's answers and comments leave me unsure of his understanding of sysop's role and exactly what he plans to use it for outside of the WikiProject which he is involved in. Am also unease over the Director issue as has already been outline by others. KTC 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I just encountered this user as the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School where the user is attempting to delete a 3,000+ student Chicago high school because it hasn't yet established WP:N, a classic case of "Let's kill it instead of improving it." So far, unsurprisingly, the votes are a unanimous keep. Even the user/nominator changed their stance from "Delete" to "Neutral" [2] as the level headed editors explained why this article should not have been nominated. I don't think someone who displays this mentality should be an administrator and am concerned ill-advised reasoning will be used when closing AfD debates. --Oakshade 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't the fact that he changed his mind demonstrate the ability to listen to others, to recognize consensus and to back down from his original stance? It takes humility to admit where you were wrong - isn't this a desirable mentality for adminship? ---Sluzzelin talk 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good trait, but I'm concerned that the AfD was initiated in the first place after all the experience this editor has had. It's usually a beginner that initiates the snowball-closed keep or delete AfDs. --Oakshade 05:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit unfair - I'm sure most of the XfD regulars can think of at least one occasion they've seen something they've nominated snowball-kept (this was one of mine) — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good trait, but I'm concerned that the AfD was initiated in the first place after all the experience this editor has had. It's usually a beginner that initiates the snowball-closed keep or delete AfDs. --Oakshade 05:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't the fact that he changed his mind demonstrate the ability to listen to others, to recognize consensus and to back down from his original stance? It takes humility to admit where you were wrong - isn't this a desirable mentality for adminship? ---Sluzzelin talk 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - haven't had much contact with editor since first RFA but have seen arguments and comments made at XFD over the past few months that do not necessarily apply. Also concerned at the apparent power hunger of wanting the bit, added on to "directorship" of a wikiproject (which is rather against-the-grain of the "wiki spirit"). I do not trust the user with the tools at this moment. – Chacor 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ack all concerns raised above, seems to be looking for some sort of award --Benspeak 11:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak oppose, leaning neutral
Oppose, with the following comments:- I have no issue with the candidate's self-proclamation as director.
Although I don't like the bureaucratic/hierarchical connotations of a title of "director", if it helps to revive a dead/dying project, I guess it's OK.I'm a little concerned about the idea of elections for offices, but think it right to defer to the project on that issue, as long as they continue to produce good content. - The nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School is definitely an issue for me. It's not the fact that it was snowballed, but rather the deletion nomination consisted essentially of a 'unreferenced, ergo AfD/delete' line of thought. I wouldn't want this viewpoint to be applied when evaluating and closing AfDs. A similar situation took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Park High School.
Ultimately, what leads me to oppose at this time isThere's also this diff. When discussing dispute resolution, comparisons to the KKK and lynch mobs are hardly productive. The concluding sentence – "You can inform the entire lynch mob of this fact." – comes off as somewhat of a personal attack. If I've taken the diff out of context, please let me know so that I may reconsider my stance. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- No you haven't. See the link below, and his rant in response to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On every single red linked wikipage, when an editor goes to create it, they find this statement, quite prominently placed: Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. So I am not quite sure why this would be construed as a reason to oppose. If you disagree with Tony's opinions/nominations of articles that is legitimate. I do not think it proper to oppose him for something that appears to be perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, unless, of course, the statement quoted above doesn't apply to articles any longer, WP:V seems to imply otherwise. Considering he withdrew the nom, I do think that shows his ability to work with and compromise with others. IvoShandor 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that editors who nominate articles for deletion should do some prior research of the subject to determine whether it it is notable/could be sourced. They are not required to do so, but I think it is a matter of courtesy (yes, it's also a matter of courtesy to add sources to an article from the beginning ... but that's a different debate altogether). Suggesting deletion of an article for failing to prove the subject's notability through reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is a perfectly valid reason for deletion (in fact, it is probably the most common reason for deletion offered at AfD and WP:PROD). However, I am of the view that such arguments should be accompanied by evidence of an attempt to find sources, especially in the nomination. I perceive a qualitative difference between "Delete. No sources given." and "Delete. No sources given and I couldn't find any via an online search." With regard to this RfA specifically, the Curie Metropolitan High School AfD is not what prompted me to oppose (it's a factor, but a secondary one); I think TTT's extensive and valuable contributions overshadow a single AfD. The only reason I mentioned it was that it was so recent (yesterday, in fact). — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Contextually, that is an extremely hard diff to explain my emotions on. In all honesty, I must commend you for finding the only semi-valid reason to object to my candidacy from what I recall about my contributions. However, I do believe it is not representative of me because it ended up almost getting worked out on our talk pages although the counterparty to this day fails to acknowledge as such. Let me try to explain. I am a guy, who with almost no help is doing his darnedest to revive a project that is important to me. I have people fight to undo what I am doing. In addition to that it seems to me the counterparties have mastered the system by raising off topic objections to my arguments, gaming the system to report me at WP:ANI after I called the Help Desk and Village Pump to query his about his actions. Actually, I should note that this debate temporarily was raised to an outside intervention level until we agreed to take it back to our talk pages to consider WP:DR. It seems somehow that my attempt to manage the project was being construed as some sort of malicious/destructive act. The party then in what I believe is a move that lacks class would not agree to isolate our differences in what I believe was an attempt to railroad me into a debate about irrelevant topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response. Please allow me some time to review the issues/archives you note. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that the high school afd is probably influenced by a English Boarding school afd from many months ago that is much more prominent that I believe got AFDed. It might have been Exeter or Philips or some name that reminds me of prominent Eastern U.S. boarding schools. I will look at your question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posted an optional question. Also, I revised my initial comment; after thinking about the issue some more, I have no issue with you claiming the title of "director" of the project as long as all of the other project members agree. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response. Please allow me some time to review the issues/archives you note. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no issue with the candidate's self-proclamation as director.
- (restoring oppose after
deletionremoval by candidate) Unconditionally oppose. The dispute with me is discussed here. Tony claims that WikiProject Chicago has the right to tag whatever it likes, despite the objections of other editors. I do not trust him as an admin; and I doubt his competence as an editor. He is provincial, as his nomination to move Samuel Johnson from primary usage shows; and his judgment at FA and GA are among the worst I've seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Deletion was by mistake if true due to edit conflict.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. Is his reversion of the count, and messing up the page by omitting the required #, also accident, or is it inexperience? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Assume good faith. Judging from the edit summary, the removal of your comments was purely accidental, in contrast to what you are apparently trying to imply with "(restoring oppose after deletion by candidate)" comment. —AldeBaer 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that if everyone starts changing/removing other project's tags then sections like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content are not possible. P.S. User:Pmanderson and crew are still invited to a WP:DR on whether consensus applies to talk pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I have to ask this, what in the world makes you think that consensus doesn't apply to talk pages? IvoShandor 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be noteworthy that Tony appears not to have been the one who introduced the notion that something as trivial as tagging the talk page of an article included in Category:University of Chicago alumni as being within the scope of WP:CHICAGO requires consensus. He also didn't call others single purpose accounts [3] as far as I can see.—AldeBaer 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The conversation was here; other editors had complained at some length about the tag, but Tony, and only Tony, was arguing and revert-warring for it; it was at that point that I went elsewhere. That is as close to consensus as we usually come. If someone else agrees with Tony's views on the "rights" of a WikiProject, I will be happy to continue the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason for this edit other than to disrupt our project. You continue to represent the only one of 12000 articles that opposes our projects self management and use of its tag. You make up other editors and revert wars that don't exist. Please show me a diff of a revert war over our tag. You are successfully derailing my candidacy. You pretend to be willing to discuss the issues, but when I boil them down you fail to respond. I continue to be willing to pursue a WP:DR on whether people outside a project should be able to come to a consensus to override a projects use of its template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that "there's only one of you, so your views don't count" is used by every abusive admin we have. I am even less encouraged by Tony's redefinition of his persistent and solitary replacement of the Project tag as not being revert warring; although the bot seems to have done just as much — admins should not behave like bots. I cannot accept credit for derailing his candidacy; I am the twelfth Oppose, after all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason for this edit other than to disrupt our project. You continue to represent the only one of 12000 articles that opposes our projects self management and use of its tag. You make up other editors and revert wars that don't exist. Please show me a diff of a revert war over our tag. You are successfully derailing my candidacy. You pretend to be willing to discuss the issues, but when I boil them down you fail to respond. I continue to be willing to pursue a WP:DR on whether people outside a project should be able to come to a consensus to override a projects use of its template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The conversation was here; other editors had complained at some length about the tag, but Tony, and only Tony, was arguing and revert-warring for it; it was at that point that I went elsewhere. That is as close to consensus as we usually come. If someone else agrees with Tony's views on the "rights" of a WikiProject, I will be happy to continue the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be noteworthy that Tony appears not to have been the one who introduced the notion that something as trivial as tagging the talk page of an article included in Category:University of Chicago alumni as being within the scope of WP:CHICAGO requires consensus. He also didn't call others single purpose accounts [3] as far as I can see.—AldeBaer 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tony, I have to ask this, what in the world makes you think that consensus doesn't apply to talk pages? IvoShandor 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that if everyone starts changing/removing other project's tags then sections like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content are not possible. P.S. User:Pmanderson and crew are still invited to a WP:DR on whether consensus applies to talk pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deletion was by mistake if true due to edit conflict.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question, Tony, but I'm afraid my concerns were not assuaged. Many big WikiProjects thrive without elections or titles; the open nature of Wikipedia means they won't mean much anyway, and will only add bureaucracy and inhibit participation by those who may not wish to go against you. I fear that elections will only solidify ownership by making it clear to everyone who is in charge. I therefore cannot support you in your pursuit of adminship/more power. Xiner (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Calling an oppose rationale "semi-valid" like you just have is a bit disconcerting too.[reply]
- Oppose. Too many concerns about temperament and ownership issues. Singopo 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, essentially on the basis concerns already voiced by others. Candidate is obviously a valuable editor, but I'm afraid he would likely use admin tools too aggressively on controvertial issues. — xDanielx T/C 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose You have grown quite a bit from your last Rfa, but I am still unsure, especially in light of the other opposes and neutral editors I see here. Jmlk17 06:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. My concerns about possible WP:OWN in the Chicago project were not allayed by the lack of response to my question about situations in which the candidate would refrain from using admin tools; the lack of response hints at a possible lack of understanding of the need for recusing under some circumcstances. The comments by the candidate about elections are also worrisome. --Coppertwig 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Strong oppose, rationale given below. I'm very troubled by the comment "I must commend you for finding the only semi-valid reason to object to my candidacy from what I recall about my contributions., which comes across as being dismissive of other people's opinions, and to be quite honest, sounds pretty arrogant to me. This, along with concerns about article ownership, lead me to question your understanding of consensus. You've made a lot of valuable contributions as a writer and editor, but I'm not comfortable with granting you the admin buttons at the present time. Sorry. --Kyoko 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- After this comment (diffs selected to give context, feel free to read intermediate revisions), I felt compelled to change my position, due to the argumentative tone of Tony's comments, and the following sentence which to me seems the very definition of WP:OWN: If we are interested in such articles and do a better job at managing them is this within our own scope. I hope that Tony continues to write and take photos, because his hard work shows with all the GAs and FAs. However, I also hope that he will think about the concerns raised in this RfA. --Kyoko 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion above raises serious concerns. Tony appears to lack understanding of the role of Wikiprojects, the role of consensus, etc. Also, interpreting the removal of a template as an effort to "derail his candidacy" is troubling; keeping conflicts about content from turning into personal conflicts is important, and Tony displayed a startling lack of composure in this instance. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This user's bureaucratic tendencies disturb me a lot. See this discussion for a really great example. Atropos 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Respectfully, I must oppose based on the WikiProject Chicago issues raised above. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I was neutral last time, declining to support because I didn't see a good case made for needing the tools. Now I must oppose per the WP:CHICAGO issues, which to me indicate an attitude that could cause real problems in an admin. The "Does WP:CON apply to talk pages" excuse especially rubs me the wrong way. Mangojuicetalk 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Way too bureaucratic. Has no understanding of what being a sysop really is. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong oppose per most above. βcommand 02:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose. Everything I read here is based on statistics, titles, formula, numbers, authority, and literal interpretations. None of these are how Wikipedia works. I see nothing to convince me that TonyTheTiger gets the Wikipedia community. The "Director" issue, the tagging controversy (consensus is consensus, no WP has "power" above consensus), the "leading editor" garbage, and many other issues here are simply contradictory to the way Wikipedia functions. -- Renesis (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (switch from neutral) Sorry Tony, I didn't want to do this, but the myriad issues raised here truly do suggest that you aren't sure how the Wikipedia community works and that you are not ready for the sysop tools. Sorry, your contributions to the project are greatly valued though and don't let it get you down. IvoShandor 05:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Obvious lack of understanding regarding process and policy and has demonstrated very poor judgement in many of the instances raised above, and in his conduct during this RFA. Suggest that the candidate undertakes a full review of process and policy, and spends time demonstrating their understanding, before being nominated again. However, the lack of judgement demonstrated makes me believe that it will be a long time before this candidate is ready. TigerShark 10:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I find some of the opposition to be less than convincing. However, on two very narrow areas I find I must oppose. First, the diff given above involving the KKK comment suggest how you function under fire and I think you lost it. There is much incivility on Wikipedia and it is incumbent on administrators to demonstrate cool and professional conduct. Second, the persistence over the Corzine tagging suggests to me that you just don't know when to walk away. There are times when you ought realize that you've lost the argument, have little or no support to prevail, and should simply move on to other work. I think until these two issues are thoroughly settled I should oppose. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. JodyB has articulated my concerns much better than I could have. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As this is the third RfA for this editor, I am looking for signs that the individual has matured, and learned from past mistakes which prevented prior RfA's from closing successfully. While clearly a valuable editor, I do not currently believe this person has my trust as an admin. The KKK comment is particularly disturbing, because it was made after two failed RfA's, and vividly illustrates the lack of growth which would garner my support. I was also put off by the editor asking if it was OK to post this RfA on a project page in which they are involved: While it was appreciated that they asked, it seems strange for someone who has already been through two RfA's not to know this would look like blatant canvassing. Moreover, I found the desire to do this a sign that this candidate simply covets the sysop tools far too much. Hiberniantears 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While impressed with all of your contributions, I was unimpressed with your handling WikiProject Chicago issues. Your signature makes it seem like you are still pouting over the director thing. P.Haney 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Jody B, especially the inability to walk away. I'm also uncomfortable with the addendum to Q6 of "Of course, I could also help with all Chicago related WP:XFD" - Tony, does this mean that you would close Chicago-related XfDs? Do you think you would be able to do this objectively? The long answer to Q2 also leaves me feeling uneasy. There is such a lot that can be done without admin tools that I now tend to be sceptical about any long and overly detailed record of contributions as an answer to Q2, sometimes to the extent of overwhelming the reponses to other questions. A short and to-the-point statement should suffice for Q2, with a link to a separate page detailing their editing contributions. My stance on the WP:CHICAGO tagging can be seen at User:TonyTheTiger/DR bot. It's an interesting issue and debate, and one that I would encourage others to contribute to. I think the problem can best be summed up as: "Some people think low [importance] equals almost any connection, while others think low [importance] still requires a major connection, but less importance than the "importance=mid" ones. In other words, one set of people are mentally measuring "low" as a small but measurable increase from zero, while others are measuring it as a drop in importance from mid [importance]." Or even recognising that the line has to be drawn somewhere and saying, "no, this article is not relevant". Getting back to this RfA, a prolific editor should not feel discouraged because the community is not supporting their bid for adminship despite them being a prolific editor. Being a prolific editor is not enough. Interaction with other editors is more important, and it is this that some editors are saying needs addressing. I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting in a future RfA unless the 'director' and 'tagging' issues were fully resolved, no matter how many more GAs and FAs were produced. Carcharoth 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for questioning the answer to Q6, Carcharoth. It was so obviously against the rules that I was reluctant to raise the issue while this RfA was more finely balanced, lest I had misread the statement. I had thought it showed a startling lack of understanding about adminship and even common sense. Xiner (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would not trust this uses as a sysop. 24.176.25.116 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Anons can't vote Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per most of the above, especially JodyB. Wikipediarules2221 04:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per several responses above and in the neutral section below. As you note, a lot of the things you do at the Chicago WikiProject are indicative of an administrative temperament. Unfortunately, it seems that you have a tendency to fight on behalf of the project when dealing with outside users. If your current directorship allows you to improve your own favored area of the Wiki (and it's clear that you do improve it), maybe continuing in that capacity would be of the greatest overall benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the issue here is a sense (true or not) that you see adminship as a vessel to grant you the hierarchical power to read your desired outcome into discussions. You will need to change that perception if you want to be more successful at RfA in the future. Dekimasuよ! 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Although incredibly experienced user, just too many problems. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Boricuaeddie and Septentrionalis articulate my concerns.Brusegadi 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A number of issues make me uneasy but the one that did it was the addendum to Q6. As Carcharoth pointed out, the closing of Chicago XfDs would certainly be inappropriate and makes me doubt that Tony would know how to use his sysop rights with the required objectivity. Pascal.Tesson 04:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Boricuaeddie. Only two out of half a dozen AIV reports sucessful? I've made more than 200 and like 4 or 5 were rejected. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Strong oppose For my above reasons, I'd also like to point out that Tony is harassing some users who oppose. Examples: [4] [5] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read that guideline, Jetlover. You may not like what Tony's doing, but it's not "harrassment".--Chaser - T 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that's the point. He may not like what he is doing, and he is opposing per that. PatPolitics rule! 11:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the people the two diffs given was directed at, IMO actively posting a neutral (not oppose) !vote as opposed to just abstaining is a de facto invitation to the candidate to post a reply. While I agree it would have been more appropriate to have posted the reply on the RfA discussion so others could read it, I don't think the act of replying to it constitutes harassment — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having just looked over the linked comments, I agree. His rebuttals were measured and not out of line. There are a lot of reasons to think Tony's unfit for the mop, but those aren't among them. RGTraynor 13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that's the point. He may not like what he is doing, and he is opposing per that. PatPolitics rule! 11:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read that guideline, Jetlover. You may not like what Tony's doing, but it's not "harrassment".--Chaser - T 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose For my above reasons, I'd also like to point out that Tony is harassing some users who oppose. Examples: [4] [5] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Yikes... The misunderstanding of what Wikiprojects are for, the obsession over trivialities like talk page tags, the bureaucracy and dismissiveness, the KKK comment... None of it seems like someone who will be a responsible admin who will take other peoples' opinions seriously. If you're so upset about not being able to call yourself a director that an essay about it is linked to in your signature, and that other people call themselves "Directors, Coordinators, Leaders and Managers", please give us specific examples, so we can help fix that. You're a great article-writer, and I think that you should continue to be just an editor... Not a "director", "coordinator", "leader", "manager", or for now, "administrator". Grandmasterka 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As Jetlover said. I left a comment in the Disscussion area saying that if the coming down hard on opposers I would oppose, and I am. PatPolitics rule! 11:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
NeutralI run into you repeatedly, and have never seen any reason to oppose. However, I have two major concerns; your self-proclaimed status as "Chicago Director" (you've heard all the arguments already, so I won't bore you with them again), and your (the project, not necessarily you personally - but if you're going to set yourself up as "Director", it means taking responsibility for their actions as well) tagging of every article on (apparently) everyone who's ever set foot in Illinois with the WP:CHICAGO template and the bad tempered edit-warring of "your" project's members should anyone dare to take the template off. I've also got a concern about your claim above that you've 27 GAs, but have only just reviewed your first GA; while it's not an order or policy, it is common practice (and stated as such on WP:GAC) for people submitting articles to GAC to choose another from the list to review.It's also only a couple of weeks since this episode— iridescent (talk to me!) 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I don't see what's wrong with the AfD you cited - Tony's views might have been against consensus in that instance, but he expressed a legitimate opinion. WaltonOne 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, I'll strike the bit about the AfD. I disagree with you about the whole "Director" business, though - a co-ordinator, chosen by consensus to watch over things and try to make sure people pull in the same direction is IMO qualitatively different from TTT's self-declaration of himself as Director, especially when the project under his direction then went on to carry out some fairly bitchy edit-warring (the nadir of which was probably here - and it's much to TTT's credit that he mentions it above). As I say, the whole business was far enough in the past that it doesn't warrant an oppose, but it's recent enough to stop me supporting — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward oppose. Your answer to Q5 concerns me. 3 hours is too short a time. Maybe after a period of a day or so, but someone may have things like work or school where they wouldn't be able to vandalize for a short period of time, but after that they might get right back into vandalizing. But I do not feel this is enough reason to make a full oppose, so I am neutral.Change to supportJ-stan TalkContribs 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment MY response is based on a long debate about not being given credit for a block when I identified a vandal 3.25 hours after he last vandalized. He was not blocked until he caused havoc again a few days later. I wanted him blocked, but was convinced that this was not proper. I think I mentioned this in RFA2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that if a vandal was given warnings, wasn't active for a few hours, and vandalised again after three hours and was reported, you wouldn't block him. You're talking about being reported after 3+ hours of inactivity, and so I apologize. J-stan TalkContribs 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MY response is based on a long debate about not being given credit for a block when I identified a vandal 3.25 hours after he last vandalized. He was not blocked until he caused havoc again a few days later. I wanted him blocked, but was convinced that this was not proper. I think I mentioned this in RFA2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. You provided a good answer to my question, but I am still somewhat unconvinced of your preparedness and trustworthiness to become an admin. And when in doubt, I refrain from supporting. Sorry. Húsönd 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I think your content contributions have been great, but from my prior experience with your comments at AFD I think you may lack both a comprehension of the importance of process on Wikipedia and a sufficiently calm attitude in disputes essential to someone with the sysop powers. However, your understanding of policy is strong, imo. VanTucky (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now: I am concerned with Tony's understanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources which I think is especially important for participating in WP:XFD. I am going to post an optional question about this topic in just a little bit. IvoShandor 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Switched to oppose.IvoShandor 05:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - You have some good contributions, but the opposes bring up good points, and I am worried about your percieved owning of articles, and your total understanding of the role of sysop. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I'm sorry, because I know he is very well-intentioned, but I still have some concerns. Deb 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the candidate would appreciate it if you could point out those concerns. Melsaran (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm concerned that this editor wants to be an admin so bad it hurts reading the answers to the questions. But it's mostly he wants to be a cop rather than build the project. Yes, that's my impression. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - As I understand it, there are only two projects with coordinators: WP:LGBT (for which I hold that role) and WP:MILHIST. In both cases, coordinators are elected and hold no power other than to mop up and to chivvy, roles any editor can take on at will. Appointing oneself a "director" rather implies you don't understand how leadership, for want of a better word, on wiki quite works: think R2-D2 as opposed to Emperor Palpatine. :D Get rid of your self-appointed job and start a genuine discussion on whether your project needs a coordinator. Do that and you're on your way to being one with the force,
my sonyoung Padawan learner. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Wouldn't that be "Padawan", master? —AldeBaer 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am requesting an essay. :-) daveh4h 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish, Aldebaer. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that although possibly only two project leaders have formal titles, many others have a person recognized as the leader. Additionally, others things that are not necessarily projects such as WP:FA/WP:FAC/WP:TFA have leaders. I was only thinking of WP:MILHIST and WP:FA/WP:FAC/WP:TFA when I entitled myself. Discussions will be held within the group on whether we need titles, offices, etc soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Raul and Kirill Lokshin have been ratified/elected, so I don't know how your self-appointment compares in this case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that although possibly only two project leaders have formal titles, many others have a person recognized as the leader. Additionally, others things that are not necessarily projects such as WP:FA/WP:FAC/WP:TFA have leaders. I was only thinking of WP:MILHIST and WP:FA/WP:FAC/WP:TFA when I entitled myself. Discussions will be held within the group on whether we need titles, offices, etc soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish, Aldebaer. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am requesting an essay. :-) daveh4h 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be "Padawan", master? —AldeBaer 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - the whole Jon Corzine tagging thing was enough to make me hesitant, but the reaction to it displayed here has unfortunately eroded my support for this candidate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Good contributor but there are some issues, as per Dev920 and a few others, which prevent me from supporting. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Navou
Final (70/4/2); Closed by Rdsmith4 05:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Navou (talk · contribs) - It is with pleasure that I submit Navou for your consideration. Navou already requested adminship twice but fell short of the necessary support in the previous requests for adminship. He paid due attention to the concerns raised therein, took the advices on board and worked hard to meet all the expected requirements to become a great administrator. Navou has been a steady contributor for the past nine months, participating in a vast array of different areas throughout Wikipedia (particularly WP:CSN, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV and WP:AFD, areas of typical admin intervention). Such versatility and dedication indicate that Navou is ready for a new level of responsibilities within Wikipedia brought by access to the admin tools, and therefore I ask my fellow Wikipedians to carefully analyze his potential and finally give him the rightful support his hard work has earned him by now. Húsönd 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conomination from Durova
When Navou hinted he was considering another bid at adminship I told him I'd be very disappointed if it went live before I had the chance to nominate. For most of this summer he's been pretty much running the experimental Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation program singlehandedly. No matter how that program eventually works out, he's earned my unreserved praise for putting himself forward there. Community enforceable mediation is designed to be very near to arbitration because the participants have the option to impose blockable restrictions upon themselves. Naturally enough, some of the toughest disputes on Wikipedia have gone there and Navou has handled the responsibility with flying colors. He conferred with me at all the appropriate points and recently referred a case to arbitration. I think I can fairly say he's performed well under tough field conditions because neither party to that bitter dispute has criticized his objectivity. Navou also enjoys RC patrol, which is always a good reason for mopification. In previous bids for adminship it was his shortage of well rounded experience that came in for criticism. He's spent more time in mainspace now, has over a year of experience with more than 5500 total edits, and has earned some DYK nods. I've always been impressed with his talent for Wikipedia namespace work, but field experience in article namespace matters in the long run. He's well rounded now and I'll vouch for him: let's give this man a mop. DurovaCharge! 05:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank you for the well written nom. Navou banter 05:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I'll use these tools in a wide array of areas. I intend to protect and unprotect pages per requests at WP:RFPP and as needed, both in accordance with our page protection policy. I will block vandals reported to WP:AIV. I'll also continue to close AFD and MFD according to the consensus generated at those discussions. I'll also evaluate those usernames reported to WP:UAA. I also intend to clear the CAT:CSD. This is an area where I tend to see some backlog. I already help somewhat at WP:AN and WP:ANI, I think I'll continue to do that as well.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contributions to Wikipedia, or the articles I contribute to. I've started some stubs, and I've started some start-class articles. There is a certain excitement I feel when I get the DYK template on my user talk, so my favorite contributions so far include Amygdalohippocampectomy and Lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia, both of which were featured on T:DYK.
- 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 think the most conflict I have experienced is with the Shawn Hornbeck article. An article I nominated for discussion at WP:AFD. I also informally mediated a dispute over there after the article was kept. Honestly, I'll prefer to take a neutral stance and mediate. If I have a dispute over content, I'm always open to discussion, and if consensus disagrees with me, I'll agree with consensus if that makes sense.
Optional question by Onnaghar
- 4. - You seem to have made over 236 edits on ANI and 68 edits on AIV, which is impressive, if you ever did mistakingly identify a user as a rogue editor, what would you do to reolve the situation? Many thanks. Onnaghar tl ! co 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A. While is it my goal to never let this happen, if it did... I would desire to immediately undo whatever action I did in error (or hope someone else got to it) and apologize to the editor.
General comments
- See Navou's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Navou: Navou (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Navou before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support I'll beat the nom and the other nom on this one. Good editor, should be a good admin. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. --DarkFalls talk 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Excellent contributions, great work on the unblock mailing list, sufficiently reputable nominators :) I ask that this RfA not degrade into a discussion about the merits of CSN, though. I personally think Navou's involvement with CSN is a good thing - admins who discuss are much preferable to admins who don't. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Beat the noms edit conflict support, I was considering offering to nominate Navou myself when I saw it was already being done. I've seen him around quite a bit and have always been highly impressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I thought this user already was. Seems more than qualified, could do great things with the tools, and I see no reason to be uneasy about them having the mop --lucid 06:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Seems quite good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks to be an ideal candidate for the mop --Ben hello! 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust the user, as well as the nom. Jmlk17 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Daniel 07:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - 三度目の正直 (The success (or the truth) on the third time). Absolutely no concerns. --Hirohisat Kiwi 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good fella. Moreschi Talk 08:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely a good editor, and a great future administrator. Originally posted 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC), reworded 09:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC) by Sebi [talk]
- Support - Seems like a great user, and could do with the tools. Tiddly-Tom 09:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm a bit concerned over the relatively low number of mainspace edits, but not enough to withhold support. Appears to be a fine user who would improve WP if entrusted with the admin tools. faithless (speak) 09:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, most definitely. And if this doesn't make WP:100, I shall be flummoxed. Neil ム 09:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- —AldeBaer 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support No problems here!!!! Politics rule 12:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I normally don't bother with uncontroversial nominations, but Navou is an excellent user who deserves a resounding endorsement from this community. The admin corps will only be improved. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good candidate. Experienced in all the right areas. I don't think the tools would be abused. Good luck! Lradrama 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Now qualified to be admin concerns raised earlier cleared. Harlowraman 13:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nom.--Húsönd 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - From my experience a great editor. I also trust husonds judgement so I beleive this editor would make a great addition as an admin. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, because as far as I can tell, Navou seems to make decisions based on consensus and is fair in that regard. Best of luck! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per nom. We've had a lot of good candidates this week havem't we? Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 14:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Was just looking over his contributions for the last month. Very very impressed. He's clearly already playing an Admin role. Strong support. TimidGuy 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Calm responses at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, having sysop powers will speed up things considerably. Can't see anything to oppose about. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A good editor who would make a fine admin. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, contributions look good and show an understanding of policy and procedure. Insightful comments left on other RfA's shows this candidate knows what the mop is about. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Yes, yes, yes. Happy to see he has been recognized. Some nice mainspace contribs with close to 70 reports to WP:AIV. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems to be one of the editors who are trying to spread the burden of dispute resolution around. My only comment would be to spend more effort on article talk pages so that users and items don't end up in as much dispute resolution process. --Rocksanddirt 18:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no problems with this editor. Hard worker, always polite, knows policy well - Alison ☺ 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. Would be an asset as an admin. Wizardman 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate with a good range of contributions. Newyorkbrad 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seriously thought he was one already. IronGargoyle 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nomination. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good vandal fighter, and understands policy. Neranei (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprised support I already bloody thought you had the mop. A solid candidate. VanTucky (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate has excellent contributions, and has shown strong, steady improvement since the last RFA. A good admin candidate indeed. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major concerns here. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My one encounter left a positive impact, all of the above supports that impression, so there. --Allefant 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I got bored after reviewing the first 2,000 evidences of civility, knowledge, helpfullness, vandal fighting and article work. I guess you put all the edit warring, incvivility, trolling, poor closure of AFD's etc etc in the contributions before then so I wouldn't find them. :) Very Best. Pedro | Chat 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely. Good luck! :) CattleGirl talk 11:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good answer ;) Onnaghar tl ! co 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as much improved. Bearian 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure... make us proud. By the way, kudos for starting the article on lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia. MastCell Talk 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support How is it possible you haven't been snapped up earlier? Pursey 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unblock-en-l wiki support, although we will need your wiki name, IP address, nominating admin, and reason for nomination before you can get the sysop flag set. -- Avi 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support is clearly a trusted editor - why not. Majorly (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to oppose. Acalamari 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like what I've seen from Navou. 128.163.226.239 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, anons can't vote/!vote in Rfas. ~ Wikihermit 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like what I've seen from Navou. 128.163.226.239 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~ Wikihermit 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - alot of respected work and two good nominations. Khukri 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen his work, and respect his judgment. EdJohnston 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate is a good encyclopedia builder and very helpful. Majoreditor 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Third time's the charm for Navou. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I respect Navou's contribs and his judgment. Third time is the charm after all. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 15:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 16:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Melsaran (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Navou is one of the best editors I've seen on wikipedia, he's an expert mediator, and his contributions to WP:CSN and WP:ANI are always well reasoned and well balanced. I really can't see any reason he wont be an excellent sysop--Cailil talk 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Navou is an excellent nominee who has made substantial contributions in mainspace since his previous RFAs and earned serious points with the community enforceable mediation project. I hope it turns out well, but I have no doubt Navou will turn out well as a sysop.--Chaser - T 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Okay with me. - KrakatoaKatie 09:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Good editor, Good contribs. Great improvments since last RFA. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. I do not see problems here, you have good contribution at WP:CSN and WP:ANI. Good luck Carlosguitar 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest Navou will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, yes -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good. <<-armon->> 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a bit more inclusionist than average, but this editor understands the ropes at XFD and I think he'll do well with the tools. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a fine user, who I was sure was already an admin. I've seen him pop up all over, and does great work on the unblock mailing list. Will be fine as an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Alison and Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Navou has come a long way since his first RfA and I think he's now ready to be an admin. No issues that I can see. WjBscribe 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Another cop that wants to be admin. Not very useful or necessary to the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <refactored> --DarkFalls talk 09:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh snap! -- John Reaves 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, that's what I precisely fucking said. To quote, "I'm all that matters to the project." Love the WP:NPA around this joint. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DarkFalls, please refactor. Orangemarlin, please don't hold another editor's inappropriate comment against Navou. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Was unnecessarily harsh. Apologize for the incivility. --DarkFalls talk 07:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Durova, based on your comments on my talk page and here, you must think I'm a complete idiot and fool. Like i would have any more of a negative opinion of Navou based on someone else's comments, unless that someone else is a sockpuppet. Your total lack of good faith towards my opinions on this candidate is appalling.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just drop it and move on. You're not assuming good faith either, accusing Durova of calling you an idiot and a fool. --DarkFalls talk 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This individual's most recent five votes at RFA are as follows: one strong oppose,[6] three oppose,[7][8] one neutral.[9] Attempts to engage the editor in dialog yield responses that range from sarcastic to obscene. Suggest closing bureaucrat discount votes from this editor: this appears to be conflict-seeking behavior irrelevant to the candidacy. DurovaCharge! 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that on his co-nom of Jim62sch, he wrote: "...that would provide leadership to this project while still playing cop" and "...participate in the project as an editor as well as a traffic cop"[10]. The co-nom is in direct contrast to the oppose here.("Another cop that wants to be admin.") --DarkFalls talk 08:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! That's really quite funny (and hypocritical too). Majorly (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not speaking for OrangeMarlin but I think he vote counts as he has been consistent. He appears to oppose those who are here to admin without contributing to the mainspace. In the case of Jim62sch, Jim is here to contribute while playing "cop" as a necessary evil as an aside instead playing "cop" while contributing as an aside. I could be wrong but that is my interpretation of his stance. Spryde 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So because I do not like editors who play cop rather than actually contribute to the project, my vote should be discounted. In other words, go along with lemmings, and I'll be a great member of the community. Should have known. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now that I'm a little less pissed off. Thanks Spryde for defending. I need to watch these things, because I vote and move on. I supported Jim because he was/is an editor first, but can play janitor/cop when necessary. The better admins do both very well and focus on both almost equally so. However, for the last few months, we just get janitors, instead of leaders in building a project. I watch the admins who deal with the Evolution vs. Creation world. They fight with sockpuppets, clean up vandalism, but they also participate in debate and provide leadership. There are a number of admins who run projects, and build articles. I know one that runs the volcano project (and who recommended an admin, and I jumped on board to support--an admin that instead of just reverting a few deletes, has helped build Macintosh use on this project). I know another one that helps the dinosaur project, and who has done more to bring FA articles than anyone I know. I just had my first FA, and there are many admins who helped make it better. What has Navou done for us? Yes, he's a great janitor. Based on what I've read about him, it is my strong belief that he will be eaten alive in anything controversial. So, yes I am less than civil. Yes I am sarcastic. Yes I am very obscene when necessary to make a point. But I am extremely consistent and on point. Durova, I have tremendous respect for you. However, you failed to give me the same. Dark Falls wouldn't have affected my vote one way or the other, especially when I usually ignore uncivil comments towards me. But your lack of good faith about my analysis of this RfA is not the way to garner support from me. I know you're a power on this project, I know you are a hard worker on this project. I know you can have me blocked or banned from the project. But you should trust how I feel about these RfA's and see what I observe. Look at the incredible wars ongoing now on image deletion. Would Navou help there? He would be shot down and end up a blubbering mass of plasma. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that I'm right. BTW, I supported a nameless admin on here--we later found out he used obnoxious sockpuppets to get around controversies. We need to be tougher in our assessment of these applicants, to discover their skills. Yeah, I stand alone here with a snowball's chance in hell of getting this nomination stopped. But I'm doing what I believe is the right thing. I don't ever intend to be an admin, even though I know I would be obsessively devoted to this project and do everything to make it better. So, I'm not doing anything here to gain votes for myself or for anybody. I'm here, making comments on RfA's because I believe in this project. And I don't believe that Navou makes the project better, and may in fact harm it as issues become more contentious and more difficult. He lacks leadership, and that's the worst thing. So Durova, I might owe you an apology for being less than civil, but you ought to give more thought to the fact that I have analyzed every single applicant that comes on board, and I make a judgement if they can lead, or if they'll just make a good member of the janitorial corps. I guess I demand more. But don't dismiss my beliefs because they don't mesh with yours. And I won't dignify Majorly's rude comments with anything at his level of personal attack. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that on his co-nom of Jim62sch, he wrote: "...that would provide leadership to this project while still playing cop" and "...participate in the project as an editor as well as a traffic cop"[10]. The co-nom is in direct contrast to the oppose here.("Another cop that wants to be admin.") --DarkFalls talk 08:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This individual's most recent five votes at RFA are as follows: one strong oppose,[6] three oppose,[7][8] one neutral.[9] Attempts to engage the editor in dialog yield responses that range from sarcastic to obscene. Suggest closing bureaucrat discount votes from this editor: this appears to be conflict-seeking behavior irrelevant to the candidacy. DurovaCharge! 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Was unnecessarily harsh. Apologize for the incivility. --DarkFalls talk 07:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DarkFalls, please refactor. Orangemarlin, please don't hold another editor's inappropriate comment against Navou. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, that's what I precisely fucking said. To quote, "I'm all that matters to the project." Love the WP:NPA around this joint. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh snap! -- John Reaves 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <refactored> --DarkFalls talk 09:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The editor needs a bit more experience in creating and editing articles.--Filll 04:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, unfortunately overenthusiastic. Can't be sure how eagerly he will use the bits. He quotes RFPP as a page on which he wishes to work, but in my opinion, based, admittedly, on a single interaction, he will not make anything easier. My remarks on this incident are here. It may be temporary over-activity brought on by being the subject of an RfA, but that's too much of a risk as far as I am concerned. (First time I have ever opposed an RfA, if anyone's counting.) Hornplease 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm glad you commented. I made that report to RFPP, when I looked into the edits on that page history, I discovered what appeared to be a content dispute. I knew a 3RR report had been filed and I thought to myself, protecting the page in order to move to the talk page, or perhaps someone will block the editor for 3RR and no discussion will be made for the duration of the block. Both answers are good as far as policy states in both areas, however, in my mind, discussion is preferable to a block. This was my angle. I hope you will check out my other contributions to RFPP, and if you would like to ask any optional questions in the questions for the candidate section or here in this section, I'll try my best to your concerns, if I can. Best regards, Navou banter 06:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant oppose Navou commented on his informal mediation at the article of Shawn Hornbeck. It frankly left me rather unimpressed. He showed very little understanding of WP:BLP and I feel like his presence often exacerbated a rather unpleasant situation. I also have to agree that he appears overly enthusiastic in regards to becoming an admin, rather than in building an encyclopedia. AniMate 09:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thank you for your comments, I'll admit, I had very little experience mediating seven months ago when I mediated that dispute you were involved with, but I've gotten better at it. I also did not understand WP:BLP, or what an admin is all about. But since then, I have grown and understand those two. If I'm enthusiastic, I'm enthused about the project. I can assure anyone, being a janitor with a mop will not distract my from encyclopedia building. My articles are getting better, and will keep doing so. If you have any questions of me regarding adminship, or biographies of living persons, please ask, and I'll try my best to answer. Many thanks! Navou banter 10:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at your contributions, I really don't see all that much enthusiasm for the project, but rather an enthusiasm for becoming an administrator. I'd be able to support if I saw more mainspace edits, but I just see someone who has attached himself to various projects in an attempt to become an admin and further expand the bureaucracy. Personally, I do think we need more admins, but I think we need admins who are here to write an encyclopedia, not to hold up their mop as a status symbol or whatever your motivation may be. Regardless, it looks like this is going to pass, and I've said my bit. AniMate 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thank you for your comments, I'll admit, I had very little experience mediating seven months ago when I mediated that dispute you were involved with, but I've gotten better at it. I also did not understand WP:BLP, or what an admin is all about. But since then, I have grown and understand those two. If I'm enthusiastic, I'm enthused about the project. I can assure anyone, being a janitor with a mop will not distract my from encyclopedia building. My articles are getting better, and will keep doing so. If you have any questions of me regarding adminship, or biographies of living persons, please ask, and I'll try my best to answer. Many thanks! Navou banter 10:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#How do you intend to treat comments from banned users? Will you examine each case individually, or some overarching plan, both? El_C 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Individually. Navou banter 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What can I say? I'm a sucker for one-word answers! El_C 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- In a recent AfD you closed as a non-administrator, you failed to mention you were not at the time an admin, which you are expected to do when closing as a non admin. Normally, I wouldn't have been really bothered by this, but it was a lengthy and complex discussion, and would require some serious thought as to the closure. In this case, identifying that you are not an admin would have been important. I also strongly disagree with your close, but I dont base opinions on that. You're a good editor on the whole, but that AfD doesn't sit well with me. Thus, the neutral. In the interest of disclosure, I did suggest deletion in the AfD. i said 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. Thank you for your comments. I'll admit, sometimes I do not disclose that I am not an admin during and AFD, and I probably should have. I'll note that while this is not a technical requirement it is recommended. I did have to place the {{closing}} template due to the debate's complexity and I needed some time. I am always open to review and if you like, I can list the discussion on deletion review. If you have any more questions, please ask. With regards, Navou banter 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Seems like a good admin, but looking through some of his archives I've found some things I don't really like. But I can't really oppose. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Edison
Final (60/0/0); ended 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Edison (talk · contribs) - Dear Community, I would like to nominate Edison for adminship. He appears to be a concerned and active editor whose edits are nicely distributed among the namespaces and is ranked at WP:WBE. He is involved in AfD discussions and reverting vandalism. He commented to me that he could use the tools, and I trust his judgment that he may have them. Gilliam 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks to Gilliam. Edison 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: 1. Things I would be able to accomplish if given the admin tools include blocking vandals after suitable warnings and providing semiprotection when an article is under higher than usual vandal attack. I would watch the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page and work on the Administrative backlog, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old which sometimes has 100 old AFDs in need of closing or relisting, and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which also may have a backlog of 100 articles.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best work so far has naturally involved things not needing the admin tools. I participate in AFD and go through all the AFDs each day, contributing to those where I have any background or where I might be able to find references. I don’t think I could be accurately called either a deletionist or an inclusionist. I have taken many poor articles, found references (often non-Google) and improved them to the point the nominators withdrew the nomination. I have dug through the AFD history and identified unsigned comments, and noted those which appear to be single purpose accounts. I have tracked down and identified copyright violations and gotten them removed. I have taken volumes of a printed encyclopedia and checked that each article in it had a corresponding Wikipedia article, and that the basic facts checked. I added a little article on a fish called American plaice which was in Grolier’s but not Wikipedia. I created articles on Frederick de Cordova, Micropower and Elizabeth Austin, and substantially improved a number of other articles, such as Nathan Stubblefield and Thomas Edison. I proposed a notability guideline WP:NOTNEWS which was ultimately rejected, but the thrust of which was that events or people can be newsworthy without being encyclopedic, a principle which was later coincidentally added in one form or another to WP:NOT#NEWS and to WP:BLP1E. I answer lots of questions on Science, Humanities and Miscellaneous on the Reference Desk. I have applied the WP:BLP principles and vandal fighting in a balanced way, regardless of where on an ideological or political spectrum the subject has been.
- 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: When people with different backgrounds and opinions try collaboratively to edit an online encyclopedia, there are naturally going to be conflicts. There was spirited discussion related to the proposal and rejection of the notability guidelines WP:MALL, WP:CONG and WP:NOTNEWS in early 2007, but I remained on speaking terms with those having opposing views. There were content disputes as to what classification standards apply to shopping malls in various countries. My goal when disputes occur is to try and be professional and courteous, and to base my statements on guidelines and policies and on reliable sources. I have counselled others and try to practice it myself, to avoid having to have the last word, and to just step away from the keyboard for a while and do something productive in the real world when feeling provoked. I try also to consider the issue from the other person’s viewpoint and to assume good faith. Sometimes words which might better have been left unsaid need to be deleted or stricken by the person whose temper got the better of them, and I have done that when it seemed appropriate. I feel that admins should be especially willing to seek the advice of others when a conflict arises and they are tempted to use the tools in a way which might be self serving in any way. Edison 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions by DarkFalls
- 4. When blocking vandals and answering requests at AIV, what is the criteria for blocking?
- A: I would determine that the reported postings were in fact vandalism or spam. I would check that it was not part of a good-faith edit dispute over what the article content should be, that the offender had been adequately warned, and that the offender had vandalized after a final warning. I would not punitively block a user for an old offense. There are about 20 specific grounds for blocking stated at WP:BLOCK which boil down to protecting the public and the editors of Wikipedia from attacks, legal threats, harassment and incivility, and protecting the quality of the articles from nonsense, spam, and revert wars. Edison 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- '5. What is your opinion on BLP in regards to reliable sources and original research, and how strictly would you follow the policies, if at all?
- A: Statements in Wikipedia about living persons must be sourced to reliable sources, especially if the information is contentious or defamatory. Original research, such as a claim that the editor grew up with the subject and he personally knows thus and such about him, or that everyone in town knows thus and such, obviously does not satisfy that requirement. Any editor can enforce WP:BLP as I have done, especially when unsourced defamatory material is found. This protects the subject written about from harm, and protects Wikipedia and its editors from libel suits. Edison 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. Can you comment on these articles for me please: EPA Technology, Philip Anderson, Dan Morrow, Pour tea on your turkey and John Fraser Smith. Would you list them on AfD, speedy them or leave them? (Examples cheerfully taken from Riana)
- A:EPA Technology appears to be a hoax. This is not grounds for speedy deletion, but certainly for AFD. In addition it contains text which is a blatant copyright infringement from a real UK company called ERA Technology [11], justifying speedy deletion on WP:COPYVIO grounds. Granted, the present article was probably created as a teaching example, so assuming for the sake of argument and illustration that the article was about a real company such as ERA Technology, it certainly has claims of notability, but it is written in a spammy and promotional tone which amounts to blatant advertising, which is one ground for speedy deletion . The tone could be made less POV by editing, and references (if the company were like the real one) could be added. If the article were about the real company, rather than simply speedily deleting it, I might stub it by removing the copyvio material and briefly stating the basic facts about the company with a couple of references which could be found at Google Book Search, such as [12], ProQuest also has several articles with substantial coverage of the real company, which could be used to build a quality article.
- Philip Anderson, richly deserves speedy deletion as nonsense or as a test edit, although if it were a real article (and not a teaching example) I would check the history to see if there were a sensible and salvageable version in some previous revision.
- Dan Morrow has little justification to remain in Wikipedia as it stands. Again, I would check the history to make sure there was not a better older version. Assuming the article has no earlier, better version, thhe question is whether to {{prod}} it or speedily delete it for lack of an assertion of notability under criterion A7. It makes a weak, cryptic and in my opinion inadequate claim of notability in the “off (sic) X factor fame” and an inadequate claim of notability by crystal-balling and saying the subject is “up and coming.” The musician needs to have already achieved a level of notability sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSIC, not just to have promise in the view of the article creator. I might search for evidence of notability and for references, to see if the subject might satisfy WP:MUSIC, or if the presumable band mentioned, “X factor” is notable. If the band had an article, the article might be replaced by a redirect to the band article. Speedy deletion is probably justified, strictly speaking. I do not usually go after the myriad of poor and unreferenced articles which fill Wikipedia about bands and musicians of doubtful notability and whose claim to fame is to have “released a single” through some indie label, and who seem to be legends in their own minds only. A high school garage band could “release a single” or album on their own indie label. That said wholesale speedy deletion of the mass of similarly poor music articles might be seen as disruptive. Further research in some cases has found that a band or musician’s record was at some point high on recognized popular music charts in a major country, or in other ways satisfied WP:MUSIC. I would rather spend my research time and effort on articles in other areas of Wikipedia.
- Pour tea on your turkey is a neologism that has not gained notability and which fails WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not for things made up at the dinner table one day. It gets one Google hit (this very teaching article appearing in Wikipedia), but nothing on ProQuest, Google News or its archive, and nothing on Google Scholar. Few phrases are this non-notable, or so completely fail Wikipedia:Verifiability . Although the article is enjoyable to read, and however well written or expressing eternal truths it may be, I believe it would deserve a PROD, and then an AFD if someone removed the PROD template from the article.
- John Fraser Smith lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject, and as it stands probably fails WP:BIO and certainly fails verifiability . It has one vague reference with no title, publisher, or year, which cannot therefore be readily checked to see if it has material about the subject of the article. It might be just a privately published family genealogy, and would not by itself justify keeping the article in AFD. There are several claims which make enough of a case for notability that the article deserves at least AFD rather than a PROD. GCB is the highest order of the Order of the Bath, just as GBE is a high order in the British honors system. AFD results in 2007 have not generally found such honors to convey inherent notability on the recipients. The article claims he was a member of the “Supreme Court” without specifying what supreme court in what country. "Supreme Court" is a term that has been applied to initial trial courts in some U.S. locations besides the top federal court, and to high judicial bodies in the U.K., and New Zealand. Claiming the subject served on the “supreme court” rules out speedy deletion for lack of assertion of notability. The other speedy criteria do not appear to apply. This could go to AFD. Edison 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent answers, although I disagree slightly with the analysis on John Fraser Smith. Admittingly, the article will probably fail on verifiability but the article has a definite assertion of notability. The rank of lieutenant general is generally associated with the Chief of Army or as a commander of some sort, which should guarantee notability... Anyway, I'm supporting... --DarkFalls talk 09:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, but an unsourced claim of holding a given rank in the military without specifying the country leaves us not knowing whether it was the implied country of his birth New Zealand or someplace like the Principality of Sealand, and besides still fails on verifiability. Edison 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Edison's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Edison: Edison (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Edison before commenting.
Discussion
- I initially confused Edison' identity with a separate editor. Then I reviewed his contributions, and I realized my error. I am aware of few concerns. I think that Edison will do a fine job. --Iamunknown 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- A lot of edits, and I think he will be a good admin! I also beat the nom!!! Politics rule 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Strong Project space edits, and I believe this user won't abuse the mop. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate has a lot of experience with AfD, and seems to generally give solidly well-thought-out rationales while remaining civil. — TKD::Talk 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I doubt this user will abuse the buttons, nothing too flashy in the contribs, nothing out of the ordinary either. --Ben hello! 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)#\[reply]
- Support as nominator. - Gilliam 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure. Jmlk17 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to the questions. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good solid editor, works hard, and fair minded. I'm sure I disagreed with him about something, but I couldn't tell you what it was, so it must not have left me with a negative impression. - Crockspot 01:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Takes WP:A seriously and, I agree with TKD, contributes thoughtfully to AfD's. Also a tremendous help at the reference desks. Sound ideas, good judgment, mature editor, not a friend of wiki-drama. As long as he doesn't promise us a fortune, I trust him with the tools. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent research at AfD. Espresso Addict 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've seen nothing but good from this editor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought he already was, and see no reason for him not to be. I do agree with Miranda that he might not be willing to ban someone who is disrupting or harming the encyclopedia, or has just plain exhausted the community's patience, but I also don't think that he will get in the way of those that are --lucid 02:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; absolutely. Veteran editor, fair, sane, trustworthy. Nothing but good here. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A great editor that I highly doubt will misuse the tools provided for administrators. AR Argon 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good edit history, the candidate will make a good admin --rogerd 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great editor with solid edits; always does very good work at AFD, and seems trustworthy. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user is a great editor. It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MONGO 04:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have always been impressed with the candidate's thoughtful comments in AfD discussions. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well experienced, good all-round contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. This editor seems to be a prime choice for the mop. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful fella, come across him a voice of sanity on deletion stuff. Should do well, and I'm not fussed about the Qst comment. If he has inexhaustible patience, good on him. He'll likely make a far better admin than me, who does not possess such calm! Moreschi Talk 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lightbulb support. >Radiant< 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! It took my brain about a minute to understand that. Am I slow or what? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. To me, the strongest candidate on RFA at the moment, and probably for a while. No concerns whatsoever. Neil ム 09:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, OK. Seems to have his heart in the right place and a good head on his shoulders. Not honestly particularly ticked off at the comment at the Qst ban, if it was just a general thing and not directed towards that immediate conversation. I do hope that you realise people, by and large, treat CSN as the penultimate resort before ArbCom. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - What I see here is a very strong candidate indeed. Bucket-fulls of experience in all the correct areas. This user should have been an admin a while ago. Lradrama 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editing track ,civil and with experience.Harlowraman 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- —AldeBaer 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- -Support - fine editor. Onnaghar tl ! co 13:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Been on the project for a good while. I've seen him around here and there and he seems sensible to me. Friday (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Edison has lots of edits, good work on help-boards and AfD (although we don't always agree), and has been very helpful throughout WP. Will make a great Admin, with all the experience gained through past efforts. Bearian 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, excellent answers to questions (especially Q3). No reason to oppose, sound editor. Melsaran (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He is a civil, reasonable, intelligent, and informed editor, and I have no doubts that he will be an excellent admin. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A dedicated editor, who has helped out all around WP. Has consistently brought intelligent, well-thought-out perspectives to debates, and his excellent judgment will be an asset in administrative tasks. --Krimpet 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Noticed him as an excellant contributor to AFD, believe will make a good admin. Davewild 18:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Like Davewild and others I've seen Edison's good work at AfD. Good judgment and I think will be a good admin.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Long overdue, didn't I ask to nominate you before. Jaranda wat's sup 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Friday's comments below sum my feelings up perfectly. Being calm, levelheaded, stingy with the troll food and slow with the banhammer are all good things. IronGargoyle 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support there is nothing wrong with this user. Acalamari 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm impressed by most of what I see, but Miranda has a point. However, I will support. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- --DarkFalls talk 09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A calm and level headed editor, whose contributions (and discussion below in Neutral) lead me to believe he will pause before acting and reflect and review actions that are made. To whit, trustworthy with the buttons. Very Best. Pedro | Chat 10:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen you around, you'll do a good job :) CattleGirl talk 11:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust that this editor won't misuse the mop. Xiner (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slade (TheJoker) 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No qualms. James086Talk | Email 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Trustworthy editor. PeaceNT 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate is a good member of the community and understands policy. Edison appears to have all the makings of a solid admin. Majoreditor 21:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user would make a great admin, I am pleased by his responses regarding the sample articles. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know I've seen you somewhere... ;-) · AndonicO Talk 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support more than meets my standards. Experienced user, patient and helpful with others. No evidence of incivility or acting out in anger. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakish Support Will not abuse the tools, IMO, so support. I should have liked more mainspace and usertalk edits recently... but then it is a question of trust, and this editor has mine. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have seen in AFD's and while we don't always agree, he is always civil and presents his position coherently. Carlossuarez46 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support From his answers to the questions, he seems to have a good understanding of deletion policy. (Stuff you would need to know to do speedies without making mistakes, not just AfD policy). An all around good record. EdJohnston 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good, experienced editor. utcursch | talk 05:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editors, good admins make. In my experience he has always calm, helpful and considerate. Rockpocket 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Impressed by his answers to Q. 6. --A. B. (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers to questions. Trustworthy and ready for the tools. Welcome to WP:60. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
OpposeAbstaining I am worried that this user doesn't know how to tell if a user is disrupting the encyclopedia. Miranda 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Clarifying - The diff. that I provided is an example of how this user can or cannot tell if a user is disrupting the encyclopedia. If this candidate were to be on, let's say, WP:AIV patrol, and sees a user who is clearly vandalizing the encyclopedia, he may choose to ignore it while another administrator blocks the vandalizing user, in which in this case the user may or may not have stopped. Miranda 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here-- users that have exhausted the community's patience and vandals are very different things. Still, even if they are the same, how is this any more harmful than him using the mop in another area? --lucid 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot pretend that I found Edison's comment about 'finding other online activities' more than slightly disruptive in itself - I myself have vast reserves of both patience and that AGF stuff, but the actions of Qst were inexcusable. I found myself wondering whether Edison had actually read the reams of evidence and diffs provided in the discussion. Nevertheless, CSN is not Votes for Banning, and I shall not oppose him just because he had a contrary opinion to me.
I cannot support, though.~ Riana ⁂ 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- If he responds to the reasons of what in his opinion of a user being considered disruptive or not, I may change my vote. However, responding to Lucid, this kind of relates to other areas, such as AFD where a user can create socks or bring meatpuppets in order to sway the opinion of the discussion. And, this candidate, by using the above logic of the statement, by using the theory of, "If X can disrupt the encyclopedia, then I really don't see a problem here with X. If you do, then you can find other activities to do like reading a book." However, I disagree with Lucid. Vandals can exhaust the community's patience. See ban. Miranda 03:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot pretend that I found Edison's comment about 'finding other online activities' more than slightly disruptive in itself - I myself have vast reserves of both patience and that AGF stuff, but the actions of Qst were inexcusable. I found myself wondering whether Edison had actually read the reams of evidence and diffs provided in the discussion. Nevertheless, CSN is not Votes for Banning, and I shall not oppose him just because he had a contrary opinion to me.
- I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here-- users that have exhausted the community's patience and vandals are very different things. Still, even if they are the same, how is this any more harmful than him using the mop in another area? --lucid 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (deindent) I never said vandals can't exhaust the community's patience, I'm saying that users that do and blatant vandals are very different beings. I do agree with Riana's comments about it being slightly insulting, but I wasn't involved in the situation, so I don't know what the subject had done to judge that. I still find that you're comparing apples to oranges though, Miranda --lucid 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the case for yourself. However, if/when the candidate explains himself with the dif, then I may/may not change my vote. Miranda 03:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognize that dispute resolution processes will not work for all editors, so that some who are disruptive, who lack civility, or who engage in sockpuppetry need to be banned, and that the community sanction noticeboard is a valid forum for discussing and implementing such bans. I did not defend the actions of Qst and his/her several incarnations in the subject case, so much as I chimed in to object to the term of art "exhaustion of the communities patience" which makes Wikipedians sound like a short attention span group. I agree that the discussion page of Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard would have been a more appropriate forum to make the comment and to suggest alternative language than in the particular discussion. Edison 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the case for yourself. However, if/when the candidate explains himself with the dif, then I may/may not change my vote. Miranda 03:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that exhausting the community's patience is a bad reason to show someone the door, but I understand Edison's criticism here. He can have a different opinion from most of us on this issue, and that's OK. If I thought he was likely to run around unblocking disruptive editors who'd been blocked for this reason, I certainly could not support, but I don't at all see that he's suggesting he would do such a thing. We need admins who are generally reluctant to block - it helps keep the rest of us in check. Friday (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Chunky Rice
(38/7/5); Originally scheduled to end 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chunky Rice (talk · contribs) - Hello, fellow editors. I humbly present myself for consideration for adminship. I first created this account back in 2005, but only became a regular editor in February of this year. I’ve now been actively involved with the project for about 6 months. I’m nominating myself because it seemed like a better course of action than sitting on my thumbs and hoping that somebody else would do it, or worse, directly asking someone else to nominate me, which seems disingenuous.
I believe that I would make a good administrator (obviously, or I wouldn’t be here). I’ve participated in a variety of tasks here on Wikipedia, including recent changes patrol, AfDs, tagging articles with both proposed deletion and speedy deletion tags. I’ve written a few articles from scratch, rewritten a few more and substantively contributed to others. I feel that I have a pretty good grasp of policy, work well with others and handle myself well in a conflict. If you feel similarly after reviewing my contributions, I ask for your support. If you disagree, I would welcome advice on how to improve myself as an editor of Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration.Chunky Rice 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Primarily I plan to keep doing the same things that I have been, just with admin duties added on. So I’ll continue to participate in AfD, commenting on some, closing others. I’ll continue to deal with vandalism, adding blocking and checking AIV in addition to reverting and warning. Instead of tagging pages for speedy deletion, I suppose I’ll just delete them as well as reviewing pages that others have tagged.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: As far as article writing goes, I think that my best is Transformation playing card, which is an article I created and brought to Good Article status. I think it’s a good article on an interesting and notable topic. On the more collaborative end, I think that I’ve done some good work, in general, with WikiProject Board and table games, improving many articles and working with the categories related to the subject. I'm also happy with the work that I've done on Critical Mass, substantially rewriting much of the article to be more NPOV.
- 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: Sure. Haven’t we all? The following is a modified version of what I wrote for my editor review:
- I don't really experience stress from dealing with the people that I encounter during recent changes patrol. What do I care if some random vandal wants to deface my user page or calls me names? I do experience some stress when working with good faith editors where I can tell that we both want to do what we think is best for the encyclopedia, but disagree on that course. Primarily because I feel like it's a failure on my part that I'm unable to properly explain my position. I've employed a variety of methods to deal with this.
- At List of miniature wargames, in a dispute over the appropriateness of a tag, I used dispute resolution. I talked it through with the other editor and when that failed, initiated an RfC. The RfC favored my position, so I made the edits.
- At Pedophilia, I argued for my position, but ultimately decided to just walk away. Partially because the other editor was so adamant and partially because I found the subject matter distasteful.
- At Critical Mass, I’ve had a mildly contentious relationship with some of the other regular editors of that page as we all try to determine how to make the page NPOV. While we have different perspectives, it is fortunate that all parties are willing to discuss things on the talk page. We’ve reached numerous compromise positions and I think that the article is better for it.
- I don't really experience stress from dealing with the people that I encounter during recent changes patrol. What do I care if some random vandal wants to deface my user page or calls me names? I do experience some stress when working with good faith editors where I can tell that we both want to do what we think is best for the encyclopedia, but disagree on that course. Primarily because I feel like it's a failure on my part that I'm unable to properly explain my position. I've employed a variety of methods to deal with this.
- Ultimately, what I've learned that helps me deal with content disputes is that, while it is important to argue your position, it's not important that it be done right this very instant (with the possible exception of BLP concerns). I find that if I stop worrying about fixing things right away, it's a lot easier to keep my cool and avoid things like revert wars. Hopefully, this philosophy will serve me well in the future.
Optional question from User:Pheonix15
- 4. In your opinion, is there any discrimination against ip's from registered users?
- A-Oh, certainly. Aside from the perennial calls to require registration to edit, I think that IPs are much more likely to be reverted. But I also think that a lot of that is because there’s a presumption that they are inexperienced users. I think that a registered user with just a handful of edits would face roughly the same sort of treatment that an IP editors does. If you want to put it in a nicer way, I think that veteran editors are treated with more deference than new/inexperienced users, because there’s more of a presumption that the know and understand Wikipedia policies, so there’s a good reason that they made the edit that you don’t quite understand.
- 5. Additional question from User:Dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) Hello, Chunky Rice. Thank you for submitting your RfA, I have this question and then a follow-up-- You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by a Bot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note at the top of the page from the anon saying "THE ARTICLE IS A COPY AND PASTE COPYVIO FORM ANOTHER SITE” What do you do? Thanks, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A:Well, that’s a complex question. There are many different possible outcomes depending on many different variables.
- 1. Quick internet search for key phrases from the article. If found, 2. If not, 8.
- 2. Attempt to determine if the other site holds the copyright. If yes, 3. If it’s a mirror of Wikipedia, 6. If I can’t tell, 7.
- 3. Determine if there is a non-copy vio prior version or section in the current article. If yes, 4. If no, 5.
- 4. Restore prior version or otherwise remove copyvio material, leaving article. Leave a talk page note.
- 5. Delete article, per CSD:G12.
- 6. Do not delete article, remove note re: copyvio, leave message on article talk page and the talk page of the person who left the note re: determination.
- 7. Replace the note with a {{copyvio}}, and bring the issue to WP:CP, leaving notes for the person who left the note as well as the editor who wrote the material under review.
- 8. Leave a message for the anon user asking for more specifics, if they are the copyright holder and whatnot. Leave a note for the person who wrote the article informing them of the issue, asking for a response. Remove the note. Watch the page for future activity.
- I think that’s a decent summary, although there are certainly forks that I have not covered. The gist is this: If it’s a blatant copyright violation, delete it or restore a non-copyvio version. If it is clearly not a violation, clean up and move on. If it is questionable, initiate discussion and review. Possibly bring in other eyes if I feel out of my depth.
General comments
- See Chunky Rice's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Chunky Rice: Chunky Rice (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Chunky Rice before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- I think you have the experience to be an effective administrator and your thoughtful responses at AfD shows you have a clear understanding of the wiki-way. Good luck. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Your mainspace history shows you understand what we're trying to do here, and your talk & AfD history shows you've got a good reason for wanting this. As I'm not familiar with you, I've checked your history more thoroughly than usual & can't find anything to object to — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 400 edits in project space are far from meaningless. Looking through them, I see many cases of AfDs in which Chunky Rice participated in a real discussion over the whole course of the process which is a very positive sign. I also see sound comments at the Village Pump, reasoned discussion on the talk page of WP:NOT, long-term involvement in a WikiProject. Unless I failed to notice instances where CR has dramatically lost his cool, I don't quite see what's not to like. Pascal.Tesson 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edits are low, but no reason to think he will abuse tools. Politics rule 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above. See no indication that this user will misuse the tools;)--Hu12 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user has broad experience of the project, and his edits therein are good edits. for those afflicted with editcountitis, his score right now is 3,031, which passes the three thousand magic number for those for whom this is an important parameter. Clearly he will not abuse the tools, and is exactly the sort of editor we should be welcoming with open arms. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. The candidate is off to a promising start and has built some good articles. However, mainspace edit count is a bit light. In this case the tie goes to the runner. Best of luck. Majoreditor 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppoprt --T Rex | talk 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit count is fine. Acalamari 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You've been off to a pretty good start, but I would like to see more Wikispace edits and experienc, especially for someone interested in becoming an admin and closing Xfd's and stuff like that. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Anthony.bradbury and for good answers. Bearian 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I've analysed your past 50 edits and I'm happy to give my support on the basis that you make actual article edits/contributions (for example you created this yesterday). Matthew 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support CR, you've got Skills that Kills. :) Dfrg.msc 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I reviewed this editor's contributions in an editor review back in July and found nothing amiss. Solid contributions to encyclopedia, and thoughtful comments at AfD. Espresso Addict 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no reason to oppose. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - like some others I think the editing history is a bit light. However, what there is is high quality and covers a fairly broad range of technical and mainspace activity. Good reasons for wanting admin tools, and nothing that suggests there will be any problems. Some gratuitous advice - your mainspace cotnributions seem very good. Don't let the technical side of adminship distract you from working on more articles.Euryalus 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is time to give this user the mop. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - clearly bright enough, seems trustworthy, certainly not mental. No good reason not to. Neil ム 09:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak, per experience. —AldeBaer 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support. User has demonstrated better judgement and conflict resolution skills than most current sysops. Italiavivi 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good candidate. Although the opposers bring up valid points about the candidate's relative inexperience in projectspace, I don't think this on its own is a sufficient reason to oppose. WaltonOne 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The experience concerns are minor, so I will support. Captain panda 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - lowish edit count offset by article contributions, AfD involvement and vandal reporting. Addhoc 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A look through your contributions convinces me that you are committed and thoughtful. More project space contributions would be a plus, but I don't see any warning signs that you would act rashly or abuse the tools. Your pattern seems to be that you are cautious until you learn the ropes. That's a good pattern for a new admin, so I think you would do fine.--Kubigula (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems evident. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see why not, go for it. James086Talk | Email 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support don't think he would abuse the tools, looks fine. Melsaran (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There is no evident problem here and no indication of future abuse. I appreciate your offer to help. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He deserves it for all the hard work he's done. --Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 10:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion he deserves our trust, and demonstrably sincere commitment like his surely helps. But adminship is not a trophy awarded for doing work. —AldeBaer 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Based on answer to my question. Does not require follow up question. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After carefully reading the oppose section and reviewing your fine contributions. The opposes are valid, but on balance I don't see that you will misuse the tools, and that is the only fundamental issue. Very Best. Pedro | Chat 08:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Experience is sufficient for me; answers to questions show familiarity with policies. Shalom Hello 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my concerns have been satisfactorily answered. Thanks! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Trustworthy. Best of luck as an admin. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems to have sufficient experience. Wizardman 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak Oppose I wanted to support, but I just can't at this time. You seem to be well on your way, and are quite on the right track as far as editing and building your skills, but I can't see your experience well enough...yet. Jmlk17 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose lack of experience in intended work worries me, as per answer to question #1 "Instead of tagging pages for speedy deletion, I suppose I’ll just delete them" - (I assume this will go for other sysop tools) with history in contributions I can't decide on good references to prove judgment, you would need to show evidence of seeking outside opinions in controversial issues. So few edits in spaces other than mainspace and talk leave me concerned about skills in making positive conclusions without outside input. This user comes across to me as making out that adminship is a badge of some sort, and by answering: "I plan to keep doing the same things that I have been, just with admin duties added on" that would mean (IMAO) that "I don't need or really have a great purpose for the sysop buttons, I just want them". But, still well on the way to becoming a good editor, focus on those project space edits and I hope to see you back here in a few months or less :-) --Ben hello! 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand concerns about my experience, but I don't really understand your objections to my responses. Could you please elaborate?
- For the first part, do you think that I should continue to tag articles for speedy deletion instead of deleting them? That seems a bit wasteful. If I run across a page that says "Joe is gay." I don't understand the benefit of tagging it and waiting for another admin to delete it. Further, I'm not sure what you're looking for as far as evidence of my judgment in this area. I'm not sure how many speedy tags I've done, but I estimate somewhere between one and two hundred. Of those, only one was rejected by an admin and that was because of the information added after I tagged the article.
- As to the second part, I'm not sure why you object to me performing admin duties in areas that I have experience in, given your overall concerns with my experience level. I'll admit that it's true that I have no real need for the tools. I can and will continue to contribute in the same areas with or without them. But I think that's true for almost everybody.
- Again, it's not my intention to try and invalidate your opinion, but it's important to me to understand why you're opposing so that I can take it constructively. Thanks.-Chunky Rice 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the mechanical task of clicking a button to put speedy tags on obviously inappropriate pages that gain you more respect in the area of your "judgment" (for want of a better word), but more chunky discussions and arguments. --Ben hello! 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, as I said, I understand that part. I'm mostly confused about your objections to the language I used. You seemed to indicate that my phrasing in my response about speedy deletions raised some sort of red flag with you and I can't really figure out what that is. -Chunky Rice 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That concerns me. What Chunky is proposing to do is to close his own speedies: a dangerous habit. Even obvious deletions should have two pairs of eyes on them to avoid accidents; admins should not have to have this explained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, as I said, I understand that part. I'm mostly confused about your objections to the language I used. You seemed to indicate that my phrasing in my response about speedy deletions raised some sort of red flag with you and I can't really figure out what that is. -Chunky Rice 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the mechanical task of clicking a button to put speedy tags on obviously inappropriate pages that gain you more respect in the area of your "judgment" (for want of a better word), but more chunky discussions and arguments. --Ben hello! 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose, per Ben's concerns, but I think more experience will resolve that. Another thousand or two edits spread across more namespaces, and I think you'll be there, you're well on your way though. - Crockspot 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Insufficient experience in project space in particular - I count at least 110 edits there that are unrelated to policy - but I've no doubt with your legal background you can catch up quickly. Xiner (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Xiner. The candidate needs more experience in mop-related fields before he can be trusted to wield the mop with care. Xoloz 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose While your work in vandal fighting has been good, I don't have enough confidence in your experience in dispute resolution and other sysop tasks that require more interaction with established editors. Some of your responses here felt particularly lackluster. VanTucky (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate as to which responses you're referring to and what you find lackluster about them? Thanks.-Chunky Rice 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I specifically thought the first question's answer failed to properly articulate an understanding and conviction in an admin's role and duties. The "I suppose..." comment was especially uninspiring. VanTucky (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate as to which responses you're referring to and what you find lackluster about them? Thanks.-Chunky Rice 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Ben. Miranda 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but Speedy Deletes should have two pairs of eyes.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- If this is the case, the policy page should really be updated to reflect that. As it is written now, WP:CSD contains no language indicating that speedy deletion is inherently a two person process. It simply states that under the listed criteria, an administrator may delete an article without discussion. It further states that non-administrators may tag the pages to bring them to the attention of administrators. But it does not say anything about requiring two persons. I have no problem following a two-person system if that is the policy, but we need to update the page to reflect that. -Chunky Rice 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chunky Rice is entirely correct. If you can name more than a half-dozen current administrators who tag clearly-deletable speedy deletion pages rather than deleting them themselves ("the two eyes rule", as you indicated) on a regular basis (I can understand if they are unsure about whether it should be deleted, but your comment clearly stipulates that you believe it should happen with every deletion), then I'll eat my foot. Put simply, Timotab's assertion is not the stance of any administrator that I know of, and as such he is basically making a personal assertion about process rather than a well-founded opinion about this candidates' ability to perform the appropriate tasks. Furthermore, this would only create more time wasted and more backlogs. Timotab is exposing his own lack of knowledge and experience with his comments, not that of the candidates, and the closing bureaucrat should, in my humble opinion, consider this in their close if this requests for adminship falls within that range. Daniel 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be on the policy page, but as Septentrionalis said above, it's a safeguard against accidents. Further to that, it's a safeguard against any accusations of abuse of power. If all pages you actually speedy delete were nominated by others, and if it's the first time you get to it, you nominate it allowing another admin to delete it, then if anyone ever accuses you of inappropriately deleting something, you can always go back and point out that someone else had agreed with you. I will concede that there may be occasions where it is so blatantly obvious that it's OK. But reading what ChunkyRice wrote suggests that he thinks it's OK every time that he thinks it should be deleted that he would go ahead and delete, no further questions asked. At the very least he should not speedy delete articles at the same standard that he would tag them. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why he doesn't see that. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 07:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my opinion that speedy deletions should never be controversial. If there has ever been any question in my mind, I put a prod tag, not a speedy tag on the page. The criteria outlined at CSD are extremely narrow and are designed to be uncontroversial and largely objective determinations, due to the lack of discussion. I see a lot of people who just tag articles willy-nilly, using the wrong criteria. For example, G1 (nonsense) should only be used to delete something that is gibberish, though I often see people use it to tag things that are obvious hoaxes (not speediable) or fall under "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" (not speediable). I'm not like that. I'm already cautious with speedy deletions. I will be even more so as an admin. But I trust my judgment. With this RfA, I'm asking the community if they also trust my judgment, based on my editing. If you, and others, do not, that is reasonable. I just felt that I had to address this whole "two people should be required for speedy deletions" trend in the opposes. I can only promise that I will follow Wikipedia's policies and practices to the best of my ability (whether or not I become an admin). -Chunky Rice 11:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chunky Rice nails it. Speedies shouldn't need two sets of eyes because they must clearly meet the defined speedy deletion criteria. Redundancy on speedy deletions needlessly increases the amount of work needed; if one is not sure whether something is truly speedy deletion-appropriate, slap on a prod tag and move along. It's also worth remembering that no admin's action is irreversible, and any good admin will willingly work to correct their (inevitable) mistakes. — Scientizzle 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my opinion that speedy deletions should never be controversial. If there has ever been any question in my mind, I put a prod tag, not a speedy tag on the page. The criteria outlined at CSD are extremely narrow and are designed to be uncontroversial and largely objective determinations, due to the lack of discussion. I see a lot of people who just tag articles willy-nilly, using the wrong criteria. For example, G1 (nonsense) should only be used to delete something that is gibberish, though I often see people use it to tag things that are obvious hoaxes (not speediable) or fall under "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" (not speediable). I'm not like that. I'm already cautious with speedy deletions. I will be even more so as an admin. But I trust my judgment. With this RfA, I'm asking the community if they also trust my judgment, based on my editing. If you, and others, do not, that is reasonable. I just felt that I had to address this whole "two people should be required for speedy deletions" trend in the opposes. I can only promise that I will follow Wikipedia's policies and practices to the best of my ability (whether or not I become an admin). -Chunky Rice 11:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be on the policy page, but as Septentrionalis said above, it's a safeguard against accidents. Further to that, it's a safeguard against any accusations of abuse of power. If all pages you actually speedy delete were nominated by others, and if it's the first time you get to it, you nominate it allowing another admin to delete it, then if anyone ever accuses you of inappropriately deleting something, you can always go back and point out that someone else had agreed with you. I will concede that there may be occasions where it is so blatantly obvious that it's OK. But reading what ChunkyRice wrote suggests that he thinks it's OK every time that he thinks it should be deleted that he would go ahead and delete, no further questions asked. At the very least he should not speedy delete articles at the same standard that he would tag them. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why he doesn't see that. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 07:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chunky Rice is entirely correct. If you can name more than a half-dozen current administrators who tag clearly-deletable speedy deletion pages rather than deleting them themselves ("the two eyes rule", as you indicated) on a regular basis (I can understand if they are unsure about whether it should be deleted, but your comment clearly stipulates that you believe it should happen with every deletion), then I'll eat my foot. Put simply, Timotab's assertion is not the stance of any administrator that I know of, and as such he is basically making a personal assertion about process rather than a well-founded opinion about this candidates' ability to perform the appropriate tasks. Furthermore, this would only create more time wasted and more backlogs. Timotab is exposing his own lack of knowledge and experience with his comments, not that of the candidates, and the closing bureaucrat should, in my humble opinion, consider this in their close if this requests for adminship falls within that range. Daniel 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is the case, the policy page should really be updated to reflect that. As it is written now, WP:CSD contains no language indicating that speedy deletion is inherently a two person process. It simply states that under the listed criteria, an administrator may delete an article without discussion. It further states that non-administrators may tag the pages to bring them to the attention of administrators. But it does not say anything about requiring two persons. I have no problem following a two-person system if that is the policy, but we need to update the page to reflect that. -Chunky Rice 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral - Definately heading in the correct direction. I would just like to see more experience, mainly Wikipedia-space, then this RfA will be one to be proud of. Lradrama 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - ~400 edits in project space isn't really enough for someone who wants to work in XfD, but you definitely seem to have a good grasp of policies and seem to work well with others. Keep up the good work! Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. ~ Wikihermit 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, per Hersfold's comments. –sebi 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now based on relatively low project space contribs. — Scientizzle 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Hersfold
Final: (23/19/8); ended 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hersfold (talk · contribs) - I am Hersfold, and I've been a member of Wikipedia for eight months and seven days, according to the little userbox on my page. In that time, I've participated in several aspects of the project, including the CVU, new page CSD patrols, the Help Desk, the IRC help channel, Motto of the Day, rather extensively at Articles for creation, Articles for Deletion, a couple GA reviews, some article cleanup and writing, template writing, and I've recently started in the Adopt-a-user program. There are probably a few others that I've missed, but if so, my involvement in them hasn't been too high.
I'm a dedicated editor to the encyclopedia willing to do just about anything that is needed. My edit count is over 5,000 edits, with most of them coming from areas such as the help desk and AFC. I did have one previous RfA which I withdrew when it was clear the consensus was heading towards "not enough experience." I hope I've gained the experience everyone was looking for and have earned their trust to help out the 'pedia as much as I am able. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by KTC: Gee Hersfold, I was going to do the nominating! :D Everywhere I go on Wikipedia, I seems to run into Hersfold, or at least his edits. He deals with questions, from newbies or even the more experienced, with patience; his edits shows a lot of effort spend in fighting vandalism. He has shown he understand policies by his response on the help desk / helpme request, his participation in community process such as RFA & AFD. In turns of editing, he has also spend a lot of time reviewing and processing AFC as he has already stated. I believe he will make a very good and very helpful admin. -- KTC 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Gee, lemme think... I accept. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I have just started college, so to start out with I'm probably going to be looking for some tasks that can be completed in short sections of time. I will definitely work on backlog clearing - I've had some good experience with that at AFC (678.16 articles in the recent drive - that's 677 full reviews, and a half-review and a two-thirds-review, if anyone's wondering about the decimal.). I've also had plenty of experience with vandal-fighting, so might work in the AIV department and RFPP, although I've not as much experience in the latter, I will freely admit. Deletion patrols will be a part of my admin workload as well, mainly CSD but also with closing out AFD's and expired PRODs.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'm quite proud of my work at AFC clearing out the backlogs - I just missed first place, about 20 articles behind davidwr, and about 50 in front of the third-place runner. That was a lot of work, but together the AFC Wikiproject managed to clear out a year's worth of unreviewed archives, and I am pleased to have contributed so much. I've also done some work in the mainspace, mainly with the articles Liberty High School, Carroll County, Maryland (rewrote to proper format), Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park (started as stub and contributed a pic, which is now gone), and Carcross Desert (started as stub and expanded to start-class). I'm also quite proud of my recent adoptee and my other work helping others out at the help desk and "in the field." My graphic design has also helped out, designing three barnstars (one two three) as well as the logo for WPAFC. I also added a lot of the {{tltt}} codes with SebastianHelm at WP:UTM and designed the templates {{nn-welcome}} and {{uw-bite}}, for CSD warnings and anti-biting, respectively.
- 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: None that were overly serious - when I first came in and didn't quite have the grasp of things, I had a bit of an issue where I tried to stop an edit war and didn't really go about it the right way (see here). Another time I tried to point out a somewhat bitey edit by another user and he got a bit annoyed about the comment (linky). Those were both several months ago, and I haven't had any major conflicts since, only the occasional vandal getting pissed because I reverted his edits. In all cases (including the pissed-off vandals), I've tried to deal with the situation as politely and calmly as possible - on the internet, it's impossible to use inflection to help indicate your meaning, so I've tried to be very careful in what I say and how, and will always remember to do so in the future. I adhere as closely as I am able to AGF and civility, and am more than willing to apologize when I don't (which I have done more than once, I'll admit).
Please ask additional questions, I'll try to get to them as soon as possible. If I don't respond in a day, give me a ping on my talk page or email me.
- Optional question from Melsaran
- 4. All of your latest 500 edits (except for some Twinkle edits) were marked as minor. Many of them don't meet the definition at WP:MINOR, and marking major edits as minor provides a discourtesy to people who choose to hide minor edits on their watchlist or in the recent changes. Could you please explain this? Melsaran (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: When I first registered on Wikipedia, my initial intentions were to work mainly in fixing vandalism, so I set in my preferences to mark all edits as minor to save me the time. I have since moved from there, but in general my contributions are not overly major - mostly comments on talk pages and similar changes. When I am making larger or factual changes to articles, I do try to remember to remove the check from the box. I do realize that changes to talk pages such as adding comments and so forth aren't technically considered minor, but in general notes on talk page will be noticed rather quickly anyway, and are not likely to be overly controversial (at least, mine aren't). As a result, the check ox gets left checked perhaps a little more often than it should be, but is something I will work to take note of more often in the future. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd recommend that you turn the "mark my edits as minor" feature off, just to be sure. Marking a major edit as minor is more harmful than marking a minor edit as major. Still, this is a satisfactory answer, thanks! Melsaran (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Well, seeing as how this is about to end and I clearly haven't gotten enough of a consensus, thanks to everyone who participated, including those who opposed. I do hope to have another RfA in another few months, and will work on the concerns addressed. Another extra thanks to KTC, who was kind enough to offer to nominate me this time around, and put in a co-nom instead when I missed his email. See you all around until then. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Hersfold's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Hersfold: Hersfold (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hersfold before commenting.
Discussion
- Per the AfD concerns noted below: I do understand your concerns and will certainly work off of your comments in the coming week. I would ask you to continue to watch my contributions and see how things are progressing. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Strong support as co-nom. KTC 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support he is a exellent editor and can be trusted with the mop. -FlubecaTalk 02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support great editor as shown in his contribs. Very experienced and deserves the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A little more mainspace activity would be nice, but I support anyway, for his great work at the Help Desk and AFC. --Boricuaeddie 02:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Exellent contributions to the projectspace. --Hirohisat Kiwi 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nothing I have seen makes me believe this user would misuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 03:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support For reasons above. Cheers,JetLover 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good editor and impartial unlikely to abuse tools.Harlowraman 04:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support The comments by JayHenry who I respect a great deal left me leaning to oppose. However a review of your last 2000 contributions shows an enormous amount of civility, a genuine desire to help the community and new contributors and you certainly seem able to cite policy. Wether you fully understand the policies is my concern, so I'd advise you to be careful if granted the buttons - however on balance I see no reason not to trust this editor to do the right things. Best. Pedro | Chat 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support No need to ask my usual newcomer question - A brilliant user who assumes good faith--Pheonix15 10:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence that this user would abuse the buttons --SXT4 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per nom. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support per Pedro. The recent issues brought up at AfD are concerning but on the whole this user's contributions appear to be good and solid. I'm not quite willing to overlook so much good effort and work over a couple poor statements in AfD, and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems like a reasonable candidate. I think we can forgive one error of judgment on an AfD - the AfD process is designed to get broad community input, so errors like that can be corrected. WaltonOne 16:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no evidence to suggest that this user will be abusive. Acalamari 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a keen and dedicated user who has great experience in the Wikipedia space and in Wikipedia generally. Mainspace is quite low, no 'ace' contribs, but that isn't too big an issue, and isn't relevant to what he intends to do so pretend I never said that. ;-) This is a good candidate. Lradrama 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As this users first (and still) adoptee, I can say he's been really good at teaching a newcomer the tricks. --Audacitor(tc) 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor. Certainly assumes good faith and shows civility; unlikely to abuse admin tools. Lot's of projectspace edits. Would be good at clearing backlogs with the tools. ♠TomasBat 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very helpful whenever I have come across this user :) Tiddly-Tom 09:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The question I ask myself when I see an RFA is: Is this user likely to misuse the tools? With Hersfold, I am confident that he will try to discuss any controversial admin action, and that he will not abuse the tools. The concerns raised by the oppose voters ("sloppy research at AFD") do not convince me at all, because everyone makes mistakes, and Hersfold's overall pattern of contributions looks good. Melsaran (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have found Hersfold extremely helpful and nice. And yes, I am also concerned with the very relevant issues raised by JayHenry, (goodness, never heard of Russell..arrrrgh!) However, I trust Hersfold when he said that he would "work on that"; he needs to. But bottom line is: this is a guy with exellent knowledge on technical issues (AFAIK), very, very helpful, willing to learn, and, IMO, highly unlikely to misuse the tools. Regards, Huldra 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose You are a good editor but I think you need more time. You have low main space contributions. But it's looking at two of your most recent AFD contributions that leaves me believing you're not ready. You recently argued to keep the guy in that one Mike Jones rap video, and voted to delete this. You described Bertrand Russell as "apparently notable." When challenged about this, instead of checking whether or not he's one of the most important thinkers in the history of human civilization (which he is), you said "Just because I may not know who this person is, does not mean I don't understand Wikipedia policy." Actually, when you fail to look at any context, it does. I don't like to oppose off a few diffs, but in this one discussion alone you failed to understand at the very least WP:SOAP (not even close), WP:NOTE, WP:V and WP:DP. I'm sorry, but I don't trust you evaluating the deletion of articles until you've had more experience. --JayHenry 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose per lack of Mainspace editing, as well as per JayHenry. Jmlk17 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User has 885 mainspace edits... out of curiosity, how many are enough? --SXT4 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been here about 6 months, and have over 1,100 mainspace edits! Politics rule 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but not everyone has the time to make over 1,100 mainspace edits in 6 months. –sebi 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well as an admin needs to be active, that is the point I am getting at! Politics rule 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are different ways to be active. I'm more a fan of the kind of activity that involves peer-reviewing hundreds of articles than the kind that involves voting on every RfA based on nothing but edit count, for example. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of mainspace edits you make in 6 months is not a great way of determining whether you are an active editor or not; I have seen candidates that have made over 11,000 edits in one month, and have made less than 700 or 800 edits for most other months, but this doesn't mean that the candidate is active. Personally, I don't feel that if Hersfold was promoted that he'll become one of many inactive admins, on the contrary. I'm just pointing out the fact that the amount of mainspace edits one makes is not a great way to determine whether an editor is active. –sebi 09:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You meant to respond to Politics rule, right? I agree with you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of mainspace edits you make in 6 months is not a great way of determining whether you are an active editor or not; I have seen candidates that have made over 11,000 edits in one month, and have made less than 700 or 800 edits for most other months, but this doesn't mean that the candidate is active. Personally, I don't feel that if Hersfold was promoted that he'll become one of many inactive admins, on the contrary. I'm just pointing out the fact that the amount of mainspace edits one makes is not a great way to determine whether an editor is active. –sebi 09:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are different ways to be active. I'm more a fan of the kind of activity that involves peer-reviewing hundreds of articles than the kind that involves voting on every RfA based on nothing but edit count, for example. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well as an admin needs to be active, that is the point I am getting at! Politics rule 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but not everyone has the time to make over 1,100 mainspace edits in 6 months. –sebi 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been here about 6 months, and have over 1,100 mainspace edits! Politics rule 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [restarting indent] Yep, directed at Politics rule. Sebi [talk] 06:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User has 885 mainspace edits... out of curiosity, how many are enough? --SXT4 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't think Hersfold would purposely abuse the tools but the Bertrand Russell incident is an ominous sign. Not knowing about Russell is no crime of course. However participating in the AfD about a book without taking the time to follow the link to the author is sloppy and as JayHenry noted, the ensuing stubborness isn't reassuring. I also found a lot of reliance on Google searches to determine notability [13] [14]. In some cases, Google may be a pretty good indicator but it's still a superficial one. I will probably support in the future but as of now, I have to oppose. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per JayHenry and Pascal.Tesson. I likewise agree that Hersfold wouldn't abuse the tools and think he is a fine editor who does great work at AFC, but am compelled to oppose for the following reasons:
- The Why I Am Not a Christian AfD incident is too recent to overlook. When the key issue is the notability of the subject, one should generally comment only after checking for sources, especially if someone else has made a reason argument for keeping (as was the case in the above-mentioned AfD).
- I was also uncomfortable with this comment; specifically, I thought that the suggestion to create a BJAODN WikiProject went against the spirit and letter of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY when one factors in the fact that BJAODN was just supposed to be a 'fun' distraction.
- Finally, in this AfD earlier this month you suggested merging multiple articles and then deleting them. Per the GFDL this is technically not permitted (at least not unless someone manually merges the article histories).
- If you hang around AfD some more (either as an observer or participant), you'd probably be a shoo-in at a future RfA (assuming this one doesn't succeed). — Black Falcon (Talk) 07:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with your parting advice -- I don't think I'd support an admin who supposedly became qualified for adminship by "hanging around AfD". There's much more to Wikipedia, and focusing only on the one part that by definition contains the worst of Wikipedia gives you a skewed perspective. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. Spending too much time at AfD may be both harmful (in terms of what you said) and stressful. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Hersfold, or anyone else for that matter, should spend all or even most of his time at AfD. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with your parting advice -- I don't think I'd support an admin who supposedly became qualified for adminship by "hanging around AfD". There's much more to Wikipedia, and focusing only on the one part that by definition contains the worst of Wikipedia gives you a skewed perspective. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I don't oppose very often these days, but I think some more experience is needed, per the reasons provided by Black Falcon and JayHenry; the Bertrand Russell comment Jay cites in particular makes me think another few months of familiarisation would be beneficial. Neil ム 10:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not knowing who Russell was isn't great but not bothering to look him up before commenting at the AfD shows a lack of care which would be very worrying for someone with admin powers. "References could probably be found (I don't really have the time to check myself at the moment), and it could be arguably notable as the author is apparently notable himself. However, it is a borderline WP:SOAP, and could perhaps provide a bit more background and a bit less quoted material." Reading it again I'm speechless actually. Nick mallory 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Lack of mainspace edits. Politics rule 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting oppose: according to Wannabekate, Hersfold has 888 edits (at this time) to the mainspace, and you have opposed him for lack of mainspace edits. However, you have supported another candidate, who has roughly the same amount of mainspace edits. Acalamari 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but that user's mainspace contribs were of exceptional quality. This user's mainspace contribs are somewhat unsatisfing. --Boricuaeddie 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then PR needs to make an effort to describe this, other than throwing other users off the scent by mentioning "edits" rather than the "quality of edits". –sebi 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point I am trying to get at is that as an admin, he needs to be active, and I do not see that much activity in his edit count! He has a solid overall edit count, but he needs more mainspace. The RFA pointed out above, I supported him because I could see a consise edit count. Politics rule 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And my point is, that making a judgment on a candidate's rate of activity by looking at their edit count isn't a very accurate way to determine whether they are active or not, as explained above. Sebi [talk] 06:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point I am trying to get at is that as an admin, he needs to be active, and I do not see that much activity in his edit count! He has a solid overall edit count, but he needs more mainspace. The RFA pointed out above, I supported him because I could see a consise edit count. Politics rule 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then PR needs to make an effort to describe this, other than throwing other users off the scent by mentioning "edits" rather than the "quality of edits". –sebi 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but that user's mainspace contribs were of exceptional quality. This user's mainspace contribs are somewhat unsatisfing. --Boricuaeddie 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting oppose: according to Wannabekate, Hersfold has 888 edits (at this time) to the mainspace, and you have opposed him for lack of mainspace edits. However, you have supported another candidate, who has roughly the same amount of mainspace edits. Acalamari 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at this time per the comments by Neal, Nick mallory, Black Falcon, Pascal.Tesson, and JayHenry. I would be happy to support after another two months, more experience, etc. Best of luck! Bearian 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD sloppiness. Ouch! Sorry, but not right now. Moreschi Talk 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I came to support, but unfortunately... Xiner (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Black Falcon and Nick mallory. To be frank, I have no confidence in the editor's ability to assess WP:N relative to WP's policies. The idea of the editor speedy deleting or closing AfDs at this time is disconcerting. To compensate for certain deficiencies in the editor's general knowledge, a habit of extraordinary thoroughness must be demonstrated, and that is not presently so. Xoloz 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sloppy research at AfD is one of my bugbears, and such a basic lack of research doesn't bode well for participation in the more complex admin activities. Espresso Addict 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sorry, per above. The lack of mainspace edits and the AFD issue bothers me. =( -ScotchMB 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As well as the Bertrand Russell incident, it's less than two days since this. Anyone can make one mistake, but that's twice in the last week you've not carried out the most basic checking whilst dealing with what a moment's look at the articles would have told you would be particularly contentious AfDs — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am concerned with the AFD issues brought up by others. It would be best if this was fixed before the next RfA. Captain panda 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per the fact that there are issues above that need to be addressed. --Ben hello! 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. An administrator has to check basic facts before acting, and the multiple incidentsJayHenry, Iridescent, and others provided suggests that this may be something of a learning opportunity. If you had a broad record a few really bad days could be overlooked, but your record is somewhat thin and this causes really bad days to stand out more. Participate in fewer AfD discussions per month and spend more time and do more homework before commenting in the ones you do participate in, and try again in a couple of months --Shirahadasha 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per JayHenry mainly, but I look forward to another nomination down the track. Cheers, Daniel 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per candidate's own comments at AfD. I don't like to oppose at RfAs, but this one is very troublesome. The !vote cast in the Why I Am Not a Christian AfD is certainly worrying, but not nearly as disturbing as the candidate's misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policy, in particular the !vote to "merge and delete", which naturally is never an option (an admin needs to know this). I would strongly suggest that the candidate spend some time reviewing our policies (GFDL in particular), guidelines, and the application thereof before considering another RfA. Heather 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Per JayHenry and no need to pile on. —AldeBaer 00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Others' issues are a concern, and not something I would support. –sebi 05:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to support until I came to the Bertrand Russell incident. While it can be forgiven that you didn't know who he was (though he was the most important thinker of the 20th century, philosophy isn't everyone's cup o' tea), I think it shows an overzealousness on your part (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!). While I am sure you were acting in good faith, the fact that you apparently couldn't be bothered to follow a couple of wikilinks is very worrying to me. It seems to me that if a troll nominated this for speedy deletion and you came across it, you might have deleted one of the most important writings of the last 100 years. And considering the recentness, I just can't support at this time. Since you've just started college, I'd recommend waiting a couple months, slow down a bit and maybe take a philosophy class. ;) I believe I would support in the future but not now. faithless (speak) 10:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning to support. Though I usually err on the side of caution and would oppose in a case like this, Hersfold's contributions that I have seen have been wonderful. I think a bit more experience couldn't hurt, especially in mixing it up in content disputes to develop conflict resolution skills, but I generally think
she would use the tools wisely. I just need a more solid assurance ofherunderstanding of policy, especially in regards to deleting articles. VanTucky (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I'm male, actually. It's a common mistake with this username, but just pointing that out. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, so apologies. Thanks for the head's up. VanTucky (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm male, actually. It's a common mistake with this username, but just pointing that out. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I believed that I was going to be able to !vote support, no problem. However, the mutiple opposes have a point, so instead of going "oppose", I will have to for the time say neutral. Sorry mate. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral(sorry...MOTD mate) Sorry, I tried to support before I saw the controversial Russell incident. He is a good editor, light enough and a good editor to lean on, but,like what I'll do, wait until you get the 4 months.K14 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending answer to Q4. Melsaran (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Bertrand Russell incident. Wikipediarules2221 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. For someone whose main contributions are in meta-stuff like AfD, I'd expect to see wiser decisions on AfD. But I will not join this pile-on when apparently half of it is for a pointless, counterproductive, and editcountitis-based reason ("not enough edits per [my preferred unit of time] in [my preferred namespace]"). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Dantheman531
Final: (40/18/4); ended 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Dantheman531 (talk · contribs) - I'm going to self-nom again. I have two previous failed RfA's, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123 2. Please note that I have changed my username since then, I am the same editor as User:Danielrocks123.
I am not the most prolific editor on the project; however, administrator tools would be quite useful for me. Much of my time on Wikipedia is spent using Lupin's anti-vandalism tool to revert vandalism and place warnings on vandals' talk pages. I have also been working with WP:MEDCOM as a mediator in Requests for mediation. I believe that while my editcount may be low by some people's standards (a little more than 3000 edits), I have demonstrated that I will not misuse the admin tools. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would like to be able to block vandals who continue to vandalize after I have warned them several times with {{uw-test}} or {{uw-vandalism}} templates. Because I spend so much of my time fighting vandalism, this would certainly be useful to me. I would also hope to help out with the backlog at WP:CSD, WP:AIV, and CAT:PROD as well as closing out AfD's (Only ones with obvious consensus at first until I have the hang of it more).
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am either the creator or the main editor of the following articles: Gary Wood, Orange Sky (song), Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery (this is one diff that I'm particularly proud of); however, these are not the contributions that I am most proud of. I am most proud of my work on WP:MEDCOM where I help mediate disputes. I think that mediation is an important responsibility of administrators, and I have gained practice through my work on the mediation committee.
- 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: In all honesty, I don't think I have ever been in a situation where other users have caused me stress. I try to keep my cool all the time, not just on Wikipedia. I know that if this were ever to happen to me, I would take a brief break from editing to calm down.
- 4. In your March 4, 2007 RfA(#2), The Rambling Man wrote: Oppose sorry, but but less than 300 edits since November 2006 shows lack of activity, plus a lot of your recent edits seem to be using VandalProof and AWB, I'd like to see more real-life interaction with pages and other editors. ... Spend some more time making edits to articles, communicating with other editors, to show the community how you react in a variety of environments, and re-apply! Please describe your efforts to incorporate these suggestions into your participation in Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: As you can see from my user contributions, I tend to edit in spurts a few months long with breaks sometimes of a month or longer in between. This is due to a schedule that changes often throughout the year. It is true that I use tools such as VP (now I use Lupin's tool more) to find vandalism frequently. Because my role has mostly been as a vandal-fighter, these tools are quite useful. I have tried, however, to increase my substantial edits to articles. Not long ago, I expanded Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery from a two-sentence stub into a full article. Also, my work on the Mediation Committee has continued to help me interact with other users in discussions of content. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Pheonix15
- 5. If you see a newcomer creating an article on his band or street etc, what would you do - Pheonix15 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Obviously, the first thing to do is check out whether the band or street is notable. If it is not notable (which it probably is not), I tag it with {{db-bio}} and place the {{nn-warn}} template on the author's talk page. I think that the nn-warn template is quite effective because it explains why the page is going to be deleted. Users should always be informed about why their articles are being deleted. As a matter of fact, my very first contribution to Wikipedia was an article about my street. Because I received a kind message from another user explaining to me why my article was being deleted, I became interested in Wikipedia policy, which is how I became involved in the project. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Septentrionalis PMAnderson
- 6. Your claim of experience is your work for MedCom. Was one of your cases conducted on-wiki where we can see it? Or is there a notable quarrel was visibly solved by your mediation?
- A: Unfortunately, I am afraid that my answer might disappoint you. My membership in MedCom can be confirmed by looking at WP:MEDCOM; however, formal mediation is considered confidential and privileged. Because of this, it is not within my power to discuss specific mediations, as this cannot be done without violating that confidentiality. I am sorry that I cannot provide you with more information, but I will not violate the terms of formal mediation. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that this user has been a member of the Mediation Committee since December 2006, and from my internal investigating, has mediated at least half a dozen cases (which is a significant amount, given how time-consuming and stressful RfM cases can be - this would be more than many members took, past or present). More significantly, four out of these six have been closed as reaching a compromise solution between the parties (ie. successful), and one is still open.
- The Committee, in discussion on our private mailing list, also supports Daniel's response in that it would be improper to discuss mediation efforts in an environment such as requests for adminship question, per the mediation policy.
- For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Unfortunately, I am afraid that my answer might disappoint you. My membership in MedCom can be confirmed by looking at WP:MEDCOM; however, formal mediation is considered confidential and privileged. Because of this, it is not within my power to discuss specific mediations, as this cannot be done without violating that confidentiality. I am sorry that I cannot provide you with more information, but I will not violate the terms of formal mediation. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Dantheman531's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Dantheman531: Dantheman531 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dantheman531 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Strong support. Dantheman has been around quite a while and is a very able mediator for MedCom. I trust him completely. Although his contributions may not be as consistent as is often looked for in candidates, I feel that Dan has many positive qualities to make up for this. He's shown he understands Wikipedia policies and is a decent recent change patroller. Can only do good things with the mop. WjBscribe 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good to me. Mediation is never a simple thing, and experience has taught me it requires a cool head and patience. Excellent admin qualities. Contribs look good too. No reason to oppose. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- if he is trusted enough to be able to mediate, then I can certainly trust him with the mop. Excellent vandal-fighting, good participation at AfD = no reason to oppose (except Mattew's) :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Matthew makes a good point, but I doubt he will abuse the tools. Politics rule 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Daniel 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't have any previous experience with this user, but I have to say he seems like a good editor. Matthew has a good point, however I think that a wikipedian able to be on the mediation committee is a responsible one. And will not misuse the tools. -FlubecaTalk 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Eddie hit it on the head; I highly doubt that he will abuse the tools, he is a great mediator, he's done his part fighting vandals and has contributed thoughtfully at AfD. Neranei (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - if he's good enough for User:WJBscribe, he's good enough for me. - Philippe | Talk 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good Track and impartial.Harlowraman 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ggod answer to my question. No reason to oppose--Pheonix15 10:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Matthew opposing is usually a good sign the RFA should be supported, as Matthew's trolling of RFAs is becoming more and more facetious (literally and figuratively). Participation on MedCom suggests he understands all he needs to understand. Neil ム 10:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - why not? Good enough answers, MedCom experience is awesome. I'm so not swayed, either, by the opposes here - Alison ☺ 11:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, candidate looks good and MedCom experience is a plus. First oppose is absolutely ludicrous. --Coredesat 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some of the oppose comments are verging on personal attacks. I do wonder how long you'll stay with the project, but can see only limited risks in granting you sysop rights. Xiner (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Oh yes. Q5 is the deal clincher here. You show evidence of checking and understanding and that deleting a newbie's first effort without warning or coaching is a violation of WP:BITE in spirit - something I also feel strongly about. We need more admins with the capacity to check and double check, and who understand the community side of things and I see all of that here. Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Opposers raise no valid concerns. WaltonOne 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Anthøny ん 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposers raise no real concerns, other then my pet peeve of citing using external link brackets. Please try to use <ref> </ref>. Otherwise, support. ~ Wikihermit 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to opposed. ~ Wikihermit 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like someone who will take a good, measured approach to using the mop. Vadder 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't find anything in Dan's contribs that makes me think he can't be trusted with the tools, but the lack of editing in the four months prior to August does trouble me somewhat. But support from people like WJB, Daniel and Alison, whose opinions I value has pushed me over the borderline to a support. If your RfA passes, and you have large gaps in editing again, please make sure that you are up-to-date on any policy/guideline changes before using the tools again because a lot can change in a couple of months. Sarah 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can be sure of that :-) --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The lack of edits don't make me question the fact that he's responsible enough for the mop, and he's got good reason to have it. AR Argon 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like a good user. Acalamari 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice to see a candidate who is active at MedCom can certainly go aways in dealing with disputes admins face. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Level-headed and helpful.--Fahrenheit451 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good mediator who doesn't let Wikipedia dominate his life is, to me, a quality admin. I am distressed by the voters who oppose him for taking Wikibreaks, and by their microscopic passive-aggresive edit-counting ("If you really loved Wikipedia, you'd make 50 edits every month"). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.It's a testament to these RFA voters' complete idiocy that their ideal admin is a brainless drone with no life outside Wikipedia. Faced with this kind of reactions, I'm surprised that any admins still do their "job" at all, instead of letting these half-wits and morons to sink or swim. --Agamemnon2 11:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Please keep criticism constructive and polite. That covers everything, not just comments about the candidate but also regarding those editors contributing to the discussion. Best. Pedro | Chat 19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted. I have therefore withdrawn my support, as I lack the prerequisite qualities to be worthy of casting my vote. Oh well, don't worry, have some pulla. It's better than Support any day of the week. --Agamemnon2 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep criticism constructive and polite. That covers everything, not just comments about the candidate but also regarding those editors contributing to the discussion. Best. Pedro | Chat 19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good mediators make excellent admins. I'm confident in your ability. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a member of MedCom is a trusted editor; however, I too am wondering why you self-nom'd (nomed? nomd?) so quickly after your last RFA (in terms of actual time editing, not the calendar). Unfortunately, we seem to have lost two prolific admins just this week, so we need trusted users to work with any time they can spare. I trust you. - KrakatoaKatie 08:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: An editor on the MedCom trusted by WJBscribe and Daniel is not likely to abuse the tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has the potential, has the backing, but now must be able to produce as well. Good luck! Jmlk17 09:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There are no real problems with this user. There is no reasonable reason not to grant adminship. Captain panda 13:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He takes part in mentoring and mediation. Why not give him mop? Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. None of the oppose arguments sway me to oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit late, but exceedingly strong support. I trust Dan to make the right judgement when dealing with administrator duties. Sebi [talk] 06:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this guy seems a good candidate. His ability to mediate also seems to be good, and I trust his judgement. I hope this passes. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Though
some opposersBlack Falcon raises valid concerns, I do not consider them significant enough to warrant an oppose. But I hope the candidate takes the concerns into consideration. A good user overall and can be trusted with sysop rights. - TwoOars (Rev) 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support inactivity/editcountitis is not a reason to oppose for me. I trust this user with the mop, and each of us has a different level of activity, nothing wrong with that. Having more admins can't hurt. Melsaran (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (changed from neutral). I'm confident he can catch up to recent developments. Mainspace editing experience is a bit of a concern, but not a valid reason to oppose an otherwise trustable user. —AldeBaer 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- He's the man. O.B. Haive 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He will contribute when he can. I sense the requisite knowledge of policy to use the block and delete buttons responsibly. I believe he can be trusted with the tools despite the gaps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose — "I have demonstrated that I will not misuse the admin tools.", no... you've demonstrated you know how to click revert (but you haven't shown you know how to contribute... :-\).[15] Matthew 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew, he's mediated a number of content disputes for MedCom - that's a pretty heavy involvement in the encyclopedia and involve understanding of content, policies and dispute resolution skills. Its not like all he does is revert vandalism. WjBscribe 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Big wow! He "mediated" for the "MedCom"... honestly I couldn't care less about that silly process. I care for contributions (aka mainspace edits), he hasn't demonstrated an ability to make them. Matthew 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right - so how do you propose content disputes get resolved since ArbCom won't deal with them? If people like Dan didn't spend time helping people reach compromises over such disputes we'd end up having to lock down every controversial page. So much for the encyclopedia everyone can edit... I realise its contributing in a different way to you, but it might be nice if you showed a little more respect for other contributors even if they spend time in different areas to you. Dismissing the whole thing as "silly" was totally unnecessary. WjBscribe 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to agree with my position, but you have to accept it. ArbCom is another silly process, which is filled with corruption (basically a disgrace to the project itself). I've honestly not seen a mediation that could be called "successful", either. I don't consider "mediating" a contribution anyway. Matthew 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew, you're not helping. Go play your silly RfA games somewhere else. Maxim(talk) 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Have to accept it"? Where did you get that silly idea? Since when must we swallow everything handed to us? —Kurykh 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can all moan as much as you like and send threats, but yes, you have to accept my position. Matthew 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to agree with my position, but you have to accept it. ArbCom is another silly process, which is filled with corruption (basically a disgrace to the project itself). I've honestly not seen a mediation that could be called "successful", either. I don't consider "mediating" a contribution anyway. Matthew 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew, your edits here, here, here, and here aren't mainspace contributions. (In fact, they look like four instances of inserting a personal attack.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're getting off-topic here. While I don't appreciate Matthew's comments, this isn't really the place to go on about it this way. I think we should leave this to the bureaucrats, who I've no doubt will take the relevance of Matthew's comment into account when determining how much it affects consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right - so how do you propose content disputes get resolved since ArbCom won't deal with them? If people like Dan didn't spend time helping people reach compromises over such disputes we'd end up having to lock down every controversial page. So much for the encyclopedia everyone can edit... I realise its contributing in a different way to you, but it might be nice if you showed a little more respect for other contributors even if they spend time in different areas to you. Dismissing the whole thing as "silly" was totally unnecessary. WjBscribe 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Big wow! He "mediated" for the "MedCom"... honestly I couldn't care less about that silly process. I care for contributions (aka mainspace edits), he hasn't demonstrated an ability to make them. Matthew 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew, he's mediated a number of content disputes for MedCom - that's a pretty heavy involvement in the encyclopedia and involve understanding of content, policies and dispute resolution skills. Its not like all he does is revert vandalism. WjBscribe 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, you say you want to help with backlogs but you don't have very many edits per month. More frightening though, you've barely edited at all in the past four months, only to spring up again and then go for another RFA surprisingly quick. And comparing the months you edit in to your RFAs, you seem to be working extra hard to pass RFA, and then ignoring WP until you think you're ready to run again, this makes me think you either don't think you can contribute very well without a mop, or that you're someone's sock. I'm sorry, but even without these concerns you've got less than 800 edits this year, that's only 100 edits a month, not to mention long periods of inactivity, which makes me think you don't really care about cleaning out backlogs --lucid 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, I do have spurts of activity on Wikipedia. I have a schedule that changes frequently, meaning that I sometimes have long periods of inactivity. I am not ignoring Wikipedia during those times, rather I am not able to edit. I am certainly not anybody's sock. As far as clearing out backlogs goes, my being present to help sometimes helps more than my never contributing at all. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what are we to do if on one of your multi-month long breaks (I find it hard to believe you can't spare ten minutes a day to cleaning up backlogs, and if you can't, that you can actually give any real help on the matter) and someone has a dispute that needs your attention, or someone compromises your account? Shira below also said somewhat more clearly what I was thinking, that you haven't really given yourself room to improve since your last RFA, nor given us room to see that you have improved. Nobody is expecting admins to put in hours a day, but if you leave the project entirely for weeks and months at a time that brings up serious concerns both about your commitment to improving Wikipedia, and your ability to actually use the tools. And no offense, but just saying that you are not a sock does not make me any more comfortable with you not being one. --lucid 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disputes can always be handled by another administrator, and account compromises are no more likely for an inactive account than they are for an active account. "Oppose, he takes wikibreaks" is a terrible argument and has no bearing on someone's capabilities as an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of our best administrators leave for weeks and months at a time. Commitment to the project isn't determined by the amount of obsession you demonstrate by editing a huge amount every day. That just shows a lack of a social life and anything better to do. I recommend you re-assess your standards for adminship. - Mark 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what are we to do if on one of your multi-month long breaks (I find it hard to believe you can't spare ten minutes a day to cleaning up backlogs, and if you can't, that you can actually give any real help on the matter) and someone has a dispute that needs your attention, or someone compromises your account? Shira below also said somewhat more clearly what I was thinking, that you haven't really given yourself room to improve since your last RFA, nor given us room to see that you have improved. Nobody is expecting admins to put in hours a day, but if you leave the project entirely for weeks and months at a time that brings up serious concerns both about your commitment to improving Wikipedia, and your ability to actually use the tools. And no offense, but just saying that you are not a sock does not make me any more comfortable with you not being one. --lucid 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per lack of consistent, overall editing.Jmlk17 03:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Moving to support, per further examination. Jmlk17 09:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reconsidering. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to support, per further examination. Jmlk17 09:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, I do have spurts of activity on Wikipedia. I have a schedule that changes frequently, meaning that I sometimes have long periods of inactivity. I am not ignoring Wikipedia during those times, rather I am not able to edit. I am certainly not anybody's sock. As far as clearing out backlogs goes, my being present to help sometimes helps more than my never contributing at all. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Matthew and Lucid.
Also per q2, in the diff you showed you formatted the citations as embedded links instead of using inline citations which shows to me that you may be unfamiliar with <ref>...</ref> footnotes.T Rex | talk 04:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Struck out as it has nothing to do with being an admin. T Rex | talk[reply]- Not using <ref>...</ref> footnotes is one of the lamest reasons to oppose I have ever seen. Neil ム 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, it shows he's infamiliar with citing and probably doesn't understand WP:V, one of the most important policies. T Rex | talk 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the fact of his adding multiple references, even if improperly formatted and suboptimally clear (that is, without hovering over or clicking on a link, one may not observe what the reference actually is), suggest that he appreciates well that referencing is important? I probably hate embedded link citations as much as anyone, but it seems to me that one's using them over nothing suggests that he understands WP:V and the importance of our citing reliable sources (whether an admin should have knowledge of preferred footnote formatting is a separate question, but I'm inclined to think that just as familiarity with or facility in mainspace ought not to be understood prerequisites for adminship, unfamiliarity with footnote formatting should not be understood as disqualifying, or even as indicative of an editor's misunderstanding fundamental policies). Joe 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dinosaur puppy, I think you've proved you don't understand WP:V, rather than Dan. References do not have to be inline to fulfil verifiability requirements, they just have to be there. Inline is merely a formatting choice, and embedded links are just as acceptable; I still use them sometimes when I'm feeling lazy, someone else will fix them if it bothers them that much - the important thing is the reference is there. Neil ム 09:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the fact of his adding multiple references, even if improperly formatted and suboptimally clear (that is, without hovering over or clicking on a link, one may not observe what the reference actually is), suggest that he appreciates well that referencing is important? I probably hate embedded link citations as much as anyone, but it seems to me that one's using them over nothing suggests that he understands WP:V and the importance of our citing reliable sources (whether an admin should have knowledge of preferred footnote formatting is a separate question, but I'm inclined to think that just as familiarity with or facility in mainspace ought not to be understood prerequisites for adminship, unfamiliarity with footnote formatting should not be understood as disqualifying, or even as indicative of an editor's misunderstanding fundamental policies). Joe 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, it shows he's infamiliar with citing and probably doesn't understand WP:V, one of the most important policies. T Rex | talk 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not using <ref>...</ref> footnotes is one of the lamest reasons to oppose I have ever seen. Neil ム 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'm not so much worried by the gaps in editing (as long as the editor has a strong password), but the lack of evidence of encyclopedia building and of discussion on article talk pages suggests the editor has yet to achieve sufficient experience for the admin role. Espresso Addict 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I am concerned by the low edit count regarding the amount of months you've spent here - especially the fact you've made a frightfully low number of contributions in the months running up to this. Has the significant rise in edit count been for the sake of this? Extremely inconsistent editor, with low mainspace and wikipedia space contributions. Not ready yet. Lradrama 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Lack of talk space and that 3 month gap looks weird. Also after reading the answers it looks like the candidate is only going to fight vandalism. That can be done without being an admin. More interaction with other editors would change my vote to a support. -ScotchMB 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Espresso Addict. I'd advise the candidate to get more experience building out articles past stub/start class. Majoreditor 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lack of recent activity (only 4 edits made between 29 March and 9 August). Singopo 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Singopo. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. Inactivity itself is not an issue for me, but the accompanying lack of familiarity with developments during that time may be. I bring this up because of two recent AfD nominations by the candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Almontaser and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kern's. Although sources were found and added in each case, that's not why I'm opposing; rather, the wording of both nominations suggests a lack of research on the subject prior to starting the AfDs. Normally, I wouldn't oppose for just two AfD noms, but there's also the fact that these two nominations constitute 50% of the candidate's AfD noms since he resumed editing earlier this month. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will admit that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kern's was a bad nom, but I am still convinced that Debbie Almontaser fails WP:BLP1E. The only thing that she is notable for is one incident. She is newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. The consensus was to keep, so I go along with it, though I disagree. --דניאל - Dantheman531 05:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the case for notability is rather weak and I don't have an issue with the fact that you nominated the article for deletion. However, I just couldn't see from your nomination statement that you researched the article prior to the AfD. You wrote "I do not think that she is notable", but didn't explain why (Is it because there are no reliable sources about her? Is it that the sources provide only trivial coverage? Or, is it that the coverage is always in the context of another event?) If you did research the subject beforehand and this was merely an issue of failing to communicate the results of that research, please let me know so that I can modify my comment accordingly. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before nominating an article for AfD, I always do at least a quick Google search. If it seems like the subject might be notable, I always follow up. Checking through each page on Google, I was really only finding articles about the incident where she was selling "intifada" shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman531 (talk • contribs) 14:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I have changed my comment to "weak oppose" and may change to 'neutral' or 'support' after reviewing your recent contributions some more. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reconsidering. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. I have changed my comment to "weak oppose" and may change to 'neutral' or 'support' after reviewing your recent contributions some more. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before nominating an article for AfD, I always do at least a quick Google search. If it seems like the subject might be notable, I always follow up. Checking through each page on Google, I was really only finding articles about the incident where she was selling "intifada" shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman531 (talk • contribs) 14:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the case for notability is rather weak and I don't have an issue with the fact that you nominated the article for deletion. However, I just couldn't see from your nomination statement that you researched the article prior to the AfD. You wrote "I do not think that she is notable", but didn't explain why (Is it because there are no reliable sources about her? Is it that the sources provide only trivial coverage? Or, is it that the coverage is always in the context of another event?) If you did research the subject beforehand and this was merely an issue of failing to communicate the results of that research, please let me know so that I can modify my comment accordingly. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will admit that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kern's was a bad nom, but I am still convinced that Debbie Almontaser fails WP:BLP1E. The only thing that she is notable for is one incident. She is newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. The consensus was to keep, so I go along with it, though I disagree. --דניאל - Dantheman531 05:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per pretty much all comments above --Ben hello! 05:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Though you've obviously improved, you haven't contributed in the recent past consistently enough for me to be comfortable endorsing you. It's not a threshold of edit coutn you must pass, but you must have enough edits made for me to judge your contributions satisfactorily, and you don't imo. Also per Lucid's comments. VanTucky (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose - recent support voters don't appear to be making any sense - there's nothing wrong with taking wikibreaks - however reasonble concerns have been raised in regard to low amount of contributions since his last RfA. Addhoc 13:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - As per VanTucky - I am sorry, my friend. I do not believe you are experienced enough in terms of editing articles. (But other than that, everything is fine) ScarianTalk 00:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose, sorry. Too many concerns.--Húsönd 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Even if he is a mediator, his editing between RfA 2 and 3 conveys some power hunger. Maxim(talk) 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Power hunger? What happened to AGF..? WjBscribe 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. ~ Wikihermit 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Power hunger? What happened to AGF..? WjBscribe 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Maxim. We don't need sysops running around acting like they have a badge. ~ Wikihermit 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "A badge" - sorry, what is this a reference to? WjBscribe 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry but a long wiki-break very soon after the last unsuccessful nomination, followed quickly by a large number of minor edits and then a self-nom when the nominee re-appeared does raise concerns about temperament in the face of stress and obsession with becoming an admin at the expense of contributing. Also, for somebody who aims to focus primarily on vandal fighting, has very few edits to AIV and therefore too little exposure to the escalation process. TigerShark 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral leaning on support - Lucid's got a point there. I don't think you'll abuse the mop, but I would like to see a little more active editing. I do support the fact that you've been a great med. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral My basic problem here is not that you don't have a hundred edits a day and it's not that you've had periods of inactivity -- I myself had to absent for nearly two months and slow down the pace of my editing. My problem is that you had an RFA in March, you had almost no edits at all between March and August 14 -- literally a handful -- and then in the last two weeks there's a spurt of edits and then another RfA. And not only that, but this isn't even the first time. Something similar happened between the November and the March RfAs. Why not take the community's advice and edit steadily for a couple of months? You don't have to edit all the time, just enough to show interest and to show a (mostly) consistent presence. --Shirahadasha 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my response to Lucid's oppose above. Thank you. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral For a dedicated vandal fighter, the low number of reports to AIV makes me wonder if you're really qualified to block users, but I'm not going to oppose solely because of that Corpx 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralper Shirahadasha - basically a good candidate, however a few days after your last RfA you stopped editing and then only restarted this month, apart from about a dozen edits in between. Would prefer at least 50 edits per month between RfAs. Addhoc 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral [16], you made few edits after you last Rfa before becoming active within the last month. A more consistent editing pattern would be better. --Hdt83 Chat 03:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Black Falcon's reasoning. —AldeBaer 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)(changed to support)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Anonymous Dissident
(165/1/2) final Raul654 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) - Dear fellow Wikipedians....
I'm simply delighted to announce Anonymous Dissident as a candidate for adminship.
Anonymous Dissident, has had a previous RfA fail over CSD concerns. He has since improved greatly as an editor, and has really improved on his speedy deletion tagging. As admins will notice, he appropriately nominates many page for speedy deletion. ( [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] ). He is a good vandal-fighter. He correctly recognizes vandalism, reverts it, and appropriately warns the user. ( [22] [23] [24] [25] ) As well as reverting and warning users, he correctly reports persistent vandals to WP:AIV ([26] which lead to this)
Anonymous Dissident is an amazing article writer. His mainspace contributions are very well balanced with his reverts. He has written over 60 articles, and a glance on his talkpage on August 26 reveals 11 DYK notices, and he had two in a day. As well, his userpage says that he has created 92 different articles, 27 templates, and he also founded WikiProject Malta. He has contributed extensively to 4 good articles. Not many users can boast something like this.
I offered to nominate Anonymous Dissident around July, completely unaware of his previous unsuccessful RfA. He declined, and told me he wanted to wait. I took the opportunity to observe his editing patterns, and I found him to be a very mature and trustworthy user. He doesn't lose his cool, and he is a polite and responsible user. He is very prepared for this new set of responsibilities. Maxim(talk) 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nom by Wizardman: Well, I know a great potential administrator when I see one (we've figured that out by now), and Anonymous Dissident may be one the better hidden secrets yet. Well, he's been on the RfA talk page, at DYK, and elsewhere, so he's certainly not hidden. As Maxim has pointed out, he has been great at all aspects of Wikipedia, and I think that having him as an admin would be very beneficial to the Wikipedia community. His contributions pretty much speak for themselves. Wizardman 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by DarkFalls I first met Anonymous Dissident on the talk page (ironically) of the requests for adminship process. Since then, he has proven himself to be a thoughtful and experienced user, editing in various fields of article and project related tasks. I believe he will make a great and helpful admin, with his incredible article creation skills, sound judgement, and phenomenal DYK entries. In administrator-related tasks, I believe that AD will be able to help in new page patrol and clearing of CAT:CSD and the blocking of disruptive users and problematic usernames. In closing, I believe that Anonymous Dissident will be a great asset to Wikipedia as an administrator and it is my pleasure to co-nom such a prolific editor. --DarkFalls talk 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by Melsaran: I am honoured to co-nominate Anonymous Dissident for adminship. He has been with us for 7 months now, and in that time he accounted almost 10,000 edits, well-spread across the namespaces. He is a regular at WP:RFCN, where his comments are always constructive and polite, he is involved with WikiProject Malta, which he founded, and has written many fine articles. I truly believe that having Anonymous Dissident as an administrator would benefit the project greatly, and hope that you will consider granting him the mop. Melsaran (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with a huge amount of gratitude for the well-written nom(s). -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: My intent is to use the tools in a wide variety of areas; to block vandals reported at WP:AIV and inappropriate usernames reported at WP:UAA, participate, determine consensus, and act accordingly at WP:RFC/N, close XFDs which have consensus from the community to either keep or delete and see if I can help with the numerous posts at WP:ANI. These are areas to which I already participate on a fairly regular basis, and I feel I could use the administrative tools to the community's advantage in these areas. However, I feel that, in addition to these areas, which are areas that already enjoy a good deal of administrative attention, I could use the tools in more obscure, and often backlogged, areas, such as checking deleted contributions at WP:USURP (where I already clerk, on occasion), helping clear the T:DYK backlog (and helping to make sure updates there are as on time as possible), and possibly, despite my relative inexperience in this area, helping to clear the backlog that seems to pervade WP:SSP.
- Finally, I would, just as I said at my last RFA, participate in clearing the CSD backlog. This deserves, as far as I can see, a little section to itself, because several mistakes relating to this particular area made by me was the main reason my last RFA was withdrawn. I had had problems determining and understanding the criteria for speedy deletion, and even after my first RFA, it seemed I could still not properly comprehend it, when people still remarked on my incorrect tagging with CSD tags. It was then that I realised that it was a problem, stopped tagging new pages for a while, sat down, and thoroughly read the CSD, and then I re-read it. I feel now that, after doing this, that I should not have any further issues in this area, and have not since figuratively burning the CSD right into my skull.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My articles. I have written 92 articles on Wikipedia, of which 61 have been featured on the main page as part of DYK, and of which 4 are good articles.Article writing is something I greatly enjoy doing - it gives one a sense of satisfaction and pride in hard work, and I figure its what this project is really about: the content.
- 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: As I am now, I don't usually, and try not to get into conflicts. However, I know that, if I become an admin, conflicts are inevitable, because of the nature of the access. To try and answer this question, I will refer to my earlier days at Wikipedia. Shortly after coming here, I began writing articles on a variety of subjects. While some were accepted, and were acceptable content, a few were deleted/merged/redirected. One of these included an article on Umaril The Unfeathered, some character from a computer game I used to play. Someone proposed a merging of the content into a certain list of characters from the game, to my annoyance. However, after a bit of a debate, the decision was that the content was merged. After this, I conceded that it was probably for the best, and that I had realised my mistake.
- How would I deal with conflicts in the future? I think that is important to remember to be polite and respectful of the the person. If I were to start to feel unable to continue being polite, respectful and tolerant, then I would know that it is time to press the little red 'X' tab at the top right hand corner of the page, and take a little break from Wikipedia, for a necessary amount of time. I think that trying to see then other person's point of view also helps a great deal.
Optional from User:Navou
- 4. Is your password a strong password as defined by "..no dictionary words and sufficiently long, random, or otherwise producible only by the user who chose it, such that successfully guessing it will require too long a time".
- A: mine is a password that I would define as strong; it is something that does not exist in the English language, and it is alphanumeric. I would say it is pretty much impossible to guess randomly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 4.1Could you briefly explain the relationship between voting and consensus generating discussion (or difference)?
- A: As is stated at WP:CON, Wikipedia works by building consensus through community discussion, and, as stated at WP:VOTE, decisions here in the project "are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus". As is also stated, voting or polling should be used with care because such a process is particularly liable to several significant flaws, in regards to the decision that is made and how it is made, and proper community discussion encourages many productive and good things; as is stated at WP:VOTE, the best solution to an issue can often be missed simply because it was not one of the options in a vote situation. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional but cool question by JetLover'
- 5. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would you change?
- A: I'm not sure, actually. I think that several Wikipedia processes, perhaps, including, possibly, the RFA system, may possibly need some review, but I also think that Wikipedia's general, internal structure is fairly good, and I think its goal and purpose are good, and to the benefit of mankind as a whole. Wikipedia continues to prosper, flourish, and grow continually larger. I think that it is a marvelous project. I just wish that the world recognised it as more reliable; much of the time, the content here is well sourced and fairly reliable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dekimasu
- 6. When, if ever, is it appropriate to treat young Wikipedians differently from other editors?
- A: There are several instances where this probably should occur; the most major and prominent example of when it is appropriate to treat young Wikipedians differently, I think, is the restriction to certain access levels, such as Oversight. On an aside, it is important to note that Wikipedia is not censored [for minors]. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from User:Rspeer
- 7. If you become an admin, you will of course have the ability to block users, but in checking your contributions I found an edit that makes me think you take blocking too lightly. You once recommended that User:Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!, a long-existing account with good-faith contributions, should be indefinitely blocked on the sole basis that the username would be difficult to type into the search box. Do you still feel that this was justified? Do you think it is reasonable to apply the username policy by indefinitely blocking even minor offenses? Why was this course of action preferable to using the {{UsernameConcern}} template on the user's talk page?
- A: In heinsight, I feel a report to WP:RFCN, where the community could discuss the name, would have been more appropriate. Of course, had I taken this action, I would first have placed {{UsernameConcern}} on the users talk page, and then waited for a response: they may have been very willing to change their username. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Anonymous Dissident's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Anonymous Dissident: Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Anonymous Dissident before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Strong support as nom. Maxim(talk) 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen AD around a bunch, and I have little concern about his mop wielding. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All my interactions with AD have been positive. He's also good at interacting with others. Has use for the tools and will be a good Admin. Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without hesitation. A fabulous article writer, and a great member of our encyclopedia. Should be excellent. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- edit conflict support I've only seen good contributions from AD, who seems to be active in many different areas of WP, and I'd trust him with the mop. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EC * 3 support. I've seen him a lot around WT:RFA. Great article writer and user in general, would make a great admin. — Malcolm (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Yes, finally I get to !vote for this guy. Article writer, vandal fighter, template creator. Yes, yes, yes. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Been watchlisted support :-). ~ Wikihermit 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - absolutely. - Philippe | Talk 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I leave to grab a bite and I'm this far down already? Wow. Support as co-nom. Wizardman 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've just spent the last 20 minutes going through your contribs and I've got to say I'm very impressed, I couldn't fault you and I think you will be fine with the extra couple of buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)#Über support - I wanted to nominate him, but Wizardman and Maxim got there first. :) He will make an excellent admin! Good luck! I'm impressed! Neranei (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support: User would make a great admin, on top of his great contributions he has shown that he cared enough about the project to take the time to address the concerns raised in his last RFA. Nothing here worth opposing over. IvoShandor 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - absolutely. Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I offered to nominate him last month, but he wanted to allow a decent interval since last RfA - which he has done. A quite excellent editor, who has shown a deep level of understanding of wiki policy and of wiki procedures, and who has clearly addressed the concerns raised in his last RfA. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate with a strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Duh! Give them the tools. Jmlk17 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest support humanely possible. This dude isn't an admin?!? ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?! AR Argon 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Good luck Carlosguitar 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks solid to me - no obvious trouble spots. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have been waiting to see this RfA come around again. This user is extremely active here on enwiki, I have seen him on more than a few of my RC refreshes, its actually a bit unnerving to recognise someone so much on RC!.... But I say an active admin is a good admin. It will be good to have AD with the admin tools. aliasd·U·T 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen AD around, and all sightings have left me with no reason to oppose. J-stan TalkContribs 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for launching this RfA while I was at school!!!! :-) Seriously, an excellent editor. The DYK work is exceptional. I think he'll be one of the best admins ever (no offense, Husond) :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, in agreement with the statements by the co-nominator, Wizardman (talk · contribs), above. Shinealight2007 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support Good editor. Politics rule 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Candidate wouldn't let me nominate them :'( Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Oh, yes. I have been waiting to support in this RfA for quite some time now. Captain panda 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible support (How often do I get to write that?) I was one of the folks who opposed Anonymous Dissident's first RFA because of mistaken speedy deletion tagging. It is plainly obvious that he has learned from his mistakes, and this is no longer a problem. In all respects, he is a model Wikipedian, and totally ready for the responsibilities of active adminship. Shalom Hello 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. definatly deserves the mop!--Hu12 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
- Strong Support should have been an admin before! -Lemonflash(do something) 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very nice answers and seems like a reliable person. However, I was just a tiny bit concerned on how in the beginning he neglected to write edit summaries but it seemed that he changed and have been actively describing his edits. -ScotchMB 00:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exetremely super strong support - Seen him on Afds for a while, this user will definatly be a great admin. Good Luck (wait....I shouldn't wish...I should expect). --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support mopifying this experienced, versatile, trustworthy and dedicated user. Excellent job. Húsönd 01:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has clue. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Darn. Should have nominated them earlier like I planned to do. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have only seen good things from this editor and think he'll make a first rate admin. Contrib history shows he knows what he's doing - time to give him the mop and bucket. WjBscribe 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've seen AD around AfD for a while and he's usually right on the money. I think AD will make a fine admin. —Travistalk 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportGreat track ,experienced and inpartial.Harlowraman 02:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Brilliant editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is time to give this user the added tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I'm satisfied with the current sysop potential of this user and with his maturity level. — madman bum and angel 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AD is a fine contributor and great admin material. κaτaʟavenoTC 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor with a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. --Hdt83 Chat 02:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Only annoyed that I didn't see this until now. --John 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 60 DYKs and 4 GAs Support Please keep up the good work! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good writer and a nice person; why the heck not.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great noms, article writing, seen AD around. Knows policy AND how to interact collaboratively, what a combo! :) Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as long as you promise not to let adminship distract you too much from the excellent article writing you do! --JayHenry 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - His work on WP:DYK and helping us document which users are active there is quite helpful.Bakaman 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The nom has it right. --Bduke 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - give the chap a mop! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - contribution history is excellent in both articles and technical work, and good reasons presented for wanting to be an admin. I agree with JayHenry though - don't let adminiship divert you from the article writing. Euryalus 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, definitely. –sebi 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Would have nominated him myself except I'm not good at writing nominations. --Richard 05:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not phased. Your advice was helpful, and I am grateful for that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as co-nom. (Yes I know I am late, but I mixed up my times) --DarkFalls talk 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries DF - you still did, and I am very thankful. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I have nothing but good things to say about AD, and I would feel very comfortable with him having a mop --lucid 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong all round candidate, the diff highlighted below and commented on by others does not concern me. I see an excellent, civil, friendly and helpful, user who I trust totally to use the buttons when required. Pedro | Chat 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support For sure. Very competent all round. Recurring dreams 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This young editor is very smart and gives good advice and a trusted Wikipedian. He would make an excellent admin. King Lopez Contribs 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seen this user's contribs at AIV, they have my support. - Philippe | Talk 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, you already supported :) - see #9. WjBscribe 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seen this user's contribs at AIV, they have my support. - Philippe | Talk 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - You didn't let me nom you. — Giggy 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey hey! Its a two way thing! You didn't let me nom you at your last RFA! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You wouldn't have wanted to, I imagine Husond and Acalamari would like to drown me in a shallow pond (it's more painful that way). Besides, you never indicated that....and I did (right?). — Giggy 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well - you have got me there. I would have nommed, but all the same. :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You wouldn't have wanted to, I imagine Husond and Acalamari would like to drown me in a shallow pond (it's more painful that way). Besides, you never indicated that....and I did (right?). — Giggy 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey hey! Its a two way thing! You didn't let me nom you at your last RFA! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially had concerns when I saw this RfA about whether AD had enough experience in mainspace. I apologise for being so totally wrong, per the numbers in Q2. Daniel 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support AD is a civil and level headed user would would make a great admin and use the tools wisely. --Chris G 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dfrg.msc 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate is an industrious encyclopedia builder. Should be an excellent admin. Majoreditor 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Super-Stong support I was sure this user was an admin already--Pheonix15 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this user around the project, and he's always seemed courteous and helpful to all. I have no problem with this guy getting a mop. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I offered to nom him too support - his conduct on the project is exemplary, he has good dispue resolution skills, communicates well and writes brilliantly. Whats not to like? ViridaeTalk 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems an excellent choice. - Modernist 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally. —AldeBaer 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - all the best. Khukri 14:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? An RFA for an editor who I thought had already got adminship? Seriously, I thought you were an admin. :-) Stwalkerster talk 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate has made a tangible improvement since their last RFA, and I have no qualms about seeing them given the tools. VanTucky (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I've seen his editing in various places, and he certainly is admin material. Plus, I totally figured out how to make signatures by (secretly) stealing his code. :x He certainly is a fine candidate and deserves the position to the fullest! -- Tommy Boy ♪ ♪ 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <edit conflict>support crossed paths frequently enough to recognise this editor, nothing of concern. Gnangarra 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seen this editor around and like what I've seen. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huge Support He defiantly deserves this because he is a trustworthy user who is also a great contributer. I defiantly trust this user with the sysop responsibilities and powers. Yamaka122 ...:) 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sadly I didn't get to nominate him - I would have liked to submit a co-nomination, but too late now. Anyway, an excellent candidate, and it's good to see that being young is not a barrier to becoming an administrator; I'm glad that we can judge candidates on their demonstrated maturity, not on arbitrary factors. Opposers raise no serious concerns; submitting one RfCN nom in error is hardly a good reason to oppose, IMO (especially since the username policy is somewhat vague, hence why we have RfCN in the first place). And, with all due respect to Matthew, his oppose is incredibly unhelpful (as per normal). WaltonOne 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support as co-nom, excellent candidate. Melsaran (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for a great co-nom statement Melsaran. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support- Offered to co-nom but missed the gun. Deserves the mop by nowPerfect Proposal Speak out loud! 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support2 Conducts himself to the higher standards by which admins are held. Wide range of experience. Thoughtful contributor. Trustworthy. I would have co-nomed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support3 Reports to AIV, my major point of contact with the candidate, always have the "t"'s crossed and the "i"'s dotted (warnings given, vandal active). Trustworthy, and then some. LessHeard vanU 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deserves the mop -FlubecaTalk 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've been waiting for this... always an excellent voice in discussions in Wikipedia space. Pinball22 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great Wikipedia maintenance assistance, and even better encyclopedia contributions. I look forward to seeing you do more at DYK. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a fine candidate. - eo 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - absolutely no problems here, excellent editor, will use the mop well. ELIMINATORJR 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is about to set a record on the RfA that gained the most supports in a set amount of time, and definitely not without good reason. Anonymous Dissident has to be one of the wisest 12-year olds (I'm slightly older, so I need to tend to my horrible back. :-P) I've ever met. He could definitely use the tools. –Animum 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I trust this user. AD responds well to criticisms, and I have no worries about tool abuse.--ragesoss 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Your principal opposes in your last nom were for a tendency to be a bit too quick to tag articles for speedy delete without checking your facts. Looks like you've been around a bit since then and gained some experience on how this issue is handled, and you've otherwise been a generally good editor. Look forward to having you as an admin. --Shirahadasha 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, changed from oppose, (see below). After a bit of thought, I think he'll be just as trustworthy an administrator as he has been an amazing editor. justen 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Absolutely. Excellent editor with plenty enough experience to make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EXTREME MAXIMUM SUPPORT I thought you were an admin! Cheers,JetLover 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a good editor. Lot's of support from others and good edits. I see no reason to oppose, so I support. ♠TomasBat 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You have an excellent record as an editor and I'm sure you will be trusted as an administrator. I find minimal or no flaws in your editing skills. :)--PrestonH 05:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've seen him around, and he knows his stuff.--Danaman5 06:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - This user definitly knows what he is doing. andrewrox424 Bleep 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Great editor, great writer, helpfull person. Whats there not to like? —Zan orath 07:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Y not? 08:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 100th support, 100% with pleasure! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good luck! The Rambling Man 08:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, definitely. Rather overdue, methinks ;P. Good luck! CattleGirl talk 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, oh I mean Support, per above. We don't agree 100%, but so what? He's amazingly prolific. Bearian 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - I am surprised I hadn't gotten here sooner! And I don't think there is anything I need to say which hadn't been said already. -- Chris.B 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good editor. Everyking 13:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've been highly impressed with AD. It is about time he got his mop. i said 13:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, I've had the pleasure of knowing AD for a while, and I find him to be helpful, extremely knowledgeable, polite, willing to discuss issues without any sign of irritation, and an excellent Recent Changes patroller. His work at RFCN has been of significant assistance to me personally, when I first began participating, and I always felt I could go to him with any questions, confident he would offer his opinion, in a neutral way. I respect Justen, and understand his concerns, as we've had discussions on the RFCN Talk page. I do think that the issues raised had to do with interpretation, and the RFCN board is there for just that reason, to get input from the community, some of whom may see things differently than others may. I think in the case mentioned, RFCN served its purpose excellently. I have no concerns that AD isn't willing to listen, research, and ask questions and opinions prior to taking actions that may have repercussions, and I'm sure he'll tread lightly into areas that may be less familiar. In conclusion, I think it would be highly appropriate to grant this excellent contributor to Wikipedia the extra tools to allow him to assist in an even wider variety of ways. Ariel♥Gold 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: ITYWAAA. dr.ef.tymac 13:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor. I think that now is a very appropriate moment for AD to be promoted. James086Talk | Email 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find no reason to believe the editor would misuse the tools. I'll support. Navou banter 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor; it's time for the mop. Xoloz 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per noms and above. PeaceNT 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent editor, and I think that he'll do an excellent job with the tools as well. Boy1jhn 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I was taken aback by his previous RFA, because I had always seen him as a cautious but productive editor, and was surprised at those diffs. He seems ever willing to take advice and criticism, and I think his new, deeper understanding of CSD is a good example of it. He'll be a good admin and probably even better as time goes on. Rigadoun (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hiberniantears 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - I started editing Wikipedia at the same time as this editor and, seen as I've interacted with him on a few occasions, I know how he works quite well. This user is an excellent, absolutely excellent editor, who has made phenomonal progress since he started and I would trust him in a very big way with the tools. Just look at Kate's tool and the areas he works in, and the answers to the questions. That says it all. Lradrama 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Okay. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will mop wisely. Welcome to our nightmare. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Matthew. Will make a fine admin. --Kbdank71 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nothing I've seen makes me worry about him abusing his position Ealdgyth | Talk 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unneeded pile-on but oh-well Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unnecessary support. I have run into this editor a few times, and have had only good interactions with him. I honestly thought he already was an admin. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Miranda 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MONGO 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- + Might as well add my well respected name to the who's who of this support Now removes tongue from cheek. Good editor, don't burn out. Keegantalk 04:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I just feel the need to have my "tag" plastered over all RfA's --Ben hello! 05:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought he was an admin already. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this user has obviously benefited the project with stellar contributions (can't beat 4 good article contribs and
1161<--that's stellar DYKs) and a nice bit of vandal cleanup. Would be great with the tools...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- It's actually 61 DYKs... :)--DarkFalls talk 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually 61 DYKs... :)--DarkFalls talk 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think that this user has surely earned the trust of the Wikipedia community by now. As such, let's trust him with the mop. Nihiltres(t.l) 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor. LARA♥LOVE 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better late than never support I've been very impressed with himBalloonman 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems to have the trust of the community. WilyD 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Absolutely. Trusilver 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong member of Delta Ypsilon Kappa (DYK) team. :) - Darwinek 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent contributions, very thougtful and insightful replies to the RfA questions as well as in day to day activities. Great vandal fighter. Can definitely be trusted with the mop. Dreadstar † 21:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - appears dedicated to project and willing to learn. Agathoclea 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ∞ly Strong Support Best admin candidate for a long, long time. GDonato (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hmmm. Let me think for a second. No, wait, just a support :). Exceptional answers and contribs, as I would expect from my experiences with him. ck lostsword•T•C 22:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Damn how'd I miss this one, but oh well one more can't harm. Khukri 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh... you didn't. Check No.70 :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Damn how'd I miss this one, but oh well one more can't harm. Khukri 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent candidate/contributor with impressive answers to the above questions ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am convinced that Anonymous Dissident will make a fine administrator, and will address the concerns listed in the oppose and neutral sections. Acalamari 01:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am also convinced. I have seen him around, he's friendly, and makes valuable contributions which will only improve when he's an administrator. All the best. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very competent and dedicated editor who seems committed to Wikipeida. TimidGuy 11:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support also favorably impressed. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well, very surprised this person wasn't an admin before, and unanimous pass, I think;K14 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, phew, so glad I made it in time - I wouldn't have forgiven myself if I didn't support this "awesome" candidate! ;) Phaedriel - 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Answer to Q7 adequately addresses my only concern. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I expect that Anonymous Dissident will put his experience to good use as an admin. GracenotesT § 06:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- zOMG!! Pile-on Support - super editor, excellent knowledge of policy. Tons of experience - Alison ☺ 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answer to Q7. When you are in doubt or if you think you are in the grey area, it is always a good idea to consult others. Appears to be a sensible person overall. - TwoOars 08:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers from an experienced wikipedia editory. Will make a great admin. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good Wikipedian from what I've seen of him. Will (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was half tempted to sign as "Anonymous Agreement", but I'll hold off on that. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've bumped into this candidate numerous times at XfD, AIV, and elsewhere, where they have consistently applied sound policy interpretation. Civil, mature, willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. And I'm downright jealous of their mainspace contribs. -- Satori Son 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I do believe this user is now ready for adminship, and even last time I felt bad about opposing such a fabulous editor. Best of luck, - Arubiez (Zeibura's sockpuppet) (Talk) 15:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC) (commenting as User:Zeibura, won't be able to log into my account for a few weeks)[reply]
- Support. I've seen this editor's work and have no concerns about him. EdJohnston 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -Per above, yea, yea, yea. This doesn't even matter anyway because the closing crat will not be bothering the read this (unless the closing crat is Deskana :] ). Therefore, this is purely a vote. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really not. --Deskana (talky) 22:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - definitely a user worthy of the status of a admin. ChrisDHDR 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There is ample evidence here (and from my personal experience) to show that you will be active, stay cool, value discussion, respect consensus, and learn from your mistakes. I was hoping for a more philosophical response to my question, mostly because I wanted you to help me dispel my own age-related qualms. Anyway, don't prove me wrong; I don't often add my two cents to runaway discussions. Have fun with your bits. Dekimasuよ! 10:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - yes!! I thought you already were one. --Isis4563 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think it's all been said already.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Give him the mop! gidonb 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support why not! Oysterguitarist 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Sorry, not at the moment. Matthew 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to sound rude, but this is an exceedingly unhelpful response. Is there a particular pattern to AD's editing that you find unnerving? Do you think he doesn't have enough experience in a particular field? He can't improve as an editor if you don't explain what needs improvement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found problems, but I don't believe the candidate wishes them to be told (as apparently RfA is a "vote"). Matthew 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that AD would want to hear your reasons for oppose; I know that if it were my RfA, I would want to hear your reasoning. Neranei (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree, I'm not really sure that your diff can be applied here, as that case where AD did it, there were already several oppose votes with a variety of explanations for the reasons for oppose, and AD was simply adding that he did not at that time, feel he could support (this is similar to someone posting an opinion, using "per above/per nom" as the reason). In this case, I would think that some sort of explanation could be helpful, aside from that diff you showed. Of course, it is totally up to you, but it would certainly be of assistance to those who are voting, and to those reviewing this RfA. Ariel♥Gold 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hate to be the one who has to tell you this, Pinky: RfA isn't a vote. Matthew 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Unless you have another, more valid reason, you probably shouldn't oppose because of a single oppose !vote. J-stan TalkContribs 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- /me passes you a dummy. Matthew 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... what? J-stan TalkContribs 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheesh, Matthew that really was way out of line. Just stop it, please... Majorly (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... what? J-stan TalkContribs 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing that Matthew has been here long enough that he knows what he is doing and that it is not necessary for a bunch of people to come here to dispute his opposition. I doubt that the success or failure of this RFA will hinge in one comment. --After Midnight 0001 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the fact that he has been here for a while apparently doesn't mean that his comments are constructive or well thought out, as evident from his "contributions" to various RfA debates. In this case, the oppose was entirely WP:POINTy, unconstructive, and irritating, and there is nothing wrong with disputing his opposition. RfA is supposed to be a discussion, after all. Melsaran (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- /me passes you a dummy. Matthew 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree, I'm not really sure that your diff can be applied here, as that case where AD did it, there were already several oppose votes with a variety of explanations for the reasons for oppose, and AD was simply adding that he did not at that time, feel he could support (this is similar to someone posting an opinion, using "per above/per nom" as the reason). In this case, I would think that some sort of explanation could be helpful, aside from that diff you showed. Of course, it is totally up to you, but it would certainly be of assistance to those who are voting, and to those reviewing this RfA. Ariel♥Gold 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, what a candidate wants to come out is entirely irrelevant; diffs can illustrate problematic behavior that may have gone unseen by people digging through an editor's contribs, and could be used to more accurately gauge an editor's potential as an administrator. Besides, if every candidate got what they wanted, then every RfA would pass. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can make a comment on the diff - I opposed the RFA basically per the others. I am sorry I did not make this more clear, but I felt that what I said would be enough to in a way allude to the reasonings of the others. I said what I said because of the user's experience, so my comment of 'not at the moment' could be expanded to 'not at the moment, but when you have more experience'. I hope this makes my comments more clear. Basically, Ariel hit the nail on the head. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now ellaborated on the oppose, explaining myself in more depth. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for future reference AD, I think it's best that if an RfA is in a snowball position - unless you have some proper advice for the candidate it's best to just stay out of it completely - I've got to say that the oppose that Matthew highlighted did smack of newbie biting. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will remember that then. Thanks for the advice. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for future reference AD, I think it's best that if an RfA is in a snowball position - unless you have some proper advice for the candidate it's best to just stay out of it completely - I've got to say that the oppose that Matthew highlighted did smack of newbie biting. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now ellaborated on the oppose, explaining myself in more depth. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can make a comment on the diff - I opposed the RFA basically per the others. I am sorry I did not make this more clear, but I felt that what I said would be enough to in a way allude to the reasonings of the others. I said what I said because of the user's experience, so my comment of 'not at the moment' could be expanded to 'not at the moment, but when you have more experience'. I hope this makes my comments more clear. Basically, Ariel hit the nail on the head. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that AD would want to hear your reasons for oppose; I know that if it were my RfA, I would want to hear your reasoning. Neranei (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found problems, but I don't believe the candidate wishes them to be told (as apparently RfA is a "vote"). Matthew 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I discovered something quite shocking. This user used the exclamation word, ergo I am now strongly opposed to this person becoming an admin. Matthew 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew, your comments have now become trollish and disruptive. Stop it immediately and please re-evaluate the nature of your participation in RfA. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you disagree with the terminology (which has no real redeeming value whatsoever, except to identify an idea, such as an !vote [yes, I said the exclamation point word]), take it to WT:RFA where people will regard it as less of a WP:POINT violation. Oh, and another thing, you're treading on thin ice for the reasons Newyorkbrad has stated, plus for the fact that the community's patience is almost exhausted with your behavior. –Animum 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL at everyone not getting the point you are making. 86.137.123.74 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.I have a great amount of respect for Anonymous Dissident, as an editor, for his commitment to the project. However, I have very specific concerns with his ability to familiarize himself with policy that he could be implementing, and accept when he potentially should take another look. He is a very active participant at WP:RFCN, as he indicates above, but in a recent request for comment, he seemingly asserted that the applicable policy, WP:U, doesn't prohibit promotional usernames (which, it does). After apparently reading the policy, he played Devil's Advocate for a bit, before sort of coming around. Unfortunately, that was just a week ago. A day or so later, he submitted a request for comment that was promptly closed at the username clearly didn't violate any of the criteria of WP:U. AD can be a kind, helpful force at WP:RFCN, but I am concerned that his growing knowledge of Wikipedia policy, particularly at WP:RFCN, just isn't enough yet to ensure that he would utilize the tools competently. justen 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I'm striking my oppose. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this (more than I should have, probably), and I really think my concerns were too severe. I hope, and think that he'll take action at WP:UAA cautiously, and I think he'll continue to be just as trustworthy an administrator as he has been an editor. So, support, which will be numbered above. justen 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that particular RFCN report (made, indeed, by you, Justen) resulted in an allowance, after lengthy discussion. The second, in relation to "Sexc tomboi chik": the matter of user names in reference to the word "Sexy" is being discussed at WT:RFCN now. Still, your oppose is valid, and I will say no more. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, I'm confused by this. Isn't taking it to RFC/N a good thing, since he's asking other people's opinion on it? I might agree if it had been UAA, but I think one of us is missing the point of RFCN --lucid 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - I brought it to RFCN, not UAA, for community discussion, as I would do as an editor, admin or crat. I was unsure of the username's properness for Wikipedia, and thats why it was at RFCN, rather than UAA. It just so happened that that particular report to RFCN by me was found to be allowable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucid, taking it to RFCN is appropriate when there may be a violation of WP:U. But, again, thinking that "sexy" or "sexc" is somehow profane or obscene, I'm afraid, hearkens back to the same lack of understanding of policies he would be enforcing, the lack of understanding that led to my oppose. Anonymous Dissident, can you direct me to the discussion on disallowing "sexy" that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't see it on WT:RFCN... justen 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm not seeing your point. He said seems a bit of a breech to me -- obviously if he was confident enough that it was a violation of policy he would've taken it to WP:UAA. He was not sure if sexy/sexc was obscene by Wikipedia's standards, it's not a lack of understanding of policy, it's a lack of knowing if a word meets the obscenity clause or not, and he did the right thing to ask about it. I don't know about where he lives, but I know enough people that could find that name offensive or obscene are out there that I can understand his concern. I recommend you take a step back and consider why he took that name to RFCN, not just the fact that he did --lucid 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, AD, as you know, the username was not blocked as it was no longer active, not because it was in compliance with WP:U. In fact, as you came to acknowledge yourself, it did violate the promotional rule of the username policy, and otherwise would have been blocked. justen 08:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I came to agree with you in the end, and I did not intend to play a "Devil's advocate", but rather have a polite communal discussion about the name. After all - I would have considered it an improper report had it gone to UAA, and you were right to take it RFCN, where I happened to firstly say one thing, and eventually see your way. It is a discussion-based system at WP:RFCN, for "borderline" usernames, and I happened to, at first, be on the other side of the border. I probably would have taken the same action as you had I been aware of the username in relation to contribution history. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey there Justin, I've got to speak up about AD's participation at RFCN - in my opinion he is one of the most sensible users who comment there. The diff's you highlight don't really give any serious concerns - just a different interpretation of a very ambiguous username policy. If an editor has a concern about a name, a good place to take it is to RFCN to see how the comunity feels about it, I could understand that poor judgement would have been shown if this had gone to UAA - but by taking it to RFCN, it shows AD wasn't completely sure himself, so wanted greater input - in my opinion that shows he wouldn't be trigger happy with the block button. Just my 2 cents.... Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, "sexy" and "sexc" can be considered (possibly) obscene. Thinking this is in no way a lack of understanding of policy. --Coppertwig 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh. I personally believe that is a matter of political orientation, rather than an incorrect interpretation of policy, but J is, of course, welcome to oppose on that ground. I don't think this hassling of detractors is necessary when the tally is 89/2/1 is all that necessary, actually... –Animum 01:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I came to agree with you in the end, and I did not intend to play a "Devil's advocate", but rather have a polite communal discussion about the name. After all - I would have considered it an improper report had it gone to UAA, and you were right to take it RFCN, where I happened to firstly say one thing, and eventually see your way. It is a discussion-based system at WP:RFCN, for "borderline" usernames, and I happened to, at first, be on the other side of the border. I probably would have taken the same action as you had I been aware of the username in relation to contribution history. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucid, taking it to RFCN is appropriate when there may be a violation of WP:U. But, again, thinking that "sexy" or "sexc" is somehow profane or obscene, I'm afraid, hearkens back to the same lack of understanding of policies he would be enforcing, the lack of understanding that led to my oppose. Anonymous Dissident, can you direct me to the discussion on disallowing "sexy" that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't see it on WT:RFCN... justen 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - I brought it to RFCN, not UAA, for community discussion, as I would do as an editor, admin or crat. I was unsure of the username's properness for Wikipedia, and thats why it was at RFCN, rather than UAA. It just so happened that that particular report to RFCN by me was found to be allowable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, I'm confused by this. Isn't taking it to RFC/N a good thing, since he's asking other people's opinion on it? I might agree if it had been UAA, but I think one of us is missing the point of RFCN --lucid 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to sound rude, but this is an exceedingly unhelpful response. Is there a particular pattern to AD's editing that you find unnerving? Do you think he doesn't have enough experience in a particular field? He can't improve as an editor if you don't explain what needs improvement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Anonymously 128.100.88.22 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, anons can't comment in the support/oppose/neutral sections. Maxim(talk) 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Anonymously 128.100.88.22 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I'm worried about the editor's understanding of copyright, per DYK discussion on Oswald Tesimond [27]. In my opinion, merely paraphrasing occasional words while retaining the sentence structure of the original is insufficient. I don't have time to go through the editor's contributions in detail to see whether this article is an isolated case or a more general flaw, hence Neutral. Espresso Addict 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Espresso Addict, thanks for the comment. After you made a comment there, I made some changes and tried to make it more different from the said site. Do you still feel that there is an issue there? If there is, the RFA disregarded, I'd be happy ot take a look. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm not at all certain you've learned enough since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish speedway 1950s for me to be sure you should be deleting pages. Though if you at least remember to A) check the history of the page and B) check the content of the page elsewhere, it might not be a problem. But I do hope you'll at least take that as a lesson, and make a greater use of cleanup tags instead of deletion tags. FrozenPurpleCube 04:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That experience resulted in my learning of a few things, and I feel that I will not make the same mistake again. Your advice was invaluable, and I am sorry I did not fully realise it at the time. Thanks -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you say, checking the history and external importance of the content is a good thing to do, and I now, after that particular experience, try to make a point of doing this, among other things, before nominating an article for deletion or particpating in an AFD. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That experience resulted in my learning of a few things, and I feel that I will not make the same mistake again. Your advice was invaluable, and I am sorry I did not fully realise it at the time. Thanks -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
WikipedianProlific
Final (68/23/8); Originally scheduled to end 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC). Extended for 48 hours to 3 September 2007. No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talky) 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikipedianProlific (talk · contribs) - Hi everyone, I signed up to Wikipedia on July 9th 2006 after around 1 year of lurking as an IP editor. The first main article I contributed to was 1,3-Bisphosphoglycerate, at that time it was a stub. Alarmed at the sheer number of biochemistry stubs (an area that still lags behind others in development due to the small number of editors able and interested enough to edit it) I became involved in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Project, primarily drawing diagrams for the monthly article improvement drive.
Since then my main contributions to Wikipedia have been mostly diagrams and artwork. I’m extremely proud to say that I presently have 3 featured pictures and many other pieces uploaded. FPs are here, here, and here, a fourth is presently undergoing FPC nomination. Typically, a drawing takes anywhere from 2 to 15 hours to create, research can take even longer, consequently, my main page edit count is low for such an active user. After all, it only takes 2-3 edits to upload and add a diagram which maybe have taken me over 10 hours to draw. With this in mind, I request that you give my RfA special consideration as I think you will see that my edit count does not do my contributions justice.
I would finally like to acknowledge Rama’s Arrow, who over the past 4 months has exchanged some 20,000 words via email with me as an admin coach. Due to a regrettable incident on his part in April he has been desysopped following an arbcom hearing. I believe that none the less his advice was useful and for that he has my thanks. I’m confident that I’ve demonstrated over the last year that I have the knowledge, consistency, reputation and requirement to be trusted with the admin tools. Thanks for reading ;) Any questions please go ahead and ask. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: There are several areas I want to widen my participation in and several new areas I want to get involved in. Of my current admin tasks I watch and patrol the admin notice boards (AN and ANI) helping out where I can. This is quite a new area for me but one I find suits my editing habits perfectly, as I am only online for fairly short bursts, but I can do many of these 10 minute bursts each day, as much as every one-two hours. I've actually found much of what goes on AN and ANI doesn't strictly require actual administrator involvement, so its been good to be able to get involved now. I hope I can expand on this and resolve queries where at present I am unable to. A new area I want to get involved in is images for deletion, especially copy-vios. I think its fairly clear why this would be appealing to me given my contribs. When I contribute to AfD, IfD and FPC I try to only do so where I have something new or alernative to add. I'm a strong proponent that these systems are not a voting process and are infact debates, therefore the best logical debate gets their desired outcome and not the biggest side. I hope as an administrator this is a concept I can continue to promote as well as expand on my participation in AfD. Another task I am looking forward to with the admin tools is the ability to add and remove protection to an image and also move it around while its protected, this also goes for page protection to although this is something I will enter into more gradually. I would also at some point soon like to try my hand at un-official dispute mediation though this doesn’t strictly require adminship but I think it certainly helps. On the few occasions I’ve tried to help resolve disputes I’ve found it enjoyable and the outcomes satisfying. Finally vandalism reversion, warnings and blockings, I patrol a fair number of pages already and some of my diagram contributions are vandalized on pretty much a daily-weekly basis, especially when featured pictures end up on the front page. I'm not a heavy handed person at all and so I wouldn't expect to see a high amount of blocks coming from me at all, I tend to prefer warnings, but protecting the integrity of the wiki is important, and in many cases I find vandals are actually often young individuals interested in editing wikipedia but are unsure of where or how to start and so they revert to childish contributions. Pointing these individuals in the right direction is very important in my opinion as some may go on to be genuine editors. I want to continue to expand on this as my contributions increase. However, in all honesty as I have suggested above, I do not foresee vandalism patrolling becoming the main part of my work as it has not been so far, I hope this will continue to be contributing artwork.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Unquestionably my proudest achievements are my featured pictures above. Of those featured pictures the first, a diagram of a wasp, holds a special place for me. I really got (and still get) a big kick out of the thought that somewhere maybe a kid is researching about wasps on Wikipedia and will come across that diagram. I can imagine them showing their classmates, teachers, parents etc. and explaining what they’ve learnt from it. Now if that isn’t the point of Wikipedia I don’t want to know what is. Another aspect of it is that to have your work displayed on the front page of Wikipedia is the community making a statement of satisfaction with your contributions. Now I don’t do what I do for recognition, that’s not my motivation, but it is such a great feeling to have, I’m sure featured article writers must feel much the same.
- 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: Generally my line of work on Wikipedia keeps me away from excessive conflict as I am actively contributing 99% of my work offline. I do frequently get requests to adapt, amend or otherwise alter my images which can at times become frustrating, as changes can often be trivial or just wrong, and to change a diagram can often mean effectively redrawing it from scratch – that’s 10 hours of work down the drain. But I try to listen to people’s requests and do what I can. I have at times been quite outspokenly unhappy about our extensive use of the SVG format. However, an important thing for me is accepting and understanding policy, and SVG is policy right now. It’s a bit like the law of the land, you don’t have to agree with it but you do have to abide by it. The closest thing to an out and out conflict is with an editor whose name I shall not mention here over some personal comments and article related disagreements. We tried dispute mediation following a period of stepping back from the problem which had some (in my opinion) good results. I’m generally (not all the time but most) a non-confrontational person anyway and this is the way I hope to keep things (after all that approach has worked fairly well for over a year).
Optional question from Pheonix15
- 4.Could you please give an account of how you would deal with newcomers with innapropriate usernames, especially this one
- A: Investigation of the user in question (User: Engineroomrecordings) shows they made two contribs (under that name), one was the uploading of this audio recording image. The second was to create a page for an album associated heavily with engine room recordings. Our username policies are very clear on the naming of accounts and this clearly violates reason 4, one of the 5 reasons a username can be considered inappropriate. This is exacerbated further as the account was only used to add to an article that could be considered to be promoting the company/group that the user is named after. Worst of all in my opinion is the fact the album is actually unreleased and is not due to be out until the 4th of September 2007, making this fairly straight forward promotion.
- Because the user has not made any beneficial contributions (their only 2 edits were clear policy-violations) an account block will be necessary to prevent them from making further edits until they are clear about our policies. Had they made some constructive edits I would be more inclined to take a softer approach, however, In this case I would add the substitued template template:Unb-c. The next step would be to block the editor indefinitely. What upsets me is that these edits aren't novice, the user has clearly edited wikipedia in the past, possibly as an IP or a different account.
- Like I said above, I’m not a heavy handed person, but this is a clear policy violation and the user has not made any productive contributions. I would in addition to the template point out why their edits broke policy rather than just the template text. This is important in my opinion because otherwise they or associated editors are more likely to come back with a different username having not fully understood the problem to then carry on doing the same thing; such as they seem to have possibly done here. Adding the tracklist to the page in question but additionally adding comments to the oasis (band) page and others such as here which appear to be potentially promotional. If you check their latest contribs you will see they all refer to engineroomrecordings or associated artists. The next step is to clear up what they have created, establish if the article they’ve made is actually noteable and see if it needs to be removed.
- P.S is anyone taking care of this? As the second user is editing quite a few articles, admin intervention is required on this second user (AddRadioReport) in my opinion as the breadth of their edits suggest purely promotional motives and a high chance of being the same editor as Engineroomrecordings.
- I hope this answers your question, if you have any further questions please feel free to ask, and additionally if you have any suggestions I didn’t consider when answering this I’d enjoy hearing them.
Optional question from Giggy
- 5. You haven't been very active of late [28] - will this activity level change if this RfA succeeds? Giggy\Talk 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Personally I wouldn’t say I’ve actually been that inactive at all. If you look at my edit history here you can see I had a period of inactivity from December 2006-February 2007. This was because I had limited access to the internet for those months. At the moment I’ve actually been very busy and active in relative terms for me, as July-October is the part of the year where I have the most free time available for Wikipedia. I think the confusion may come from my generally odd looking edit history, which is a result of this business with the artwork. As said both above and below, its very hard to judge my contributions in terms of edit counts as 10 or more hours of work can amount to as little as just 2 or 3 edits.
- For example, very recently I drew and uploaded this diagram. At the moment its going through the featured pictures candidate process and looks like it should hopefully pass next week. It took quite a long time as they go being my first animated diagram, and its taken even longer making changes and corrections to it over the last few weeks than it did to actually draw out the shape. I estimate its consumed a good 12-15 man hours, though its very hard to say.
- So to answer the second part of your question “will this activity level change if this RfA succeeds” in a sense the answer is no. I’m not unhappy with my activity and as I’ve said before, my edit count isn’t in my opinion representative of my contributions at all. At the same time though, in another sense the answer is yes, and that’s because some of the admin tasks that I’ll be doing now that I wasn't doing before are more traditional edit count increasing tasks so I’m sure the level of edits will probably actually go up (though I’ve no idea by how much). But will I be spending any extra man hours on Wikipedia? No. I’m happy with the amount I’m contributing at the moment and I stand by what I’ve uploaded as proof of that. I hope this suitably answers your question.
Optional question from Hersfold
- 6. You mentioned above something about having to abide by, but not necessarily like, the law of the land. I realize that was in reference to image formats, but it does bring to mind a question for me. In the event something was reported on a noticeboard that was technically in violation of official policy, but you happen to agree with the person in violation, what would be your response as an administrator?
- A: Unquestionably I would uphold policy and I would do so in a consistent manner. I hope the simplicity of my answer doesn’t come across as weak but really there’s nothing to discuss even, policy is policy and its an administrators task to uphold it. Not to enforce their own personal opinion. If each of the 1300 odd administrators was going about applying their own set of policies to Wikipedia… well, it doesn’t bear thinking about does it. If something was really bothering me to the point that it was severely disrupting my (and others) edits then my approach would be to try and change policy through the proper channels using sound logic, good debate and community consensus rather than by trying to enforce my own vigilantly policy. But to be honest, nothing really bothers me that much and my dislike of the SVG format is fairly minor.
- 6 1/2. Sorry for continuing on this, but what is your interpretation of WP:IGNORE?
- A: Don’t be sorry at all, I interpreted the first question less directly than you meant it I think, and so applied it to situations like image formatting or user conduct where policy clearly applies for good reasons and to go around it is rarely a sensible option. I see WP:IGNORE as a fundamental policy which effectively provides us with a clause to not comply with certain parts of policies provided there is a good, sensible and logical reason to do so. It supports the idea that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that excessive rules inevitably lead to more bureaucracy. So the ability to ignore rules which may have become irrelevant or excessively bureaucratic is a useful thing. At the same time, I feel that it is certainly not a get out of jail free card and so realistically should be used sparingly, when it comes to using it for policies on behaviour and social conduct I believe it applies only marginally at best. Anyone using WP:IGNORE for any circumstance must be absolutely prepared to justify their reasoning for doing so if questioned, in effect if one feels they are unable to justify a reason for ignoring (perhaps bypassing is a better term) part of a policy then they should certainly not use WP:IGNORE.
- As the original question linked in with what I said about the SVG format I shall answer this in reference to that as well and perhaps better explain my thinking. This is a topic I feel WP:IGNORE only applies to only marginally. This is because there are some very good sensible reasons for having a unified policy on graphic formats, whether its SVG or something else, and so it would be better in my opinion to go about changing that policy rather than have an uncoordinated mix of formats due to ignoring of the policy. If however a user has a beautiful diagram but only as a jpeg then yes of course, go ahead and upload it, although this is implied in the policy anyway so isn’t covered by WP:IGNORE.
Optional questions from User:Cuddlyable3
- 7. - 9.
- I am removing these questions. They are an attempt to use an editor's participation in a Request for mediation against them. Per mediation policy, all communications during formal mediation are privileged and cannot be raised against people in later proceedings.
- For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am removing these questions. They are an attempt to use an editor's participation in a Request for mediation against them. Per mediation policy, all communications during formal mediation are privileged and cannot be raised against people in later proceedings.
- 10. What will be your attitude as an Administrator to personal attacks on talk pages? Have you recently been active in reverting attacks launched by a meat puppet of yours?
- Please be careful when accusing users of using meat puppets. --Boricuaeddie 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Boricuaeddie your favoured candidate should have no difficulty answering, and you can give him all the help he is now asking you for. Do you expect to be involved in his administration too? Cuddlyable3 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be careful when accusing users of using meat puppets. --Boricuaeddie 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: No, I do not have a meat puppet account. My attitude will be to enforce no personal attacks.
- Not being an expert in the ways of puppets I am watching the remarkable surge in reversion edits happening this moment at talk:fuel_injection. Who is helping whom, I wonder.Cuddlyable3 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most, if not all, are helping to build the encyclopedia, I should think. That is what we are all here for, isn't it? LessHeard vanU 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being an expert in the ways of puppets I am watching the remarkable surge in reversion edits happening this moment at talk:fuel_injection. Who is helping whom, I wonder.Cuddlyable3 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Hu12
- 11. In general, what is trolling? How should an administrator handle trolls in discussions that the admin is involved in?
- A: My definition of a troll is “an individual who purposefully exploits certain aspects of our human nature to cause upset and provoke an often confrontational response”’. I feel that trolling is not necessarily vandalism, as trolls can make good contributions but often also enjoy inciting and fueling a controversial argument (as opposed to a productive debate.) or may perhaps feel their opinion is misrepresented on Wikipedia. Trolling can come about in many ways. Such methods often twist or bend our community processes, e.g. AfD, IfD, FPC, FAC, Talk page discussions and even RfA ;) in such a manner as to create more work for genuine editors and potentially start a flame war.
- As far as how I would deal with trolls, it really depends on the situation. If for example we’re talking about a controversial article talk page discussion that has been brought up by a user with a history of trolling on the subject, I personally would advocate not feeding the trolls. That is to avoid contributing to the discussion if it will only feed the argument. However, there reaches a point where this is no longer viable and a troll has to be dealt with on some level, as many trolls have an amazing ability to suck good editors into bad behavior in a flame war. I believe that admins should attempt where possible to stay neutral with regards to trolls in discussions in which they are involved, if admin intervention is ultimately required then the involved admin should request the assistance of a neutral and unbiased admin to reach a conclusion, otherwise the troll may take any intervention personally or as a sign of repression of their point of view, which will only fuel their fire.
General comments
- See WikipedianProlific's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for WikipedianProlific: WikipedianProlific (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Comment: To my knowledge, I have not had any significant interaction with this candidate, and we do not know each other. Nevertheless, a quick review of some of the relevant background and comments being made here suggest to me that an important reminder is called for.
Edit count, by itself, does not necessarily tell the "full story" in terms of the time and energy people contribute to the project. A contributor with a low or moderate edit count may nonetheless spend considerable energy and capability improving Wikipedia; significantly enhancing both its credibility and professionalism. This can be done in many ways, such as through contributions of well-constructed images and multimedia.
Please consider this additional factor when reviewing admin candidates. dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A few of the comments WikipedianProlific has put down to "edit counting" don't seem to be edit counting at all. For instance, Blnguyen said half of the mainspace edits were automated or semi-automated, mentioning the total number in passing. This isn't edit counting at all. Something like "I expect n edits that aren't automated or semi-automated" is edit counting. Saying "this user has too many automated edits" isn't at all. --Deskana (apples) 12:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an aside, but thought I'd mention it: I use WikipedianProlific's diagram of Marsh's classification of celiac disease Image:CoeliacDisease.png every week or so to teach medical students and residents. It's really a fabulous image and better than anything in textbooks or review articles -- Samir 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/WikipedianProlific before commenting.
Discussion
Support
VeryWeak Support - Seems to understand some of the admin work, but I think this user can do better with a bit more work with some inter-user work (You currently have 195 user talk edits). --Hirohisat (Apple) 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to Weak Support. Not enough reason to be Very weak support. --Hirohisat (Grapefruit) 06:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; excellent answers to the questions, IMO, and very good participation with images. I'm also fairly satisfied with your mainspace work. I believe that your edit count is very low; it's less than 2000 edits in total, and you do not have much participation at the Wikipedia namespace. I suggest you get involved at XfD's and AIV and UAA and try again in the future,as I do not believe this RfA will be successful at this time.Yours, --Boricuaeddie 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Of course, I've been known to be wrong before... :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He makes a valid point in his answers, though - if you look at those edits, a lot of them are either huge single-edit complete article rewrites, or uploading of self-drawn artwork, each of which took the same time it would take you or I to AWB-recategorise 250 articles — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I supported. I think this user is an exception to the edit-count rule :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to strong support. Excellent answers, man :-) --Boricuaeddie 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I supported. I think this user is an exception to the edit-count rule :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He makes a valid point in his answers, though - if you look at those edits, a lot of them are either huge single-edit complete article rewrites, or uploading of self-drawn artwork, each of which took the same time it would take you or I to AWB-recategorise 250 articles — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I've been known to be wrong before... :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wikipedia space & talk edits may be low but in terms of mainspace content (which is what this whole project is about) about as close to a perfect editor as I've yet seen — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I was impressed by this user's answers. Also, anyone who has the patience to produce, and then go through, the Featured Pictures process, is already showing several of the characterostics we look for in good admins. Talk edits are not a concern for me, of the 70 or so article I have written, I think about 20 still don't even have a talk page. If a user is not involved in controversial topics, than talk edits don't tend to be as important. Also, I don't think that user talk edits are that important either, I archive my talk page at 30kb, and even when I'm active, it only gets archived once a month or so... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I do not believe this user will abuse the tools, and support the adminship of qualified candidates from unlikely corners of the 'pedia. - Philippe | Talk 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support OK, I have re-read the answers to the questions and they are good. I've decided it's unfair to neutral based on edit count so I'll change to support. GDonato (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Philippe. Rlevse 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- –sebi 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak SupportChanged to abstain Sorry, your responses to the opposition seem a little bit too defensive, in a rude way, that combined with not having a ton of faith in the first place makes me unable to support This editor is right on that line between too new and experienced enough, but they're a fairly active contributor, and I'm sure they can help with the backlogs given their style of editing. As long as he agrees to take admin tasks slowly at first until he's got the experience, and he doesn't get an inflated ego from it, I'm sure he'll be fine --lucid 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like a prolific Wikipedian. Majorly (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You have a well rounded set of contribs. I would like to see you have been a little more active overall, but you have shown some good contribs. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - reviewed the contributions and the editor's time here, combined with the effort involved in the individual edits negates any concerns regarding edit count. The edits themselves show a solid understanding of how Wikipedia works, and I see nothing to keep me from having faith WikipedianProlific will make a fine sysop. Hiberniantears 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support It is perhaps a divine hand that led me to discover this RfA. My history aside, I express my full support for WikipedianProfilic. I deeply admire his commitment to Wikipedia (he is not a photographer, but someone who has to draw meticulous and "perfect" diagrams, which is a distinct and highly skilled and valued profession by itself). This place should be grateful that he even bothered to give his remarkable contributions. He was so sincere in becoming an all-round Wikipedian, with full knowledge of policy and ability to help out in any kind of chore, including those outside his interests, that I cannot praise him enough. This is the first time I have regretted my retirement, and the first time I will come out of it to give my most sincere support. His only flaw is to overstate my role in helping him (which I sadly, could not complete). I hope you will forgive me my friend. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)
- Support I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good track Harlowraman 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? Politics rule 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good admin candidate. (aeropagitica) 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I once reviewed this user at WP:ER, a very good editor. -Icewedge 06:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy\Talk 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)- Gone neutral[reply]
- Support per Q4. I would like to have seen a warning though--Pheonix15 (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Impressive answers to the questions, in which he gave a fine excuse for the low edit counts. If those featured pics took that long to create, he has done a fine service to Wikipedia. And yes, he can be trusted with the tools. Lradrama 09:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support lack of activity doesn't indicate lack of ability. Should make a fine administrator. James086Talk | Email 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You have excellent answers to the questions, which definitely supersedes the low edit counts. Edit counts aren't everything, and you have done great work with your art. Keep it up! Regards, Neranei (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportStrong support fine user. Acalamari 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to "strong support" for the candidate's good answers and calmness here. Acalamari 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very dedicated editor,good answers.- STORMTRACKER —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC).
- Strong support Conscientious, open-minded editor & contributor who thoughtfully takes into account others' suggestions, requests, opinions, and preferences. Acknowledges his human foibles, strives for continual improvement, and cheerfully owns mistakes. --Scheinwerfermann 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sorry, comment below meant for someone else. I think you are a good candidate. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - lowish edit count, however featured image work and good answers. Addhoc 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Good answers. An administrator's role is to make the encyclopaedia a better place for everyone to contribute. There are many ways to do this and this candidate has done some fine work for the project.--Hu12 12:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no reason to think this user would abuse the tools, looks fine. Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Melsaran. Also has created 4+ featured images. These aren't the "take a picture with a hi-tech camera," they are the "slave over the computer for hours" kind. Not everyone is strong in article writing. ~ Wikihermit 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's been said a million times before, but I guess I'll say it again: edit count is not a very useful tool for determining the value of a user's contributions or their familiarity with the project. I think this is a perfect example of a case where counting edits doesn't work. I applaud the candidate for not changing his/her editing style just to bulk up his/her edit count. Surely we can all agree that someone who does that is not a better admin candidate? delldot talk 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, contributions are impressive, and user has shown dedication to the project. Administratorship need not be as political as some of the opposers think. (There are tons of guides for admins out there! If you need to do an admin-y task you're unfamiliar with, merely read one, and take a look at how it's done.) GracenotesT § 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support unlikely to abuse the tools and I have to give credit to images people - it takes much longer than one supposes. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Carlossuarez46 et al. A long-time user, making lots of edits to pics rather than text, like one is unlikely to abuse the mop. Especially since his pics are disgusting. :-) Bearian 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't imagine him abusing the tools. Yes, there may be areas of policy which he's less familiar with but those gaps are not dramatic and I also trust him to be responsible enough to take this into account. The image backlogs could sure use an extra man and this is certainly an area in which WikipedianProlific has the required experience. Pascal.Tesson 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Could use a little more familiarity with policy-related issues but nothing serious. Appears to be a dedicated contributor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Mainspace contributions are great, has a good demand overall for the tools. Shinealight2007 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support I think the answers to questions and responses to opposers show me that this user should have the tools. Captain panda 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I will not give in to accusations by users with an axe to grind. The candidate, whom I never knew existed prior to this RFA, nonetheless has demonstrated dedication to creating featured content and maintaining high standards. Shalom Hello 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An axe to grind? Shalom, I respect you and your work (and forgive my arrogance, for I am led to believe this respect is mutual), but I would ask you to make less general accusatory statements. I for one have no axe to grind, I merely do not think WP is ready at this time (I would gladly support in a few months, I can say that with no hesitation). You cannot mean that users who are generally quite active at RfA, not to mention a member of the arbitration committee, all have some personal beef with WP? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good point. Of course this does not change my opinion, but I should have assumed good faith. I won't strike out those words because it seems pointless to do so, but I should have simply said that I politely disagree. Shalom Hello 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side point, I disagree with the implication that a member of ArbCom is somehow less likely to have a "personal beef" than the rest of us. ArbCom duties are not relevant to RfA, and I certainly don't think that being an arbitrator implies higher judgment or maturity than the average Wikipedian. (No comment on any individual arbitrator, just a point of principle.) WaltonOne 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good point. Of course this does not change my opinion, but I should have assumed good faith. I won't strike out those words because it seems pointless to do so, but I should have simply said that I politely disagree. Shalom Hello 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An axe to grind? Shalom, I respect you and your work (and forgive my arrogance, for I am led to believe this respect is mutual), but I would ask you to make less general accusatory statements. I for one have no axe to grind, I merely do not think WP is ready at this time (I would gladly support in a few months, I can say that with no hesitation). You cannot mean that users who are generally quite active at RfA, not to mention a member of the arbitration committee, all have some personal beef with WP? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per (mostly) outstanding question answers --Ben hello! 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I don't see his lack of mainspace contributions as a problem because his featured images are a direct contribution to Wikipedia. His wonderful answers convince me that he understands what is required by an admin. GizzaDiscuss © 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with this user. Probably not a crazy fascist, or anything nasty. Moreschi Talk 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have a suspicion many of the "opposers" below haven't actually reviewed this user's contributions. Clearly dedicated, clearly knowlegable, probably not a mental. Good enough for me. Neil ム 13:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to the questions above, seems to have a full understanding of what's what around the wiki. He threw me off a bit with the answer to number 6, but as long as he is aware of and willing to acknowledge IGNORE when it's called for, we should be just fine. Good luck. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm convinced WP is ready to be an admin. His pictures and animations that he contributes are of extremely good quality and take far longer than a normal textual addition which results in a deflated edit count. I'm positive that WP would make a fine addition to the administration. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, if we're supposed to assume good faith in general Wikipedia, why should RfA be any different? This user is sufficient enough. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was decided by the answers to Q.5 -
but the responses to some optional questions (possibly prompted by a Divine Wind) has made me more certain.23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)(now adding sig - I wonder why I missed a tilde first time?) LessHeard vanU 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Per the 48 hours extension - reconfirm Support I haven't seen much evidence that those opposing have understood the major reason for the percieved lack of edits; it takes some considerable time to perfect an image so that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You do not submit a work in progress, and then tweak it with several subsequent edits until it stops bleeding over the article page, and then go about resolving the texture issues... (actually, WP, you could do that in your userspace/sandbox. It would up your count) LessHeard vanU 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support - overall, a net positive in terms of 'pedia building, so 'yes' it is. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think his image contributions are superb, and he's struck me as a level headed sort -- Samir 01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe your record supports that you have an unusual contribution style in which your edit count simply doesn't reflect your level of contribution. I think you handled Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection reasonably well and you have interactions to suggest you would make a good admin. I wouldn't usually support a candidate with this few edits in Wikipedia space etc., but I you are an exception. --Shirahadasha 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me! --SXT4 10:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Hiberniantears above Ealdgyth | Talk 12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Three words: credibility; consistency; ability -- toss in a fourth: professionalism. Absent an obvious sign of misconduct, turpitude or dishonesty (which has yet to be presented here) there is enough evidence to enthusiastically support. dr.ef.tymac 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good candidate for admin --rogerd 03:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support IMHO, AWBing and fixing grammar is considered a mainspace edit that isn't vandal-fighting. You could rack up a little more edits and a little more time on Wikipedia (but your answer to your RfA questions are exceptional). The major thing is I trust this user with the tools. There are other minor flaws, but I'm not going to list them because it would not sway my opinion significantly.--PrestonH 04:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per user:Pascal.TessonTaprobanus 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Though neutral before, I feel the answers to the questions show an understanding of policy here, and I feel this user is a nice guy who can be able to assist if he has the mop. AR Argon 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thoughtful answers to the questions and clear dedication to the project. Contributions may not quite fit the typical RfA mold, but they show positive contributions, understanding of policy, and little risk for using the mop. IronGargoyle 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Sounds like a good wikipedian, will make a excellent admin. Sinhala freedom 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. His answers are thoughful and very honest which I respect immensely. The editor could have fudged and tried to offer answers people want but instead he told you that he was already spending as much time as possible on the project and did not anticipate spending more. His contributions are excellent giving him the tools will do nothing but help him to do an even better job. Adminship is not brain surgery -- its about trust and I see nothing, an no one has suggested anything, to suggest a future of abuse.--JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slade (TheJoker) 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Many of the opposes seem to think you're inexperienced in wiki-space. Now true, there's a difference between reading the wiki-space and editing it. Close to 300 Wiki-space edits isn't trivial, so I think you know policy well-enough. Take heed of the opposes, exercise extra caution before delving into administrator tasks that are unfamiliar. I'm confident you'll do fine. --JayHenry 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporthe just volunteered to help settle an article's POV issues and is using sound judgement. We need more like this.Sumoeagle179 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. He has little experience and sporadic editing, true, but the answers to the questions were really good, and the only think the opposition can find on him is the experience bug. I mean, if he'll be a good admin in a couple months, why not speed up the process a bit? I mean, we need more admins, no denying that. Wizardman 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on record of contributions and answers to questions. I do not believe that a user must be prepared to use each and every admin tool (I, for one, do not) in order to contribute effectively as an administrator. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems to be a good editor from my experience and I see no reason that this user will abuse the tools therefore I'm going to support. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Is an experienced user and I have no reason to think that this nom will not follow policy based on answers and editing history. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm impressed by the quality of the work you've done. Your editcount is severely deflated, but a close inspection reveals the very valuable work you have done. I'd like you to be an admin very mucb. Maxim(talk) 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Humility, willingness to take advice, and good intentions are more important than high edit count. - Jehochman Talk 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Insufficient experience in wiki-space, home to many admin-related tasks. A few more months of editing will do wonders, and ensure the candidate knows how to employ the mop when s/he receives it. Xoloz 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Looks to be a great, all around friendly, professional and intellectual user. However, he or she needs some more overall familiarity and/or experience with Wikipedia. I'm sure what they have now is great and constructive in the very sincerest manner, but just fewer than 2,000 edits isn't quite yet enough. Several more months will help wondrously, in which time you should return here for a most successful RFA. Regards, NSR77 TC 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, sorry. To be honest, I don't find this user particularly prolific. He's doing a good job alright, but I believe that more experience is needed before access to the admin tools may be granted to him.--Húsönd 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is I am already spending several hours weekly on wikipedia, this amount isn't going to go up. In as much as a year from now I doubt my edits will have gone up by more than 400 odd mainspace edits. The only way to change that is to change the type of content I'm editing, to start editing bulks of text rather than upload images, and that seems like a terrible thing to me, to change the way I edit to increase an edit count? its the height of editcountitis. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, and I acknowledge that your contributions to Wikipedia during those hours are extremely commendable. You don't need to spend more time on Wikipedia, I think that you simply need (in that time) to be more involved in admin-oriented tasks in order to gain more experience in those areas where you'd be using your admin tools should you be promoted. With more preparation, I'm sure that a new RfA in a couple of months would be most successful.--Húsönd 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is I am already spending several hours weekly on wikipedia, this amount isn't going to go up. In as much as a year from now I doubt my edits will have gone up by more than 400 odd mainspace edits. The only way to change that is to change the type of content I'm editing, to start editing bulks of text rather than upload images, and that seems like a terrible thing to me, to change the way I edit to increase an edit count? its the height of editcountitis. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per below. VanTucky (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean above? Giggy\Talk 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the comments in the Neutral section Corpx 08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess we'll never know... --SXT4 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the comments in the Neutral section Corpx 08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean above? Giggy\Talk 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose lack of mainspace editing experience. About half of the 850 mainspace edits are AWB sweeps and many other of the edits are repetitive pattern edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm dissapointed you are using an edit count to base this on, as it reads as though are you suggesting my contributions are trivial? Like we said before, one-three edits could be equal to several hundred normal edits, its incredibly hard to quantify. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Blnguyen and Husond. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Riana, I have a lot of respect for you so please don't take this the wrong way, but I want to run a thought experiment. WikipediaProlific (WikPro) claims to spend as much as ten hours per image on his work. Let's say, conservatively, that he spends 5 hours on average. Now, a good vandal fighter can easily accumulate 100 edits in an hour split between main space reversion and user talk warnings and say 5 reports to WP:AIV. WikPro has 18 images displayed on his user page, they're all quite good and 5 hours each seems a fair estimate to me. That's 90 hours of work. Imagine he'd spent that 90 hours vandal fighting instead. That'd be an extra 9,000 edits. The numbers are remarkable because he'd have about 5,000 main space edits, roughly comparable user talk edits, 450 reports to AIV, a total of about 800 Wikipedia space edits. What's remarkable is that's almost the exact level of participation we saw from a recent RFA. I've not voted support, I've never encountered the editor before today. But if this editor came away with the impression that Wikipedia does not value featured image creators as much as it values people who participate in other ways, say fighting vandalism, I'm not sure that I could say he has the wrong impression. --JayHenry 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to jump in here, but I felt I had a pertinent comment. Much talk is devoted to the idea that users who contribute to vandal fighting will rack up edits more quickly than other users, because of the nature of the task. I don't think that rejecting a candidate on the basis of an aspect of their edit count shows less respect to the type of editing they do, however. This isn't a contest to see who is more valued or respected: it's a discussion about whether or not someone can be trusted with the admin tools. Image work, though very valuable to Wikipedia and worthy of commendation, does very little to demonstrate someone's suitability for admin tasks and responsibilities. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi JayHenry, thanks for your kind words. I most certainly do not undervalue anyone's contributions (well, obviously apart from the vandals and the POV-pushing nutters, but that's a different discussion for a different venue!) However, I do believe that one who is applying for adminship should have experience doing administrative tasks, and doing them well. If someone had 200 AIV reports and they were all bad, I would not support their request merely on a numerical basis. I believe if WP spent just a little more time around the traditional administrative areas - policy debates, deletion discussions, perhaps RCP if he really wanted - he would have the necessary experience. I'm absolutely not disputing the value of his contributions, I'm sorry if it came across that way at all. Even if WP never used the tools to close a deletion debate, he would have the ability to, and I'd like to see that he could handle this responsibility. His current contributions, though fantastic, give me little to go with. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Riana, I have a lot of respect for you so please don't take this the wrong way, but I want to run a thought experiment. WikipediaProlific (WikPro) claims to spend as much as ten hours per image on his work. Let's say, conservatively, that he spends 5 hours on average. Now, a good vandal fighter can easily accumulate 100 edits in an hour split between main space reversion and user talk warnings and say 5 reports to WP:AIV. WikPro has 18 images displayed on his user page, they're all quite good and 5 hours each seems a fair estimate to me. That's 90 hours of work. Imagine he'd spent that 90 hours vandal fighting instead. That'd be an extra 9,000 edits. The numbers are remarkable because he'd have about 5,000 main space edits, roughly comparable user talk edits, 450 reports to AIV, a total of about 800 Wikipedia space edits. What's remarkable is that's almost the exact level of participation we saw from a recent RFA. I've not voted support, I've never encountered the editor before today. But if this editor came away with the impression that Wikipedia does not value featured image creators as much as it values people who participate in other ways, say fighting vandalism, I'm not sure that I could say he has the wrong impression. --JayHenry 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per issues raised above. Jmlk17 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some of the issue raised above are too recent, not enough edits in wiki-space, and I don't think this editor is active enough.Useight 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Can you clarify what those issues are, as I cannot see any recent issues above? thanks. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think my sentence was worded a little funny, so I'll clarify what, exactly, I meant. When I stated, "Some of the issue" I was referring to the points brought up in Q7. Specifically, I really, really don't like your comment, "unless your one hell of a seasoned wikipedia-artist like myself then your opinion is of little interest", which is linked to in Q7. Wikipedia needs helpful and constructive administrators. Albeit that was in March, the magnitude of that comment (in my opinion) makes it seem like not enough time has passed since. Also not to be too strict on editcountitis, I'd like to see more mainspace edits; afterall, we are here to build an encyclopedia.Useight 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too keen on the disastrous WP:3RR. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Blnguyen -- Y not? 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm dissapointed your making a judegement on my edit count, as I believe above I've adequately explained why my edit count is low, due to the nature of my contributions. It's not like I'm uploading photographs or holiday snaps, these are custom drawn diagrams specifically for wikipedia, they take tens of hours to make. Do you feel these contribs are insufficient, or is it that my edit count is insufficient? - because its not going to go up significantly even in a year from now, as I'm not going to change my editing patterns simply to please my edit count. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lacks experience with admin-oriented tasks. Singopo 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lack of relevant experience and concerns about process knowledge. TigerShark 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Thinks this is a vote. Matthew 20:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are showing a much deeper misunderstanding of the purpose of RfA by opposing his candidacy on such flimsy ground. As if the key criterion on what would make a good admin is whether he can avoid the word "vote"... Do you have any sort of evidence that WikiProlific misunderstands the basic idea behind consensus? This is exactly the kind of drive-by-shooting that has valuable candidates scared of going through RfA. Pascal.Tesson 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He thinks it's a vote, I believe he'll take numbers as consensus. So no, I can not trust this user. It's quite simple: don't use the word "vote" (or "!vote"). PS: The word "discussion" comes to mind as an *excellent* alternative. Matthew 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I genuinely don't mean to badger by commenting here but simply want to put this to you, it is a sentence taken from my answer to question 1 above, right at the top: " I'm a strong proponent that these systems are not a voting process and are infact debates, therefore the best logical debate gets their desired outcome and not the biggest side." Its hard to talk about what we're doing here without using the word vote, purely a misnomer I can assure you. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, no! It is not hard at all. If you can only think of "vote", well that tells me you probably thinks it is a vote. Matthew 23:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is precisely the kind of summary judgment I'm worried about. You could have taken the time perhaps to read his answers or to dig a little bit into his contributions to see if there was any factual basis for "he does not understand consensus". Someone could use the word "discussion" because he knows how to jump through the hoops, yet be constantly arguing on DRV "there were 35% of keeps". By choosing to judge the candidate on superficial things like lexicon you are doing a great disservice to the project. Ironically, this is why we favour discussions and not votes: it's about substance, not apparence. Pascal.Tesson 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shocking as this may be for you: I don't read the questions/answers. This user thinks RfA is a vote, that is enough for me to lose faith in him. Matthew 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is precisely the kind of summary judgment I'm worried about. You could have taken the time perhaps to read his answers or to dig a little bit into his contributions to see if there was any factual basis for "he does not understand consensus". Someone could use the word "discussion" because he knows how to jump through the hoops, yet be constantly arguing on DRV "there were 35% of keeps". By choosing to judge the candidate on superficial things like lexicon you are doing a great disservice to the project. Ironically, this is why we favour discussions and not votes: it's about substance, not apparence. Pascal.Tesson 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, no! It is not hard at all. If you can only think of "vote", well that tells me you probably thinks it is a vote. Matthew 23:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindent) Nope. This user doesn't think this RfA is a vote. He refers to an individual persuasion represented as a bolded comment as a vote, but this entire discussion is not a vote, and the candidate never implied that. You're putting words in his mouth. So, if "vote" as a reference to one of
#'''These''' things ~~~~
(and a widely used reference, at that) is evil, what is a good alternative? - The word "discussion" is clearly not a good alternative for this usage of the word "vote" (try "there were 50 discussions in support of the candidate and 20 discussion in opposition"). The term "comment" might work (an RfA candidate might say "please reconsider your oppose comment"), but it's too inflexible: comments (strings of text) are absolute, while "votes" (persuasions) are relative. It is difficult to word the phrase "change your vote" in terms of comments. The definition for "vote", as the candidate uses the word, is a "formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision". The definition for "vote" as you use the word is "ballot". Lost in translation, I fear. GracenotesT § 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are showing a much deeper misunderstanding of the purpose of RfA by opposing his candidacy on such flimsy ground. As if the key criterion on what would make a good admin is whether he can avoid the word "vote"... Do you have any sort of evidence that WikiProlific misunderstands the basic idea behind consensus? This is exactly the kind of drive-by-shooting that has valuable candidates scared of going through RfA. Pascal.Tesson 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per Blnguyen and the candidate's aggressive tone in replying oppose votes makes me worry. @pple 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Riana. Sarvagnya 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Riana and blnguyen.Bakaman 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Mainspace edits/lack of activity. Miranda 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all issues raised above --Ben 06:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- You already supported above. –sebi 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Blnguyen and Riana. T Rex | talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Just too little project space work with admin-related tasks. I probably would have gone neutral but I definitely don't care for the the user's tone when replying to dissenting opinions in this RfA. Trusilver 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Miranda, Blnguyen and Riana - Modernist 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Inconsistent editing pattern over the past year. Poor understanding of rules and terminology (not sure applicant knows exactly what a meatpuppet is). And I have know clue what this candidate will do for the project except cruise around a few Rf whatevers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of experience. --- RockMFR 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose mainly per Blnguyen and Riana. The image work is awesome but there isn't enough project or mainspace edits to get an idea of your aptitude as an admin, which is very surprising if you've just done four months of admin coaching. Also, the bitey concerns pricked me somewhat. Sarah 10:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per reasoning of Blnguyen, Riana, @pple, and Sarah. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose looks a goodie, but I'm afraid there's insufficient evidence in his edit record for me to decide whether he has enough experience to be ready for adminship. As I cannot yet trust him with the tools, the oppose is regretful, but I look forward to a future, successful RfA. --Dweller 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral Seems like a good editor with good mainspace work but an overall low count combined with a lack of WP and user talk work means I can't support. Keep up the great article work, though. GDonato (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral while trusting that important questions will be honestly answered and not be evaded.Cuddlyable3 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) But being called a "troll" by this candidate is now making that trust increasingly difficult to give....[reply]
- At this point I have to consider that WikipedianProlific spoke on my page of his dyslexia ("I'm telling you I'm dyslexic" - 15:21 20 March 2007) which may correlate with his indisputable graphic talent. That talent has just now been acknowledged by a featured picture promotion, possibly the fastest ever for a diagram in Wikipedia. I wished him luck in that bid for FPC but did not participate in the vote. However his bid for adminship will have to be supported by other qualities than good drawings, and his latest answer about his future attitude to enforce NPA is too unclear. We have to look at what he has demonstrated already in that area. A personality test that I find useful is whether a person seems willing occasionally to "agree to disagree". Cuddlyable3 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Cuddlyable3, preponderance of evidence strongly suggests you would fail that very test, so while acknowledging that you yourself are not requesting adminship, I question the propriety of your applying this test to others. As for his latest answer, he has stated "My attitude will be to enforce no personal attacks." Whatever lack of clarity you object to is not apparent, and his answer is appropriate and fully aligned with what is expected of WP admins. That being the case, he certainly appears to meet your criterion of supporting his bid for adminship by qualities other than good drawings.--Scheinwerfermann 14:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scheinwerfermann it is an interesting answer, and so is your protestation of respect. I shall mull that over together with your abusive exercise in mockery here [[29]].Cuddlyable3 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind, Warnings to behave yourself remain visible even after you've tried to wipe them from your talk page, and you are overestimating the level of respect implied by "all due respect". This is not an appropriate place for you to grind a personal axe against WikiProlific. --Scheinwerfermann 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scheinwerfermann please just vote as you think best and don't harass others. Cuddlyable3 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind, Warnings to behave yourself remain visible even after you've tried to wipe them from your talk page, and you are overestimating the level of respect implied by "all due respect". This is not an appropriate place for you to grind a personal axe against WikiProlific. --Scheinwerfermann 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scheinwerfermann it is an interesting answer, and so is your protestation of respect. I shall mull that over together with your abusive exercise in mockery here [[29]].Cuddlyable3 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaningChange to oppose. While the majority of your work has been impeccable, and the talk of yours I'd seen prior to this was good, I am very concerned by your statements to an IP at Talk:Oral sex#Islamic views on oral sex. Not only are they patently BITEty, but the idea that information on the Islamic treatment of oral sex is trivial is just plain foolishness. The point of view of a religion that influences the lives of millions and millions of people isn't relevant in a discussion of sexual morality? It seems that at best, you were prejudiced against a content suggestion because of the messenger, which is unacceptable. VanTucky (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Cuddlyable3, preponderance of evidence strongly suggests you would fail that very test, so while acknowledging that you yourself are not requesting adminship, I question the propriety of your applying this test to others. As for his latest answer, he has stated "My attitude will be to enforce no personal attacks." Whatever lack of clarity you object to is not apparent, and his answer is appropriate and fully aligned with what is expected of WP admins. That being the case, he certainly appears to meet your criterion of supporting his bid for adminship by qualities other than good drawings.--Scheinwerfermann 14:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I have to consider that WikipedianProlific spoke on my page of his dyslexia ("I'm telling you I'm dyslexic" - 15:21 20 March 2007) which may correlate with his indisputable graphic talent. That talent has just now been acknowledged by a featured picture promotion, possibly the fastest ever for a diagram in Wikipedia. I wished him luck in that bid for FPC but did not participate in the vote. However his bid for adminship will have to be supported by other qualities than good drawings, and his latest answer about his future attitude to enforce NPA is too unclear. We have to look at what he has demonstrated already in that area. A personality test that I find useful is whether a person seems willing occasionally to "agree to disagree". Cuddlyable3 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the edit in question, it was made almost a year ago, my editing has changed much since then. I believe at the time I wasn't advocating what I appeared to be saying which does read off as a little bitey for which I can only apologise, it certainly wasn't anything personal. I was suggesting that the information may be better placed on a different article and not that one (I did not mean to advocate that the information was trivial, I did not then and do not now think that is the case - infact cultural views are one of the few encylopedic things that can go on a sex-technique related article). I believed at the time the comments would be better placed on either an article on Islam/Christianity etc. or a seperate article on Cultural views on oral sex. Infact, it appears that this has to a degree been done, by shifting it off the oral sex main article onto the fellatio/cunnilingus articles in appropriate sub-sections.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the largest number of your talk comments were made in an area you quit contributing to over a year ago, you're not active enough to need or understand the sysop tools then imo. VanTucky (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- VanTucky, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're opposing because he does not currently contribute to the talk page that's at the top of his Wannabe_Kate counter? Why should having had your longest talk page discussion in the distant past be a reason to oppose? Or why should no longer contributing to an area in which you were once quite active carry any particular significance? I don't think editors are obligated to continue contributing in every area to which they've contributed in the past. --JayHenry 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying that it is but one factor supporting my notion that he isn't active enough to reassure me that impertinent behavior such as that I mentioned above will no longer occur. It's not about whether he still contributes at that particular talk space or not. VanTucky (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you check the second article on my longest talk pages its fuel injection, and I have been civil there from the get go and discussions are ongoing. I appreciate your point of view and I wish I could highlight to you that I am spending around 4-6 hours a week on wikipedia weekly, but that doesnt come across in edit counts due to the nature of my contributions. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His discussions at fuel_injector:talk became civil after offensive sentences were removed, and the "markers" (WP_RPA) can still be seen there where the expurgation was done. I remember he was quite unhappy about that.Cuddlyable3 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Cuddlyable3, those WP_RPA markers with which you vandalised WikiProlific's comments on Talk:Fuel injection have been reverted to restore the text you inappropriately deleted. As has been repeatedly explained to you by multiple admins, WP:RPA is not policy and does not authorise you to vandalise or edit others' comments on talk pages. The difference between an attack and a comment has also been pointed out to you, and even if WP:RPA were policy, it would not authorise the vandalism or editing of others' comments. These attempted power grabs of yours constitute repeated deliberate violations of Wikipedia policy, which undermine your standing and impugn your motives and candour in criticising an editor who's guilty of no such deliberately repeated violations. --Scheinwerfermann 16:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please just vote as you think best Scheinwerfermann and don't harass others.Cuddlyable3 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Cuddlyable3, those WP_RPA markers with which you vandalised WikiProlific's comments on Talk:Fuel injection have been reverted to restore the text you inappropriately deleted. As has been repeatedly explained to you by multiple admins, WP:RPA is not policy and does not authorise you to vandalise or edit others' comments on talk pages. The difference between an attack and a comment has also been pointed out to you, and even if WP:RPA were policy, it would not authorise the vandalism or editing of others' comments. These attempted power grabs of yours constitute repeated deliberate violations of Wikipedia policy, which undermine your standing and impugn your motives and candour in criticising an editor who's guilty of no such deliberately repeated violations. --Scheinwerfermann 16:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His discussions at fuel_injector:talk became civil after offensive sentences were removed, and the "markers" (WP_RPA) can still be seen there where the expurgation was done. I remember he was quite unhappy about that.Cuddlyable3 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you check the second article on my longest talk pages its fuel injection, and I have been civil there from the get go and discussions are ongoing. I appreciate your point of view and I wish I could highlight to you that I am spending around 4-6 hours a week on wikipedia weekly, but that doesnt come across in edit counts due to the nature of my contributions. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying that it is but one factor supporting my notion that he isn't active enough to reassure me that impertinent behavior such as that I mentioned above will no longer occur. It's not about whether he still contributes at that particular talk space or not. VanTucky (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- VanTucky, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're opposing because he does not currently contribute to the talk page that's at the top of his Wannabe_Kate counter? Why should having had your longest talk page discussion in the distant past be a reason to oppose? Or why should no longer contributing to an area in which you were once quite active carry any particular significance? I don't think editors are obligated to continue contributing in every area to which they've contributed in the past. --JayHenry 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the largest number of your talk comments were made in an area you quit contributing to over a year ago, you're not active enough to need or understand the sysop tools then imo. VanTucky (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ah, my first ever comment on the requests for adminship pages! OK, I like the answers, which show a clear understanding of certain policies. However, I am unsure bout the image thing, and while they certainly are excellent, I don't quite see why I should fully support you on the credentials that you bring here. Therefore, I am neutral. AR Argon 07:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Changing to support per answers.[reply]
- Neutral Very polite posts on this page, but there are far too few interactions with other editors over editing, or with Wikipedia policies, for me to judge the candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
- Regretful Neutral I'm
dislikeam ukneen on the way in which you have replied to oppposers above. Whilst reasoned argument and discussion is excellent, I'm afraid comments like I'm dissapointed your making a judegement on my edit count, as I believe above I've adequately explained why my edit count is low do not sit too well - I would assume that Y had already taken into account your replies but still decided where to place his comment. Tobadger him about it is not really on.I am sorry as I have no problems with your great work (I fully respect it), but I can't really trust you with a block button, and trust is what it come down to in the final analysis. Note - Moved to Neutral from Oppose. Candidate discussed on my talk page. I'm still not convinced I can support but the quality of his/her discussion there lends me to a rethink of my oppose as it was calm, fair and understanding, which are indeed admin traits. Best. Pedro | Chat 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Changed from support - some of the responses to opposition and neutral worries me. I may change back, but I'll probably end here. — Giggy 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Candidate shows great promise but could use additional experience before sysopping. Majoreditor 12:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs more experience. Strongly recommend that you return to reapply for RfA in 3 months time. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. WP explained to me what happened in the situation that was my main concern and reason to oppose. I have changed my vote from Oppose to Neutral. I would still like to see some more activity from this user; there still haven't been three consecutive months with 100+ edits and I consider under 100 to be inactive. Just my personal definition of "inactive", though. If this editor becomes an admin, I would be comfortable with that, but I would definitely prefer more activity. Useight 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, per Mailer Diablo. Very strong answers, but in order to support, I need to see indications (via interaction with other users in real situations) of how the tools will actually be used. Dekimasuよ! 10:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
T-dot
Final (27/17/1); Originally scheduled to end 11:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (apples) 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T-dot (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate user T-dot, an editor I have been working with when involved in Wiki Project Harry Potter, for adminship. T-dot has been actively contributing to Wikipedia as a registered user since January 2006, which shows his high level of commitment to the project. He has got over 5500 edits, with about 3500 edits in the article mainspace as well as more than 1000 edits in article talk pages. He is a hard-working writer with a strong and regular interaction with other editors. His many edits to articles include updating materials ([30]), good referencing ([31]), copyediting ([32]), and excellent rewriting ([33] [34] [35]) He has also created new articles, as listed here. In addition, T-dot regularly gets involved in admin-related fields, particularly in article deletion debates, where his input in deletion debates is always backed up with good reasons and clear explanations, which reveals himself as an experienced editor who has an in-depth knowledge of policies and guidelines ([36] [37] [38]) .
Further, T-dot has also impressed me with his good usage of detailed and informative edit summaries. He always cautiously mentions the rationales for his edits in the edit summary, citing policies and guidelines when needed ([39] [40] [41]) His participation at articles' discussion pages not only demonstrates his dedication to improving the article content ([42] [43] [44]) but also an ability to resolve disagreements in a calm and courteous manner, as well as a willingness to co-operate with other editor to achieve consensus ([45] [46]). Lastly, T-dot has his email activated, a neat userpage, a clean block log.
Overall, T-dot is a civil, conscientious and dependable Wikipedia user who, I believe, will certainly handle the admin tools very well if he is given them. I hereby strongly recommend his candidacy for your approval. Thank you PeaceNT 11:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Accepto --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Certainly protecting and unprotecting article pages when needed to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia. I have been fairly active already in AfD's, especially in chiming in on those that are getting rather long in the tooth and have not yet been closed by another, perhaps because there was no clear consensus reached. I try to step in and be the "tie-breaker" as it were in such cases, in order to try to get the process moving along. I guess the good news there is that when they do finally close, the final decision was frequently along the lines of my reasonings, perhaps sometimes because I had the last word, and I usually give more detailed explanations than the typical "delete per nom" reply. I would be inclined to more actively look for obvious WP:SNOW cases for deletion or non-deletion and act on those when I am convinced of the correct decision. Another area I have been really active in is counter-vandalism. In doing so, I do try to avoid feeding the trolls. In the pages I currently monitor, most vandalism seems to come from IP's that can be traced to a school library or something, and warnings seem to be useless sometimes because by the time three warnings have been sent, a new user may be logged in, and blocking them seems unfair. On the other hand, historically habitual and repeated vandalism over time from a single IP really needs to be dealt with more proactively, and I would tend to rapidly place short blocks on accounts like that. If nothing else, it might get the attention of the librarian, who might investigate who was on the computer at the time, and deal with it personally. Meanwhile, obvious and habitual vandalism by new and otherwise registered users would seem to me to be grounds for rapid and lengthier blocks, which is something I frequently wished I could do. I have also been active in spotting strong candidates for WP:UAA - especially for usernames that are both inappropriate, and are being used for vandalism only. Finally I am a strong supporter of WP:3RR - even down to favoring WP:1RR for my own edits, and would tend to be rather firm with registered users who try to get around 3RR by timing the next edit to be at 24.00001 hours. I have seen plenty of obvious and ongoing 3RR or near-3RR edit wars, usually between two or three really enthusiastic users, but was helpless to do anything but try to take them through the WP:DR process, with informal mediation and council, formal WP:3O, moderating in WP:RfC, and even taking the parties to WP:RfM. I have seen some intractable and ugly disputes though that went on for weeks, disrupting other edits by others; and these should have been handled by disciplined, systematic, and progressively longer blocks. I would tend to consider getting involved very proactively in that area.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Everything in Q1 above. In addition, and this may sound absurd for a middle-aged adult, but I accidently stepped into the world of Harry Potter one day while surfing channels on the television, and stopped to watch a part of one of the movies, PoA I think it was, and then became fascinated by the entire world of J.K. Rowling. I have also been an avid reader (student) of Tolkien for many years (both of them), especially on the "harder" volumes in the History of Middle Earth, Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, etc. Anyway when I read fiction, I tend to study it very closely to pick up every detail and nuance, and usually re-read a good book 2 or 3 times, and then again when needed. Anyway such study of the HP series has enabled me to pay extra close attention to the details in the HP articles, and when a controversy over the canonicity of an issue comes up, I can usually present the correct answers and the source rather rapidly. This in my view keeps the articles relatively free from contamination, and reduces the arguments. Not saying I am always "right" in an argument, but if someone is unsure whether this or that happened, I can usually quickly refer them to "chapter and verse" so to speak and clear it up. I have also become rather adept at yahoo-ing or google-ing external or secondary reference sources if it is needed or requested to resolve or prove an issue. Finally, I have sometimes been able to help relative newcomers to understand and get access to the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines on various subjects, again to head off or to avoid disputes. There is a list of some special articles I either created or contributed significantly to on my "home page". Some I am less proud of than others. There are also a number of redirection pages I created but did not list. These are usually spawned when I am searching for something in the search box but cannot easily find it, and it is often because of a capitalization issue or something. I still cannot find an article for the song "Louis-Louis", but when I do, so help me I am gonna ... grrrr.
- You mean Louie Louie? Go to town :D Keegantalk 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh - so that's why I couldn't find it - either here or at Yahoo: not even as an alternate-spelling suggestion. Interestingly Google and Ask.com both provided the correct spelling suggestion though, now that I thought to give them a try. Wow. Thanks! Now if I can just remember why I needed to find that article... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Louie Louie? Go to town :D Keegantalk 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Everything in Q1 above. In addition, and this may sound absurd for a middle-aged adult, but I accidently stepped into the world of Harry Potter one day while surfing channels on the television, and stopped to watch a part of one of the movies, PoA I think it was, and then became fascinated by the entire world of J.K. Rowling. I have also been an avid reader (student) of Tolkien for many years (both of them), especially on the "harder" volumes in the History of Middle Earth, Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, etc. Anyway when I read fiction, I tend to study it very closely to pick up every detail and nuance, and usually re-read a good book 2 or 3 times, and then again when needed. Anyway such study of the HP series has enabled me to pay extra close attention to the details in the HP articles, and when a controversy over the canonicity of an issue comes up, I can usually present the correct answers and the source rather rapidly. This in my view keeps the articles relatively free from contamination, and reduces the arguments. Not saying I am always "right" in an argument, but if someone is unsure whether this or that happened, I can usually quickly refer them to "chapter and verse" so to speak and clear it up. I have also become rather adept at yahoo-ing or google-ing external or secondary reference sources if it is needed or requested to resolve or prove an issue. Finally, I have sometimes been able to help relative newcomers to understand and get access to the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines on various subjects, again to head off or to avoid disputes. There is a list of some special articles I either created or contributed significantly to on my "home page". Some I am less proud of than others. There are also a number of redirection pages I created but did not list. These are usually spawned when I am searching for something in the search box but cannot easily find it, and it is often because of a capitalization issue or something. I still cannot find an article for the song "Louis-Louis", but when I do, so help me I am gonna ... grrrr.
- 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: Good heavens yes. In the long past I would sometimes get stressed when someone would revert or delete something I worked really hard on. Two things I struggled with: fair use images, and plot spoilers in works of fiction. I used to upload lots of images which I deemed to be fair use in order to improve articles with suitable illustrations of the things being described. The pendulum swung sharply away from that trend about a year-and-a-half or so ago, and at first I was greatly resentful that all "my" images were getting deleted indiscriminantly. It was not a matter that the images were improperly documented - I supplied the link to the source every time, and made sure I was not exploiting the creator. As an example, if a new concept car was shown at the auto show, and the company that built it provided good quality images in their press releases, then I would select images that seemed good to me and posted them on the Wikipedia for an article that either I created or someone else did. The images were largely deleted later because the Fair Use Image enforcers declared that the professional quality media shots should be replaced by "free" images. This generally meant that "my" images were generally replaced by those from
amateur photographers(on second thought I will not insult my authentically trained amateur photographer colleagues) cell phone owners with an image capture lens would post horribly-composed, poorly lit, out of focus and dreadfully distracting photos they snapped somewhere in a parking lot or elsewhere. Being unable to convince The Enforcers that a good fair-use image should be preferred to a poor "free" image, I gave up the practice. This in no way means I am soft on published and copyrighted images that were essentially "stolen" from a web site somewhere and uploaded without even an attempt to justify it as "fair use" or to provide the source for checking. On the issue of plot spoilers, there was a time when we seemed to want to protect readers from spoilers in works of fiction, for example in the Harry Potter series, so we were careful to keep spoilers in sections marked with plot spoiler warning templates. I thought this was a good idea, and worked hard to enforce the "rules" - keeping other editors from accidently or purposefully posting spoilers "in the open". Well several weeks back, apparently in secret discussions at the world headquarters of the Admin Rouge, it was decided that spoiler warning templates were inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, and suddenly they were disappearing right and left. I opposed that practice at first, but as it semed to be a decided matter, dropped out of the debate and simply adopted and explained in resulting debates the new rules as written, whether I liked them personally or not. In that regard I guess I would tend to always defend given current Wiki-policies and guidelines as written and consensed on the basis of their authority, regardless of my personal views on their "goodness", and avoid trying to defend their intrinsic value other than in maintaining order. In other words, I would work to maintain order in disputes by quoting and referencing the current rules, whether I personally like them or not as written, and if the rules change, then I change with them. Anyway these days, and as also explained in Q1 above, if there is a dispute, I try to step out and be a mediator or moderator in the debate, quoting "chapter and verse" from respected sources, or the Wiki-policies and guidelines as needed, to try to help others come to an agreement. If someone is after something I said or did, I am usually quick to apologize and clarify, and either relent when I am wrong, or come up with indisputable proof if I am right. If they still disagree with me personally, I usually step back and look for guidance or assistance from others, perhaps an experienced admin, or someone else who has been involved in some way in the issue. This came up some time back when I participated in an AfD debate, and after I stated my view (a "keep" I think, which was then shared by another editor), then a third editor who previously posted a "strong delete" came after both of us on the AfD page and on our talk pages, basically saying we were both full of crap; in a relentless pursuit to "change our votes" and agree with him. Well the guy that agreed with me quickly changed his "vote", but I refused because I still believe I was right, and tried to ignore my antagonist. He continued to dispute my viewpoints and the authenticity of my sanity (which is perhaps debatable) almost to the point of harrassment or wiki-stalking. I got some counsel from a couple of wise administrators who I had communicated with previously, and managed to get some perspective (I was relatively new to the AfD process at the time) and to not worry so much what some possibly less-than-civil folks might think of my work. It was a good learning experience.
- A: Good heavens yes. In the long past I would sometimes get stressed when someone would revert or delete something I worked really hard on. Two things I struggled with: fair use images, and plot spoilers in works of fiction. I used to upload lots of images which I deemed to be fair use in order to improve articles with suitable illustrations of the things being described. The pendulum swung sharply away from that trend about a year-and-a-half or so ago, and at first I was greatly resentful that all "my" images were getting deleted indiscriminantly. It was not a matter that the images were improperly documented - I supplied the link to the source every time, and made sure I was not exploiting the creator. As an example, if a new concept car was shown at the auto show, and the company that built it provided good quality images in their press releases, then I would select images that seemed good to me and posted them on the Wikipedia for an article that either I created or someone else did. The images were largely deleted later because the Fair Use Image enforcers declared that the professional quality media shots should be replaced by "free" images. This generally meant that "my" images were generally replaced by those from
General comments
- See T-dot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for T-dot: T-dot (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Comment: I just remembered I was supposed to remind Coelacan to oppose my RfA, due to my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastordavid back in mid-May. I wonder if I should do a stand-in oppose on his/her behalf? :\ --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they didn't care enough to watchlist your RfA page, then don't worry about it. :P --Ginkgo100talk 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/T-dot before commenting.
Discussion
Comment Regarding the RFPP concern (about three quarters of the oppose !votes), it is my understanding that the candidate, from his experience, was referring to the issue involving Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in July 2007, that is before the release of Book 7. There was indeed a debate on the Deathly Hallows talk page, where all parties can discuss whether or not a semi/full protection was needed at the time (archive 17 or something). Although RFPP action is typically taken based on the nomination of a single editor and the decision of a single administrator, I believe it is perfect fine to hold a discussion to the article's talk page so that everyone can voice their opinions and be afforded equal input into the process. It is much better than having one editor request a page be protected and then another editor immediately file an unprotection request, isn't it? Thus nominating/voting/debating is a practice that should be encouraged, particularly in controversial cases. Accordingly, I take the view that his comment relating to RFPP and "nominating/voting" was perfectly understandable, decided by the context.
Well, this is sort of late, but is there anyone who would like to discuss? ;) Best, PeaceNT 09:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Definitely. @pple 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator support. PeaceNT 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good track liked his strong views particurly on 3RR.Harlowraman 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Zeibura (Talk) 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There is absolutely nothing wrong with this user. Good luck! Jonjonbt 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Impressive answers. Definitely a support for me. Captain panda 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 16:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - sure. and a sense of humor, too! - Philippe | Talk 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has a reasonable spread of experience over the project, and has been editing since early last year. Should pass any editor's criteria - certainly passes mine. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support- Good involvement in Wikiprojects is always a good sign, and strong mainspace edit counts. Passes my criteria. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Plenty of fine examples given by nominator, supported by fine answers to the questions, and plenty of experience and time working on this project. Hiberniantears 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way - if the candidate didn't mention RPP, would anyone (except Matthew) be opposing? Giggy\Talk 01:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, it's a PeaceNT nom. What more could you want? :P Giggy\Talk 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way- would people be concerned about someone who knew how administrative tasks work getting the mop? --lucid 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way (yes, I over-cite that essay, but I believe it applies here) Giggy\Talk 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way- would people be concerned about someone who knew how administrative tasks work getting the mop? --lucid 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, it's a PeaceNT nom. What more could you want? :P Giggy\Talk 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Opposing users have not demonstrated sufficiently for me that there is likelihood T-dot will abuse the tools. On the contrary, I am impressed by his willingness to accept consensus even when he disagrees with it. It may be that in the course of his very long comments, he has put his foot in his mouth, but the attitude seems spot-on for an admin. --Ginkgo100talk 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely endorse this statement. If only he condensed his comment. @pple 17:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no reason to believe this user will abuse tools. ugen64 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, the fact that he misspoke once when he explained his views on page protection doesn't mean that he is likely to abuse the tools. Trustworthy candidate. Melsaran (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rocksanddirt 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Bearian 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't find the oppose arguements very convincing. Reywas92Talk 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I'll go along with the nom, PeaceNT (talk · contribs). Shinealight2007 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support As Ginkgo100 said, there is no evidence to suggest that this user will abuse the tools. Seems like a fine user to me. Acalamari 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, the oppose arguments are as usual, weak at best. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - in the end, WP will gain more than pose by having this candidate as an admin. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a good editor who wouldn't abuse the tools. NauticaShades 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not likely to abuse the tools. -Lemonflash(do something) 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with Reywas92 that the oppose arguments aren't too convincing. I doubt he'll abuse the tools. hmwith talk 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. While there are a few concerns I do not think the rise to the level of opposition, at least not in my judgment. I think your interactions with other users are good and calm -- such is a needed quality. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Sorry, but someone who intends to work with page protection that thinks WP:RFPP is about 'nominating' and 'voting', and that page protection disallows neutrality needs far more experience than they've got before they should be trusted with it. In addition, the fact that they cannot recognize how they intend to interpret policy in their own way after comments such as cases for deletion or non-deletion and act on those when I am convinced of the correct decision., instead of worrying about consensus. In addition, his comment about UAA reporting having anything to do with vandalism only accounts is concerning, as if it makes a name more or less appropriate. His lack of understanding of policy, combined with his lack of actually participating in many of the things he intends to help with is far too uncomfortable for me to trust with the mop. --lucid 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... Thanks again. Please see my Further Comments below in the Neutral zone, I genuinely hope it helps clarify the RFPP issue, I didn't want to clutter up this area as well. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum / Clarification ... I did not notice until just now your concern about "cases for deletion or non-deletion and act on those when I am convinced of the correct decision., instead of worrying about consensus". I believe you may have seriously misconstrued my remarks there. Of course a decision at an XfD for example is to be based on the consensus of the participants in the debate. Determining what is the consensus in closing an XfD debate is a decision that would be made by the closing admin (at least in the case of a Delete consensus). I believe you took it to mean that I would make a decision contrary to or regardless of the consensus. This absolutely not the case, and I am sorry that you misunderstood that. I have participated in a significant number of AfD debates, so I believe I have at least a little understanding of the policies there. Regarding WP:UAA, I simply meant that I have encountered a few new vandalism-only user accounts that also (but perhaps not exactly by pure coincidence) had outrageously inappropriate user names. I am fully aware that UAA is for inappropriate user names, not for fighting vandalism. I just find that sometimes, down in the trenches, the two go hand-in-hand. Again I apologize for the apparent confusion surrounding some of my remarks, but I am even more sorry that I caught this one so late, perhaps too late, to head off some of the Opposes, many of which I fear may be based on a simple misunderstanding of terms. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More comment :) Lucid, concerning your worry about the candidate's "lack of actually participating in many of the things", I believe you're talking about RFPP only, as User:T-dot has got good experience making quite a number of accurate reports to AIV and UAA, as well as extensive involement in AfDs (with reasoned arguments). Well, though participation in all admin-related areas is generally encouraged, it should not be a requirement for adminship candidates. There are editors who seldom visit WP:RFPP because their watchlisted pages simply don't stay in the controversy or vandalism zone where protection is often needed. RFPP edits, or the lack thereof, do not fairly reflect a user's understanding of the protection policy. And, I might add, a candidate's knowledge of policies cannot be measured by his or her Wikipedia space edit count. Regards, PeaceNT 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- per Lucid. --Boricuaeddie 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose also per Lucid. Jmlk17 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Don't need any more POV pushing Americans, thanks. Nor ones that consider IMDb a reliable source... Matthew 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty broad characterization, bordering on personal attack. And since when did being a US citizen disqualify one for adminship? What evidence for a pattern of POV-pushing is there? VanTucky (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide evidence that he is a POV pusher? If this is true I would like to know before I vote here. New England Review Me! 00:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the archives for the latest HP movie. Matthew 22:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide evidence that he is a POV pusher? If this is true I would like to know before I vote here. New England Review Me! 00:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty broad characterization, bordering on personal attack. And since when did being a US citizen disqualify one for adminship? What evidence for a pattern of POV-pushing is there? VanTucky (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per a lack of comprehension about policy and certain admin duties the candidate expressed interest in, specifically RFPP. VanTucky (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose, also per Lucid. Candidate is on the right track, but should improve on knowledge and comprehension of policy and process. —AldeBaer 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lucid. Politics rule 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Thank you for revealing the PastorDavid incident (I can't find a promise from Coelacan to oppose you though), but that incident seems like a severe overreaction by you to a legitimate concern. It's too recent for me to ignore. The small number of edits in userspace (warnings to vandals? normal editing conflicts?) as well as in wikispace is another concern. Xiner (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I believe you were referring to the "small number of edits in usertalk space". In the candidate's defence, I believe he is more a writer than a vandal fighter, which reasonably explains why he doesn't regularly visit the vandals' discussion pages to caution them, hence a lack of vandal warnings. ;) As for your concern about lack of "normal editing conflict", I don't think the usertalk edit count indicates a lack of interaction at all, for the candidate has more than a thousand article talk edits. It is natural for editors to prefer to conduct their discussions on article discussion pages where everyone can read them and comment on them, don't you think? After all, nearly 400 usertalk edits is not too low a number. Regards, PeaceNT 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the late reply, PeaceNT, but I was indeed referring to usertalk, due to the candidate's statement, "Another area I have been really active in is counter-vandalism." Xiner (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I believe you were referring to the "small number of edits in usertalk space". In the candidate's defence, I believe he is more a writer than a vandal fighter, which reasonably explains why he doesn't regularly visit the vandals' discussion pages to caution them, hence a lack of vandal warnings. ;) As for your concern about lack of "normal editing conflict", I don't think the usertalk edit count indicates a lack of interaction at all, for the candidate has more than a thousand article talk edits. It is natural for editors to prefer to conduct their discussions on article discussion pages where everyone can read them and comment on them, don't you think? After all, nearly 400 usertalk edits is not too low a number. Regards, PeaceNT 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per issues that Lucid raised --Ben 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - as per AldeBaer. ScarianTalk 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Insufficient experience in wiki-space, home to many admin-related tasks, as evidenced by grave misstatements regarding policy. Xoloz 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a matter of misinterpretaion of the candidate's statement, Xoloz, if I may say say so. Regards, PeaceNT 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose - per AldeBaer. 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohisat (talk • contribs)
- Oppose per Lucid. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Too keen on the disastrous WP:3RR. Fys. “Ta fys [User talk:Fys|aym]]”. 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose My worry is that the response to Q3 does not demonstrate sufficient appreciation of our use of non-free media. 'Free' is a fundamental pillar of the project. Commending civility, tho'. The JPStalk to me 10:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I am appreciative of the length and honesty in the answers, yet also somehow a little uncomfortable with the self-focus. I'd also like to see a little less reliance on "chapter and verse" and a bit more on negotiation and judgment. Policies are interpreted rather than used as absolutes. Consensus can change, and I'd like an admin to show more willingness to adapt rather than reluctantly accept. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Inexperienced. Kind of a one-topic applicant. Almost went to support after reading the POV-pushing American comment above, but I got over it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
#Neutral leaning weak oppose.Changed to Oppose You seem well cut out for the job, but you seem a bit too interested in interpreting policy your own way from your answer to Q1, and you also show no edits to places where you claim to want to help out, such as WP:RFPP. This wouldn't be a big deal, but you seem to have very few Wikipedia space edits in general, and many of those seem to be to AFDs, which while you might get experience with AFD, does not give you experience with other needed policies, especially not to the point of taking it your own way. Still, like I said, you seem well cut out for the job, and I would probably support you in a couple of months if you showed more experience in things like AIV, UAA, RFPP, since you want to contribute to them, and didn't seem to be so willing to bend policy to what you think is best instead of what works 99 out of 100 times. --lucid 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment ... Thanks. I would not really consider it to be "interpreting policy", as in the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, or something on those lines. More like explaining policy to relatively newcomers who may not be aware of what might constitute, for example, Original Research. Of course any such explanations would include quotes from the policy page, with a reference link so interested parties could check for themselves. I think "interpreting policy" as strictly implied, in disputes over their application, would be more in line with the duties of the Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, or the Bureaucrats. I certainly did not presume to see myself as such. I also really don't see myself as "bending" policy to what I think, but rather as bending myself to what the policy currently says, so I am not sure where that came from. As for lack of WP:RFPP participation, my past involvement in this area was admittedly restricted to article talk pages in discussing the intents and purposes of page protection rather than "nominating" or "voting" on the the RFPP page. And to be honest, as an intended-neutral non-admin, it never occured to me to go into the RFPP page to either nominate or debate the validity or necessity of page protections, since that would seem to "void" my attempt at maintaining neutrality back at the talk page on the article in question. Besides there seemed to be enough people already begging for page protection, or complaining about it, so I left it alone as a neutral party. In any case, I do greatly appreciate your feedback and will certainly take it to heart - I sometimes wonder what other editors really think of my work and habits, good or bad. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment ... I guess I need to clarify further my points about my lack of nominating articles for WP:RFPP due to an apparent snowballing of opposition. I believe I understand the process: when an article is actively under siege, for example from anonymous or very new registered editors engaging in edit wars or vandalism, then the article can be nominated for semi-protection, and then acted on if the conditions clearly warrant. But sometimes there might be opposition to a protection nomination, for example if a full-protection nomination is based simply on anticipated vandalism, such as what happened to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in the weeks leading up to the release of the book. Such a nomination can and should be opposed. Again this actually happened a little over a month ago at the Deathly Hallows article, and we had a couple of admins in conflict over whether full- or semi-protection was appropriate. Once the nomination was in place and acted on, I saw my role as explaining to inquiries as to when and why protection was in place, from a neutral point of view, as folks discovered they could no longer edit the article. So while I did not participate per se on the RFPP page in the nomination or opposition process itself, I did participate in the debate and discussion on the matter of the protection, on the article talk page when the question was inevitably raised, since the nomination and protection process was already complete by the time I got involved. In the future, I would see myself spending more time monitoring the RFPP page and looking for pages that obviously need protection, and especially semi-protection, and applying it appropriately in straightforward cases that meet the requirements per protection policy, and declining it in obviously inapproriate cases. Meanwhile I would be observing less obvious cases, and/or seeking advice from other admins, for cases that might be especially difficult, before making a decision. I certainly do not see myself rashly acting outside of any policy, or again, attempting to "bend" policy to match my personal beliefs or whatever. I believe I have tried very hard to study and understand all the applicable policies and guidelines before doing anything of the sort; and if and when I were to be unsure, I would consult with an admin much more experienced and active than myself in that area. Again, I bend myself to fit the policy, not the other way around, and I would hope that my past edits and comments in debates and discussions would reflect that. I believe I always rapidly, politely, and openly apologize and correct my errors if I am shown to be incorrect in my understanding of a policy or guideline. The "voting" reference within the RFPP comments that I made above was meant to reflect that process on the article talk page when an informal WP:RfC came up to discuss the merits of protecting or unprotecting the article, or whether full- or semi-protection was more appropriate. I hope this clarifies what I meant on the issue of my (lack of) formal RFPP-page participation, and I apologize for the resulting confusion. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... Thanks. I would not really consider it to be "interpreting policy", as in the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, or something on those lines. More like explaining policy to relatively newcomers who may not be aware of what might constitute, for example, Original Research. Of course any such explanations would include quotes from the policy page, with a reference link so interested parties could check for themselves. I think "interpreting policy" as strictly implied, in disputes over their application, would be more in line with the duties of the Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, or the Bureaucrats. I certainly did not presume to see myself as such. I also really don't see myself as "bending" policy to what I think, but rather as bending myself to what the policy currently says, so I am not sure where that came from. As for lack of WP:RFPP participation, my past involvement in this area was admittedly restricted to article talk pages in discussing the intents and purposes of page protection rather than "nominating" or "voting" on the the RFPP page. And to be honest, as an intended-neutral non-admin, it never occured to me to go into the RFPP page to either nominate or debate the validity or necessity of page protections, since that would seem to "void" my attempt at maintaining neutrality back at the talk page on the article in question. Besides there seemed to be enough people already begging for page protection, or complaining about it, so I left it alone as a neutral party. In any case, I do greatly appreciate your feedback and will certainly take it to heart - I sometimes wonder what other editors really think of my work and habits, good or bad. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - The answers to the questions portray someone who knows what they are doing. But the Wikipedia-space edit count is quite low. Up that count, and your RfA will look more impressive. Lradrama 19:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also 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 somewhere around 85%. 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 candidate. ~~~~}}
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 often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Currently none.
Related requests
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.